Effect of Large Prostate Volume on Efficacy and Toxicity of Moderately Hypofractionated Radiotherapy In Patients with Prostate Cancer

197 Background: There is a paucity of data investigating the relationship between histopathologic variables of oncologic importance and prostate volume, and we aimed to investigate this. Methods: 2,207 consecutive patients who underwent robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) were studied. Preoperative demographic and both pre- and post-operative histopathologic parameters were compared among the small prostate (< 40cc), intermediate size (40-70cc), and large prostate (> 70cc) groups. Results: Patients with smaller prostates were younger, had slightly lower BMIs, and lower PSAs than those with smaller prostates (p < 0.001). They also had worse histopathologic criteria (Gleason, core positivity, and maximum percent cancer) on preoperative biopsy and had worse radical specimen Gleason sums (p < 0.001), percent cancer (p < 0.001), and pathologic stage (p = 0.016). 11.5% of men in the small prostate group suffered a positive surgical margin (PSM) compared to 8.3% and 5.6% in the intermediate and large prostate groups, respectively (p = 0.008; Table). Basilar, posterolateral, and multifocal PSMs were commoner in the small prostate group. Conclusions: Younger men have smaller prostates and worse preoperative histopathologic parameters despite lower PSAs. Men with small prostates undergoing RARP have worse final Gleason sums, tumor volume, extraprostatic extension (EPE), and PSM rates than those with larger prostates. We would thus caution against conservative management of men with clinically localized prostate cancer who have small prostates. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Download Full-text

Does Large Prostate Volume Has an Impact on Biochemical Failure in Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer Treated With HDR Boost?

Brachytherapy ◽

10.1016/j.brachy.2015.02.280 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 14 ◽

pp. S50-S51

Author(s):

Eric Vigneault ◽

Beaudet Marc Étienne ◽

Philippe Després ◽

Lavallée Marie-Claude ◽

Andre-Guy Martin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Prostate Volume ◽

Biochemical Failure ◽

Localized Prostate Cancer ◽

Large Prostate

Download Full-text

Is Additional Systematic Biopsy Necessary in All Initial Prostate Biopsy Patients With Abnormal MRI?

Frontiers in Oncology ◽

10.3389/fonc.2021.643051 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 ◽

Author(s):

Xueqing Cheng ◽

Jinshun Xu ◽

Yuntian Chen ◽

Zhenhua Liu ◽

Guangxi Sun ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Radical Prostatectomy ◽

Detection Rate ◽

Prostate Volume ◽

Targeted Biopsy ◽

Grade Group ◽

The Difference ◽

Large Prostate ◽

Systematic Biopsy ◽

Biopsy Method

PurposeTo determine whether additional systematic biopsy is necessary in all biopsy naïve patients with MRI visible lesions by taking PI-RADS score and prostate volume into consideration.Materials and MethodsPatients who underwent combined systematic biopsy (SB) and cognitive MRI-targeted biopsy (TB) in our hospital between May 2018 and June 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. The detection rate of clinical significant prostate cancer (csPCa), biopsy grade group (GG) concordance, and disease upgrading rate on radical prostatectomy were compared between SB and TB and further stratified by PI-RADS v2.0 category and prostate volume.ResultsA total of 234 patients were analyzed in this study. TB alone detected more csPCa and less clinically insignificant prostate cancer (cisPCa) than SB alone in the whole cohort (57.3 vs 53%, P = 0.041; 3.8 vs 7.7%, P = 0.049 respectively). The additional SB indicated only a marginal increase of csPCa detection but a remarkable increase of cisPCa detection compared with targeted biopsy (59.4 vs 57.3%, P = 0.064; 3.8 vs 7.7%, P = 0.012). As stratified by PI-RADS category, the difference of csPCa detection rate between TB and SB was not significant either in PI-RADS 5 subgroup (83.8 vs 76.3%, P = 0.07) or in PI-RADS 3–4 subgroup (43.5 vs 40.9%, P = 1.0). Additional SB decreased the rate of disease upgrading on radical prostatectomy (RP) than TB alone in PI-RADS 3–4 subgroup (14.5 vs 25.5%, P = 0.031) other than PI-RADS 5 subgroup (6 vs 6%, P = 1.0). When stratified by prostate volume (PV), TB alone detected more csPCa than SB in small prostate (PV < 30 ml) group (81.0 vs 71.0%, P = 0.021) but not in large prostate (PV ≥ 30 ml) group (44.0 vs 42.7%, P = 0.754). The additional SB did not significantly decrease the rate of disease upgrading on RP than TB alone in either small or large prostate (6.4 vs 8.5%, P = 1.0; 13.8 vs 22.4%, P = 0.063).ConclusionThe combination biopsy method was no superior than targeted biopsy alone in PI-RADS 5 or in small volume prostate subgroup.

Download Full-text

Association between large prostate calculi and prostate cancer

Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia ◽

10.4081/aiua.2018.3.181 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 90 (3) ◽

pp. 181-183 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Cem Yucel ◽

Salih Budak

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Cancer Detection ◽

Prostate Volume ◽

Specific Antigen ◽

Future Research ◽

Detection Rates ◽

The Mean ◽

Total Psa ◽

The Relationship ◽

Large Prostate

Objective: We investigated the relationship between large prostate calculi and prostate cancer (PCa) risk. Materials and methods: The medical records of 340 patients who received a prostate biopsy at our institution between January 2015 and August 2016 were reviewed retrospectively. Of the patients, 82 had large prostatic calculi visualised by transrectal ultrasonography and 88 did not or had scarce prostatic calculi. We divided these patients into two groups: patients with large prostatic calculi (group 1) and patients without prostatic calculi (group 2). These groups were compared according to age, total prostate specific antigen (PSA) level, prostate volume, and final pathological diagnosis.Results: The mean age of all patients was 61.4 ± 6.2 years, the mean total PSA was 12.3 ± 17.4 ng/mL, the mean prostate volume was 41.7 ± 17.6 mL, and the overall cancer detection rate was 31.5%. The cancer detection rates were 41.3% and 22.6% in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p = 0.018). No significant differences in mean age, mean total PSA, or mean prostate volume were observed between the groups. Conclusions: In the present study, large prostatic calculi were associated with PCa. However, more study is needed to examine the relationship between large prostatic calculi and PCa in more detail. The effects of particularly large prostate calculi in the development of PCa will be a necessary focus of future research.

Download Full-text

The importance of surgical access in the treatment of patients with prostate cancer and abnormal prostate anatomy

Siberian Journal of Oncology ◽

10.21294/1814-4861-2021-20-6-32-40 ◽

2022 ◽

Vol 20 (6) ◽

pp. 32-40

Author(s):

A. V. Zyryanov ◽

A. S. Surikov ◽

A. A. Keln ◽

A. V. Ponomarev ◽

V. G. Sobenin

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Radical Prostatectomy ◽

Blood Loss ◽

Comparison Group ◽

Prostate Volume ◽

Robotic Prostatectomy ◽

Study Group ◽

Open Prostatectomy ◽

Large Prostate ◽

Blood Loss Volume

Background. The increased volume of the prostate in patients with confirmed prostate cancer (pc) is observed in 10 % of cases. The limitations of external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy associated with large prostate volume and obstructive symptoms define radical prostatectomy (Rp) as the only possible treatment for prostate cancer in these patients. The purpose of the study was to determine the importance of the surgical approach in radical prostatectomy in patients with abnormal anatomy of the prostate. Material and methods. The study group consisted of patients with a prostate volume of more than 80 cm3 (n=40) who underwent a robot prostatectomy. The comparison group was represented by patients also selected by the prostate volume ≥ 80 cm3, who underwent classical open prostatectomy (n=44). The groups were comparable in age and psa level. The average prostate volume in the study group was 112.2 ± 26 cm 3(80–195 cm 3). The average prostate volume in the comparison group was 109.8 ± 18.7 cm3 (80–158 cm 3) (р>0.05). Both groups had favorable morphological characteristics. Results. The average surgery time difference was 65 minutes in favor of the open prostatectomy (p<0.05). The average blood loss volume in the study group was 282.5 ± 227.5 ml (50–1000 ml). The average blood loss volume in the group with open prostatectomy was 505.7 ± 382.3 ml (50–2000 ml). Positive surgical margin in the robotic prostatectomy was not detected, at 6.9 % in the group with open prostatectomy (p<0.05). According to the criterion of urinary continence, the best results were obtained in the group of robotic prostatectomy (p<0.05). Overall and relapse-free 5-year survival did not show a statistically significant difference. Conclusion. The use of robotic prostatectomy in a group of patients with a large prostate volume (≥ 80 cm3) allows us to achieve better functional and oncological outcomes.

Download Full-text

Functional and Oncological Outcomes Following Robot-Assisted and Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy for Localized Prostate Cancer With a Large Prostate Volume: A Retrospective Analysis With Minimum 2-Year Follow-Ups

Frontiers in Oncology ◽

10.3389/fonc.2021.714680 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 ◽

Author(s):

Wen Deng ◽

Xiaoqiang Liu ◽

Weipeng Liu ◽

Cheng Zhang ◽

Xiaochen Zhou ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Postoperative Complications ◽

Radical Prostatectomy ◽

Prostate Volume ◽

Localized Prostate Cancer ◽

Oncologic Outcomes ◽

Robot Assisted ◽

Post Operation ◽

Grade Ii ◽

Large Prostate

ObjectiveWe aimed to analyze the perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) for patients with localized prostate cancer (PCa) characterized by a large prostate volume (PV; ≥50 ml) over a minimum of 2 years follow-up.Materials and MethodsPatients undergoing RARP and LRP for localized PCa with a large PV were included in the final analysis. The perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes were analyzed between the two groups.ResultsAll operations were successfully completed without open conversion in both groups. The mean operative time and estimated blood loss in the RARP group were significantly decreased compared to those in the LRP group (139.4 vs. 159.0 min, p = 0.001, and 124.2 vs. 157.3 ml, p = 0.003, respectively). Patients in the RARP arm had significantly lower proportions of grade II or lower and of higher than grade II postoperative complications compared with those in the LRP group (7.9% vs. 17.1%, p = 0.033, and 1.6% vs. 6.7%, p = 0.047, respectively). No significant differences in terms of the rates of pT3 disease, positive surgical margin, and positive lymph node were noted between the two groups. Moreover, no significant difference in the median specimen Gleason score was observed between the RARP and LRP groups (6 vs. 7, p = 0.984). RARP vs. LRP resulted in higher proportions of urinary continence upon catheter removal (48.4% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.021) and at 3 (65.1% vs. 50.5%, p = 0.025) and 24 (90.5% vs. 81.0%, p = 0.037) months post-operation. The median erectile function scores at 6 and 24 months post-operation in the RARP arm were also significantly higher than those in the LRP arm (15 vs. 15, p = 0.042, and 15 vs. 13, p = 0.026, respectively). Kaplan–Meier analyses indicated that the biochemical recurrence-free survival and accumulative proportion of continence were statistically comparable between the two groups (p = 0.315 and p = 0.020, respectively).ConclusionsFor surgically managing localized PCa with a large prostate (≥50 ml), RARP had a tendency toward a lower risk of postoperative complications and better functional preservation without cancer control being compromised when compared to LRP.

Download Full-text