Tumor Location and a Tumor Volume over 2.8 Cc Predict the Prognosis for Japanese Localized Prostate Cancer

Overview

Journal Cancers (Basel)

Publisher MDPI

Specialty Oncology

Date 2022 Dec 11

PMID 36497304

Authors

Haruki Baba

Shinichi Sakamoto

Xue Zhao

Yasutaka Yamada

Junryo Rii

Ayumi Fujimoto

Manato Kanesaka

Nobuyoshi Takeuchi

Tomokazu Sazuka

Yusuke Imamura

Koichiro Akakura

Tomohiko Ichikawa

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

(1) Objective: Our study investigated the prognostic value of tumor volume and location in prostate cancer patients who received radical prostatectomy (RP). (2) Methods: The prognostic significance of tumor volume and location, together with other clinical factors, was studied using 557 patients who received RP. (3) Results: The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve identified the optimal cutoff value of tumor volume as 2.8 cc for predicting biochemical recurrence (BCR). Cox regression analysis revealed that a tumor in the posterior area (p = 0.031), peripheral zone (p = 0.0472), and tumor volume ≥ 2.8 cc (p < 0.0001) were predictive factors in univariate analysis. After multivariate analysis, tumor volume ≥ 2.8 cc (p = 0.0225) was an independent predictive factor for BCR. Among them, a novel risk model was established using tumor volume and location in the posterior area and peripheral zone. The progression-free survival (PFS) of patients who met the three criteria (unfavorable group) was significantly worse than other groups (p ≤ 0.001). Furthermore, multivariate analysis showed that the unfavorable risk was an independent prognostic factor for BCR. The prognostic significance of our risk model was observed in low- to intermediate-risk patients, although it was not observed in high-risk patients. (4) Conclusion: Tumor volume (≥2.8 cc) and localization (posterior/peripheral zone) may be a novel prognostic factor in patients undergoing RP.

Citing Articles

PSA doubling time 4.65 months as an optimal cut-off of Japanese nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Sakamoto S, Sato K, Kimura T, Matsui Y, Shiraishi Y, Hashimoto K Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):15307.

PMID: 38961131 PMC: 11222484. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-65969-3.

Implications of unconventional histological subtypes on magnetic resonance imaging and oncological outcomes in patients who have undergone radical prostatectomy.

Kurokawa K, Yamada Y, Sakamoto S, Horikoshi T, Sato K, Nanba S Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):14868.

PMID: 38937563 PMC: 11211384. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-65681-2.

Prostate zones and tumor morphological parameters on magnetic resonance imaging for predicting the tumor-stage diagnosis of prostate cancer.

Xu S, Liu X, Zhang X, Ji H, Wang R, Cui H Diagn Interv Radiol. 2023; 29(6):753-760.

PMID: 37787046 PMC: 10679559. DOI: 10.4274/dir.2023.232284.

Editorial for the Special Issue on High-Risk Localized and Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer.

Izumi K Cancers (Basel). 2023; 15(12).

PMID: 37370763 PMC: 10296449. DOI: 10.3390/cancers15123153.

Tumor localization by Prostate Imaging and Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2.1 predicts prognosis of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy.

Fujimoto A, Sakamoto S, Horikoshi T, Zhao X, Yamada Y, Rii J Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1):10079.

PMID: 37344491 PMC: 10284848. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-36685-1.

References

Kang Y, Abalajon M, Jang W, Kwon J, Yoon C, Lee J . Association of Anterior and Lateral Extraprostatic Extensions with Base-Positive Resection Margins in Prostate Cancer. PLoS One. 2016; 11(7):e0158922. PMC: 4938503. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0158922. View

Augustin H, Erbersdobler A, Graefen M, Fernandez S, Palisaar J, Huland H . Biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy: a comparison between prostate cancers located in different anatomical zones. Prostate. 2003; 55(1):48-54. DOI: 10.1002/pros.10216. View

De La Roca R, da Cunha I, Bezerra S, da Fonseca F . Radical prostatectomy and positive surgical margins: relationship with prostate cancer outcome. Int Braz J Urol. 2014; 40(3):306-15. DOI: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2014.03.03. View

Shikanov S, Song J, Royce C, Al-Ahmadie H, Zorn K, Steinberg G . Length of positive surgical margin after radical prostatectomy as a predictor of biochemical recurrence. J Urol. 2009; 182(1):139-44. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.02.139. View

Sooriakumaran P, Dev H, Skarecky D, Ahlering T . The importance of surgical margins in prostate cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2016; 113(3):310-5. DOI: 10.1002/jso.24109. View

Ting F, van Leeuwen P, Delprado W, Haynes A, Brenner P, Stricker P . Tumor volume in insignificant prostate cancer: Increasing the threshold is a safe approach to reduce over-treatment. Prostate. 2015; 75(15):1768-73. DOI: 10.1002/pros.23062. View

You D, Jeong I, Song C, Cho Y, Hong J, Kim C . High percent tumor volume predicts biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy in pathological stage T3a prostate cancer with a negative surgical margin. Int J Urol. 2013; 21(5):484-9. DOI: 10.1111/iju.12348. View

Hashimoto Y, Okamoto A, Imai A, Yoneyama T, Hatakeyama S, Yoneyama T . Biochemical outcome of small-volume or insignificant prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy in Japanese population. Int J Clin Oncol. 2011; 17(2):119-23. DOI: 10.1007/s10147-011-0267-6. View

Thompson 3rd I, Salem S, Chang S, Clark P, Davis R, Herrell S . Tumor volume as a predictor of adverse pathologic features and biochemical recurrence (BCR) in radical prostatectomy specimens: a tale of two methods. World J Urol. 2010; 29(1):15-20. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-010-0611-x. View

10.

Schiffmann J, Connan J, Salomon G, Boehm K, Beyer B, Schlomm T . Tumor volume in insignificant prostate cancer: increasing threshold gains increasing risk. Prostate. 2014; 75(1):45-9. DOI: 10.1002/pros.22889. View

11.

Wolf A, Wender R, Etzioni R, Thompson I, DAmico A, Volk R . American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of prostate cancer: update 2010. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010; 60(2):70-98. DOI: 10.3322/caac.20066. View

12.

Cookson M, Aus G, Burnett A, Canby-Hagino E, DAmico A, Dmochowski R . Variation in the definition of biochemical recurrence in patients treated for localized prostate cancer: the American Urological Association Prostate Guidelines for Localized Prostate Cancer Update Panel report and recommendations for a standard in.... J Urol. 2007; 177(2):540-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.10.097. View

13.

Frankcombe D, Li J, Cohen R . Redefining the Concept of Clinically Insignificant Prostate Cancer. Urology. 2019; 136:176-179. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2019.10.019. View

14.

Chung B, Tarin T, Ferrari M, Brooks J . Comparison of prostate cancer tumor volume and percent cancer in prediction of biochemical recurrence and cancer specific survival. Urol Oncol. 2009; 29(3):314-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2009.06.017. View

15.

Wolters T, Roobol M, van Leeuwen P, van den Bergh R, Hoedemaeker R, van Leenders G . A critical analysis of the tumor volume threshold for clinically insignificant prostate cancer using a data set of a randomized screening trial. J Urol. 2010; 185(1):121-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.08.082. View

16.

Pinckaers H, van Ipenburg J, Melamed J, De Marzo A, Platz E, van Ginneken B . Predicting biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer with artificial intelligence. Commun Med (Lond). 2022; 2:64. PMC: 9177591. DOI: 10.1038/s43856-022-00126-3. View

17.

Meng Y, Li H, Xu P, Wang J . Do tumor volume, percent tumor volume predict biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy? A meta-analysis. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2016; 8(12):22319-27. PMC: 4729995. View

18.

Everist M, Howard L, Aronson W, Kane C, Amling C, Cooperberg M . Socioeconomic status, race, and long-term outcomes after radical prostatectomy in an equal access health system: Results from the SEARCH database. Urol Oncol. 2019; 37(4):289.e11-289.e17. PMC: 6440810. DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2018.12.004. View

19.

Akaza H, Onozawa M, Hinotsu S . Prostate cancer trends in Asia. World J Urol. 2016; 35(6):859-865. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-016-1939-7. View

20.

Song C, Kang T, Yoo S, Jeong I, Ro J, Hong J . Tumor volume, surgical margin, and the risk of biochemical recurrence in men with organ-confined prostate cancer. Urol Oncol. 2011; 31(2):168-74. DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2010.11.005. View