Next Article in Journal
Dickkopf-3: An Update on a Potential Regulator of the Tumor Microenvironment
Next Article in Special Issue
Disruption of CCL2 in Mesenchymal Stem Cells as an Anti-Tumor Approach against Prostate Cancer
Previous Article in Journal
SGLT-2 Inhibitors in Cancer Treatment—Mechanisms of Action and Emerging New Perspectives
Previous Article in Special Issue
Prognostic Impact of Lymphatic Invasion in Patients with High-Risk Prostate Cancer after Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy and Extended Lymph Node Dissection: A Single-Institution Prospective Cohort Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 14
Issue 23
10.3390/cancers14235823
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

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

by
Haruki Baba
1,†,
Shinichi Sakamoto
1,*,†,
Xue Zhao
1,†,
Yasutaka Yamada
1,
Junryo Rii
1,
Ayumi Fujimoto
1,
Manato Kanesaka
1,
Nobuyoshi Takeuchi
1,
Tomokazu Sazuka
1,
Yusuke Imamura
1,
Koichiro Akakura
2 and
Tomohiko Ichikawa
1
1
Department of Urology, Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba 260-8670, Japan
2
Department of Urology, Japan Community Health-Care Organization Tokyo Shinjuku Medical Center, Tokyo 162-8543, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Cancers 2022, 14(23), 5823; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14235823
Submission received: 5 November 2022 / Revised: 23 November 2022 / Accepted: 24 November 2022 / Published: 25 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue High-Risk Localized and Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

About 40% of men with localized prostate cancer experience biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. The early detection of disease progression is important for optimal post-operative treatment and follow-up. Our study reviewed 557 patients with prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy and found that a tumor volume over 2.8 cc was a novel independent predictive factor for biochemical recurrence. We further established a novel risk assessment model based on tumor volume and location (posterior and peripheral zone). We confirmed that the risk model could stratify patients’ prognoses. In addition to the previously reported biomarkers, these novel factors obtained from the surgical specimen may provide better prognostic information in patients with prostate cancer.

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.

1. Introduction

Prostate cancer (Pca) is the most common malignant tumor in men. About 2.6 million cases are newly diagnosed and 34,500 deaths of Pca are estimated per year in the United States [1]. Radical prostatectomy (RP) for the treatment of prostate cancer has made remarkable progress since it widely emerged around 1900. At present, RP is still the standard treatment option for localized Pca [2]. However, the frequency of biochemical recurrence (BCR) has been reported to be about 40% within 10 years after RP [3]. Once BCR occurs, about 3.5% of patients will inevitably develop resistance to androgen deprivation therapy, also known as castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) [4]. CRPC has been reported to cause death within 2 to 4 years [5]. Therefore, BCR is the major clinical issue to be detected and addressed in patients who received RP.
A lot of clinical studies have evaluated predictive factors and/or risk models for BCR after RP. Serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is the mainstay to detect the BCR of patients after surgery [6], and it has been recommended to keep close monitoring until PSA reaches 0.2 ng/mL [7]. In addition to PSA kinetics, Gleason score, PSA density, pathological and clinical stages, surgical margin, and other clinical factors have been studied for their prognostic significance, however, these factors could not predict BCR independently [8]. To better distinguish the recurrence risk and evaluate the prognosis after RP, more innovative predictors or models are unmet clinical needs. The individualized management after treatment requires effective recurrence risk prediction to implement timely intervention and avoid overtreatment. Previous studies showed that the tumor volume was related to the clinical manifestations of prostate cancer [9]. A tumor with a volume of less than 0.5 cc is considered as insignificant prostate cancer, and aggressive treatment may not be needed [10,11]. Recently, several studies proposed the novel definition of insignificant prostate cancer as a tumor volume of less than 2.5 cc [11,12,13,14,15,16,17], or less than 2.0 cc [18]. However, it was found that the BCR risk increased with tumor volume over 2.49 cc, indicating that the tumor volume was deeply involved in the progression of Pca [19]. Furthermore, little is known about the relationship between different prostate areas and tumor volumes, and their impact on BCR. Herein, we examined the prognostic role of tumor volume and location in patients with localized Pca for a better treatment strategy and postoperative follow-up.

2. Methods

2.1. Study Design and Setting

Clinical data of 557 patients who received RP at Chiba University Hospital and affiliated hospitals between 2006 and 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. The study was approved by the clinical review committee of our institution (#1768) and the written informed consent of all patients participating in the study was obtained. All participants or designated agents accepted a standardized data collection protocol, including personal postoperative follow-up information and medical record. The study is in accordance with the Japanese ethical document.

2.2. Patients

The inclusion criteria were RP for biopsy-proven prostate cancer performed at Chiba University Hospital and affiliated hospitals; whole-mount step-section pathologic maps available for tumor volume-calculation and localization. The exclusion criteria were neoadjuvant hormone therapy; radiation therapy; poor pathologic map quality; short follow-up term (<12 months).

2.3. Variables

Baseline clinical data included age, BMI, serum PSA, PSA F/T ratio, serum testosterone, biopsy positive rate, Gleason score (GS), clinical TNM staging, surgical prostate specimen, tumor volume, tumor location, surgical resect margin, and pathological TNM staging. Each patient came to our institution every 3 months after RP and had blood samples taken for PSA measurement until the occurrence of BCR or death was confirmed.
After RP, an elevated serum PSA level (>0.2 ng/mL) was defined as BCR [6].

2.4. Tumor Volume and Location Estimation Method

2.4.1. Measurement of Tumor Volume

The prostatectomy specimens were step-sectioned transversely at 5-mm intervals. All the specimens were mounted on slides. Tumor volume was calculated by scanning the sliced specimen, and the area of the tumor was analyzed using ImageJ software. Total tumor volume = tumor area × thickness of specimen × 1.2 (correction for shrinkage).

2.4.2. Tumor Localization

All specimens were serially sectioned from the tip to the base at 5 mm intervals, and the bladder neck and vertex edges were submitted as vertical sections. According to the anatomical structure, the specimen was divided into the following regions: the peripheral zone (PZ), the transition zone (TZ), and the central zone (CZ). The region within 1.0 cm or 1.5 cm from the tip of the prostate was identified as the Apex region. The prostatic urethra is an anatomic marker for a tumor to be classified as anterior or posterior (Figure 1). If a tumor showed a slight extension to another site, >80% volume in the main area was the criterion for defining the origin of the tumor in this area. Each RP sample was reviewed by two pathologists.

2.5. Statistical Methods

JMP Pro (Version 16.0; SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) was used for statistical analysis. Univariate cox proportional hazards model analysis was performed on the baseline data classified by the median value of the outcome measurement to determine the predictive factors of the BCR. The significant variables (p < 0.05) were further analyzed by multivariable cox proportional hazards model regression. The optimal cutoff value of tumor volume was obtained by calculating Area Under the Curve (AUC) from the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. To evaluate the interaction between tumor volume and location, 3 risk factors related to volume and location obtained from univariate and multivariate cox regression analysis were combined into a risk classification model. This model was grouped according to the number of risk factors displayed: favorable; 0 risk factor, moderate; 1 or 2 risk factors, unfavorable; all 3 risk factors. Kaplan–Meier method was used to evaluate progression-free survival (PFS). Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Participants

In total, 557 patients were enrolled in the study. Follow-up terms ranged from 12 to 161.5 months, with a median follow-up time of 45.3 months. As of the end of the study, 66 (11.8%) patients had BCR, and 9 (1.6%) patients died (not due to prostate cancer). The median age of all patients was 67 years old. The median preoperative PSA level was 7.71 ng/mL. The biopsy GS was 7 or less in 79.7%, 8 in 8.6%, and 9 or more in 11%. Overall, 64.8% of patients were pathological TNM stage 2c or above, and 1.4% were positive for lymph node metastasis. According to the risk grouping of Pca by the American Cancer Society (ACS), 77 (13.8%) patients were classified into the low-risk group, 279 (50.1%) were classified into the intermediate-risk group, and 201 (36.1%) were classified into the high-risk group. The median tumor volume was 2.12 cc. Seminal vesicle invasion was observed in 8.6%, the extracapsular invasion was seen in 24.8%, and 30.3% had positive margins. The tumor distributions were in the apex area (63.7%), middle area (63.4%), and bladder neck (21.4%). Regarding the anterior or posterior area of the prostate, 48.1% of the tumors were in the anterior, and 52.4% were in the posterior. Overall, 67.1% were located in the PZ and 37.3% were in the TZ (Table 1).

3.2. Predictive Factors for Progression-Free Survival (PFS)

The ROC curve was used to calculate the relationship between BCR and tumor volume, and the optimal cutoff value was identified as 2.8 cc (AUC = 0.69) (Supplementary Figure S1A). We analyzed different tumor volume cutoff values (0.5 cc, 1.0 cc, 2.0 cc, 2.8 cc, 3.0 cc, 3.5 cc) and compared HR and p-values. The results confirmed that 2.8 cc is the optimal cut-off value as a predictive factor for BCR (Table 2). (The cutoff values of two tumor volumes with p < 0.0001 that were not selected (3.0 cc and 3.5 cc) were also verified by corresponding models, as shown in Supplementary Figures S2 and S3).
Univariate and multivariate predictors for BCR obtained from cox proportional hazard analysis are shown in Table 2. The predictors for BCR were pathological stage T ≥ 3 (HR = 4.66 [95% CI: 2.81–7.73], p < 0.0001), positive surgical margin (HR = 4.18 [95% CI: 2.46–7.10], p < 0.0001), tumor volume ≥ 2.8 cc (HR = 3.10 [95% CI: 1.86–5.17], p < 0.0001), followed by PSA density ≥0.26 (HR = 2.06 [95% CI: 1.21–3.53], p = 0.0082), tumor located in the Posterior region (HR = 2.24 [95% CI: 1.07–4.65], p = 0.0314), tumor located in the PZ (HR = 3.28 [95% CI: 1.01–10.6], p = 0.0472). The multivariate analysis showed that the independent predictor of BCR was only tumor volume ≥ 2.8 cc (HR = 2.47 [95% CI: 1.14–5.36], p = 0.0225) (Table 2).
The Kaplan–Meier method was used to evaluate the PFS curve. The PFS of patients with tumors located in the PZ was inferior to those in the TZ (Figure 2A p = 0.0354). Furthermore, patients harboring tumors located in the posterior had shorter PFS than those in the anterior area (Figure 2B p = 0.027). Consistent with cox analysis, there was no significant difference between the PFS of the patients with tumors in the apex and not-apex area (Figure 2C p = 0.3135). PFS in the patients with tumor volume ≥ 2.8 cc was significantly inferior to those with less than 2.8 cc (Figure 2D p < 0.0001).

3.3. Model for Predicting PFS by Tumor Volume at Specific Location

Based on the analysis of clinical factors related to BCR in Table 2 and Figure 2, tumor volume and tumor location (PZ and Posterior location) were statistically significant predictive factors. Therefore, we established a risk classification model using tumor volume and location to stratify patients on the basis of risk of progression. The three risk factors that predict BCR in the model are tumor volume ≥ 2.8 cc, tumor located in PZ, and tumor located in the posterior area. The capability of the unfavorable risk to predict BCR was shown in Table 3 and only these risk factors predicted BCR on multivariable analysis (HR 3.16 [95% CI: 1.52–6.56], p = 0.002).
To further explore the predictive ability of the novel risk model, we divided the patients into the low-risk group, intermediate-risk group, and high-risk group according to the risk grouping of Pca by the American Cancer Society (ACS) [20] and validated the predictive value of the risk models among different ACS risk groups. In the analysis of the high-risk group, our unfavorable risk model could not predict disease progression independently (Table 4). However, the risk factors were the only independent predictor for PFS among patients with low to intermediate-risk groups (HR 4.43 [95% CI: 1.51–13.01], p = 0.0068) (Table 5).

3.4. Risk Model to Stratify Patient Prognosis

According to our established risk model, we divided the patients into three groups (favorable; displayed zero risk factors, moderate; displayed one or two risk factors, unfavorable; displayed all three risk factors). Overall, 61, 343, and 104 patients were classified as belonging to the favorable, moderate, and unfavorable group, respectively (Figure 3A).
The PFS curves of the three groups of patients (Figure 3B) showed that the PFS of the unfavorable group was significantly worse than that of the moderate group (p < 0.0001) and the favorable group (p = 0.001), while there was no significant difference between the moderate group and the favorable group (p = 0.1150).
The median tumor volume of the three groups was 1.33 cc, 1.81 cc, and 4.92 cc, respectively and there were significant differences between the three groups (Figure 3C).
In addition, we analyzed the impact of tumor volume on PFS in different prostate regions with the tumor volume of 2.8 cc as the threshold (Figure 4). The results suggested that the PFS of tumor ≥ 2.8 cc in the PZ is significantly worse than that of less than 2.8 cc (Figure 4A p < 0.0001). Similar results were observed for tumors ≥ 2.8 cc in the posterior location (Figure 4C p < 0.0001). Of note, the 2.8 cc cutoff value in TZ also showed a significant difference in PFS between the two groups (Figure 4B p = 0.0345). On the other hand, the significant difference was not seen in the anterior area (Figure 4D p = 0.0873).

4. Discussion

In our study, a tumor with a volume ≥ 2.8 cc was identified as an independent predictive factor for BCR (p = 0.0225). Furthermore, we established novel risk classification together with PZ and posterior location, which distinguished PFS between different risk groups. We believe this risk model will provide novel prognostic significance in patients who received RP.
Previous studies showed the positive surgical margin after RP is a potential predictive factor for BCR [21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29]. It is difficult to completely avoid the incidence of positive surgical margins through objective methods. Several studies found that positive surgical margins with limited length [30,31], locations [32], or quantity [33] decreased the correlation with BCR. Another study showed that tumor volume was associated with BCR in patients who underwent RP with negative surgical margins [34]. In addition, tumor volume and GS were even more significant predictors for BCR than positive margins [35] and the location of the tumor could predict the incidence of positive surgical margins [36,37,38,39]. Multivariate analysis showed that the predictive value of our risk model was superior to the positive surgical margin. These findings suggested that focusing on tumor volume and location, not only resection margins will give us better prognostic information in the treatment of localized Pca.
Regarding the prognostic significance of tumor localization, tumors originating in the TZ have been reported to be associated with a better prognosis in comparison with those in the PZ [39,40,41]. Augustin et al. found that the location of prostate cancer in the TZ was associated with better progression-free survival after RP (p = 0.0402) [40]. However, the zonal location offers no advantage over the well-established prognostic factors in predicting recurrence. Some more detailed anatomical differentiation (anterior, posterior, the apex of prostate, bladder neck) also revealed the difference in tumor location on prognosis [42,43]. Magheli et al. found that tumors in the anterior prostate were associated with favorable pathological features and improved biochemical-free survival, although it was not an independent predictor of BCR [42]. There are also some studies that have concluded that tumor location is not related to prognosis [44,45].
Tumor volume has been reported to show a significant correlation with BCR after RP [46,47,48,49,50]. Generally, tumor volume < 0.5 cc has been considered as an insignificant Pca, which has a low potential of recurrence [51]. The predictive factors for BCR in patients with low-volume prostate cancer (≤0.5 cc) have not been well studied [52]. Several reports proposed to increase the thresholds of volume for insignificant cancer to avoid over-treatment [14], however, other studies showed that the modified criteria had a higher risk of BCR in Gleason 4/5 cancer [53]. The tumor volume was superior to the percentage of cancer (tumor volume/prostate volume ratio) for predicting the prognosis after RP [54]. Different tumor volume cut-off values were proposed to determine the prognosis of Pca. Friedersdorff et al. suggested that tumor volume ≥ 5 cc (AUC = 0.79) was a significant prognostic factor for BCR [55]. Another study set the cut-off values as: minimal (≤1.0 cc), middle (1.1–5.0 cc), or extended (>5.0 cc) [47]. Shin et al. divided the tumor volume into three groups according to 2 cc and 5 cc, in multivariate analysis, recurrence-free survival could be independently predicted [56]. The tumor volume in the surgical specimen after neoadjuvant therapy was investigated and the study showed that patients with residual tumors ≥ 1.0 cc in the specimen had a higher risk of BCR [57]. Raison et al. studied 685 British patients who underwent laparoscopic and robot-assisted RP and revealed that 2.5 cc (AUC = 0.71) was the best cutoff value for predicting BCR [58]. Of note, some studies showed that the tumor volume alone may not be able to evaluate the prognosis of recurrence and prognosis after RP [13,59]. O’Neil et al. suggested that tumors in some locations are larger and more likely to invade the sites that are prone to recurrence [37]. However, there have been no studies that have analyzed the prognostic value of tumor volume combined with tumor localization.
In our study, we attempted to evaluate the potential interaction between tumor volume and location, the tumor volume cutoff value obtained by the ROC curve was 2.8 cc (AUC = 0.69). Therefore, we used the tumor volume threshold (≥2.8 cc) of the specific location to improve the capability of our risk model. We hypothesized that the larger tumor volume in the PZ and/or posterior of the prostate may be associated with BCR. Our findings demonstrated that the prognostic significance of tumor volume over 2.8 cc varied by tumor localization (Figure 4). In our model, the interaction between prostate tumor location and volume was a promising predictor of prostate BCR. Interestingly, our risk model was an independent predictor in patients with low and intermediate risk while it was not in patients with high risk. Extended dissection during surgery and close follow-up after surgery may enhance clinical benefit in patients who met our criteria.
The limitations of this study are as follows. First, our study included a single Asian race. Compared with the western population, the Asian population has a lower incidence and mortality of prostate cancer [60]. The tumor volume of African American men with prostate cancer is larger than that of white men [61]. The risk of BCR in black Americans has been reported to be 1.6 times higher than that in white Americans [62]. These results suggested that there may be differences in clinical and pathological features between races. Further validation of our risk model will be warranted in other patients’ cohorts. Second, our study may need to be further investigated using genomic analysis. The previous study has revealed that prostate cancer risk alleles are associated with prostate cancer volume and prostate size [63]. Downregulation of PAH and AOC1 and upregulation of DDC, LIN01436, and ORM1 were associated with the development of prostate cancer [8,64]. Molecular and cellular biological studies are also closely related to the site of prostate tumorigenesis [41]. Studying the specific genes behind it could improve understanding of the region or cell-type characteristics of prostate cancer. These features account for differences in tumor progression and invasion between different regions of the prostate [41]. The unique biological characteristics of tumor types in different prostate regions can help guide individualized treatment and patient risk stratification. Finally, further validation of our clinical parameters using the latest imaging system PSMA/PET [65] or artificial intelligence system (deep learning) [66] may enhance the clinical importance of this study.

5. Conclusions

Tumor volume ≥ 2.8 cc was an independent predictive factor for BCR in patients who received RP. Furthermore, we established a novel risk model using tumor volume over 2.8 cc and tumor location (PZ and/or posterior). Our risk classification could predict patient prognosis and will help us to optimize peri-operative and post-operative treatment strategies.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/cancers14235823/s1, Figure S1: (A) Tumor volume cut off based on the ROC curve. (B) Tumor volume based on the location; Figure S2: (A) A supplemental model that included the 3.0 cc tumor volume as one of the factors in the risk model. (B) Risk classification significantly differentiated the PFS between the Favorable and Unfavorable group (p = 0.0008) and the Moderate and Unfavorable group (p < 0.0001); Figure S3: (A) A supplemental model that included the 3.5 cc tumor volume as one of the factors in the risk model. (B) Risk classification significantly differentiated the PFS between the Favorable and Unfavorable group (p = 0.0001) and the Moderate and Unfavorable group (p < 0.0001).

Author Contributions

H.B. contributed to collecting data, preparing figures, and writing; S.S. and X.Z. contributed to analyzing data, collecting bibliography, drawing tables, and writing; Y.Y. and J.R. contributed to analyzing data; A.F., M.K., N.T., T.S., Y.I. and K.A. contributed to collecting data; S.S. and T.I. contributed to the supervision of all the activities; The first draft of the manuscript was prepared by H.B. and X.Z. performed subsequent amendments. S.S. revised the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The present study was supported by grants from Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) (20K09555 to S.S.), Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B) (20H03813 to T.I.), and the Japan China Sasakawa Medical Fellowship (to X.Z.).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of Chiba University of Graduate School of Medicine and School of Medicine (protocol code 1768 and date of approval 1 March 2018).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Abbreviations

Pcaprostate cancer
RPradical prostatectomy
BCRbiochemical recurrence
CRPCcastration-resistant prostate cancer
PSAprostate-specific antigen
PZperipheral zone
TZtransition zone
CZcentral zone
TVtumor volume
GSGleason score
ROCReceiver Operating Characteristic
AUCArea Under the Curve
PFSProgression-Free Survival
ACSAmerican Cancer Society

References

  1. Siegel, R.L.; Miller, K.D.; Fuchs, H.E.; Jemal, A. Cancer statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2022, 72, 7–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Costello, A.J. Considering the role of radical prostatectomy in 21st century prostate cancer care. Nat. Rev. Urol. 2020, 17, 177–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Han, M.; Partin, A.W.; Pound, C.R.; Epstein, J.I.; Walsh, P.C. Long-term biochemical disease-free and cancer-specific survival following anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy. The 15-year Johns Hopkins experience. Urol. Clin. N. Am. 2001, 28, 555–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Everist, M.M.; Howard, L.E.; Aronson, W.J.; Kane, C.J.; Amling, C.L.; Cooperberg, M.R.; Terris, M.K.; Freedland, S.J. 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, 289.e11–289.e17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Pagliarulo, V. Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Prostate Cancer. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 2018, 1096, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Cookson, M.S.; Aus, G.; Burnett, A.L.; Canby-Hagino, E.D.; D’Amico, A.V.; Dmochowski, R.R.; Eton, D.T.; Forman, J.D.; Goldenberg, S.L.; Hernandez, J. 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 the reporting of surgical outcomes. J. Urol. 2007, 177, 540–545. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  7. Teeter, A.E.; Griffin, K.; Howard, L.E.; Aronson, W.J.; Terris, M.K.; Kane, C.J.; Amling, C.L.; Cooperberg, M.R.; Freedland, S.J. Does Early Prostate Specific Antigen Doubling Time after Radical Prostatectomy, Calculated Prior to Prostate Specific Antigen Recurrence, Correlate with Prostate Cancer Outcomes? A Report from the SEARCH Database Group. J. Urol. 2018, 199, 713–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Wei, J.; Wu, X.; Li, Y.; Tao, X.; Wang, B.; Yin, G. Identification of Potential Predictor of Biochemical Recurrence in Prostate Cancer. Int. J. Gen. Med. 2022, 15, 4897–4905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Stamey, T.A.; Freiha, F.S.; McNeal, J.E.; Redwine, E.A.; Whittemore, A.S.; Schmid, H.P. Localized prostate cancer. Relationship of tumor volume to clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer. Cancer 1993, 71, 933–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Epstein, J.I.; Walsh, P.C.; Carmichael, M.; Brendler, C.B. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage t1 c) prostate cancer. JAMA 1994, 271, 368–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Wolters, T.; Roobol, M.J.; van Leeuwen, P.J.; van den Bergh, R.C.; Hoedemaeker, R.F.; van Leenders, G.J.; Schröder, F.H.; van der Kwast, T.H. A critical analysis of the tumor volume threshold for clinically insignificant prostate cancer using a data set of a randomized screening trial. J. Urol. 2011, 185, 121–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ploussard, G.; Epstein, J.I.; Montironi, R.; Carroll, P.R.; Wirth, M.; Grimm, M.-O.; Bjartell, A.S.; Montorsi, F.; Freedland, S.J.; Erbersdobler, A. The contemporary concept of significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 2011, 60, 291–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Ito, Y.; Udo, K.; Vertosick, E.A.; Sjoberg, D.D.; Vickers, A.J.; Al-Ahmadie, H.A.; Chen, Y.B.; Gopalan, A.; Sirintrapun, S.J.; Tickoo, S.K.; et al. Clinical Usefulness of Prostate and Tumor Volume Related Parameters following Radical Prostatectomy for Localized Prostate Cancer. J. Urol. 2019, 201, 535–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Ting, F.; van Leeuwen, P.J.; Delprado, W.; Haynes, A.M.; Brenner, P.; Stricker, P.D. Tumor volume in insignificant prostate cancer: Increasing the threshold is a safe approach to reduce over-treatment. Prostate 2015, 75, 1768–1773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Fugini, A.V.; Antonelli, A.; Giovanessi, L.; Gardini, V.C.; Abuhilal, M.; Zambolin, T.; Tardanico, R.; Simeone, C.; Cunico, S.C. Insignificant Prostate Cancer: Charateristics and Predictive Factors. Urol. J. 2011, 78, 184–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Antonelli, A.; Vismara Fugini, A.; Tardanico, R.; Giovanessi, L.; Zambolin, T.; Simeone, C. The percentage of core involved by cancer is the best predictor of insignificant prostate cancer, according to an updated definition (tumor volume up to 2.5 cm3): Analysis of a cohort of 210 consecutive patients with low-risk disease. Urology 2014, 83, 28–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Yamada, Y.; Sakamoto, S.; Sazuka, T.; Goto, Y.; Kawamura, K.; Imamoto, T.; Nihei, N.; Suzuki, H.; Akakura, K.; Ichikawa, T. Validation of active surveillance criteria for pathologically insignificant prostate cancer in Asian men. Int. J. Urol. 2016, 23, 49–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Frankcombe, D.E.; Li, J.; Cohen, R.J. Redefining the Concept of Clinically Insignificant Prostate Cancer. Urology 2020, 136, 176–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Schiffmann, J.; Connan, J.; Salomon, G.; Boehm, K.; Beyer, B.; Schlomm, T.; Tennstedt, P.; Sauter, G.; Karakiewicz, P.I.; Graefen, M.; et al. Tumor volume in insignificant prostate cancer: Increasing threshold gains increasing risk. Prostate 2015, 75, 45–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Wolf, A.M.; Wender, R.C.; Etzioni, R.B.; Thompson, I.M.; D’Amico, A.V.; Volk, R.J.; Brooks, D.D.; Dash, C.; Guessous, I.; Andrews, K.; et al. American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of prostate cancer: Update 2010. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2010, 60, 70–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sooriakumaran, P.; Dev, H.S.; Skarecky, D.; Ahlering, T. The importance of surgical margins in prostate cancer. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016, 113, 310–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Matti, B.; Reeves, F.; Prouse, M.; Zargar-Shoshtari, K. The impact of the extent and location of positive surgical margins on the risk of biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy in men with Gleason 7 prostate cancers. Prostate 2021, 81, 1428–1434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ploussard, G.; Drouin, S.J.; Rode, J.; Allory, Y.; Vordos, D.; Hoznek, A.; Abbou, C.C.; de la Taille, A.; Salomon, L. Location, extent, and multifocality of positive surgical margins for biochemical recurrence prediction after radical prostatectomy. World J. Urol. 2014, 32, 1393–1400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Meeks, J.J.; Eastham, J.A. Radical prostatectomy: Positive surgical margins matter. Urol. Oncol. 2013, 31, 974–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Li, K.; Li, H.; Yang, Y.; Ian, L.H.; Pun, W.H.; Ho, S.F. Risk factors of positive surgical margin and biochemical recurrence of patients treated with radical prostatectomy: A single-center 10-year report. Chin. Med. J. 2011, 124, 1001–1005. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  26. Sammon, J.D.; Trinh, Q.D.; Sukumar, S.; Ravi, P.; Friedman, A.; Sun, M.; Schmitges, J.; Jeldres, C.; Jeong, W.; Mander, N.; et al. Risk factors for biochemical recurrence following radical perineal prostatectomy in a large contemporary series: A detailed assessment of margin extent and location. Urol. Oncol. 2013, 31, 1470–1476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wu, S.; Lin, S.X.; Wirth, G.J.; Lu, M.; Lu, J.; Subtelny, A.O.; Wang, Z.; Dahl, D.M.; Olumi, A.F.; Wu, C.L. Impact of Multifocality and Multilocation of Positive Surgical Margin After Radical Prostatectomy on Predicting Oncological Outcome. Clin. Genitourin. Cancer 2019, 17, e44–e52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Eastham, J.A.; Kuroiwa, K.; Ohori, M.; Serio, A.M.; Gorbonos, A.; Maru, N.; Vickers, A.J.; Slawin, K.M.; Wheeler, T.M.; Reuter, V.E.; et al. Prognostic significance of location of positive margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology 2007, 70, 965–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Aydin, H.; Tsuzuki, T.; Hernandez, D.; Walsh, P.C.; Partin, A.W.; Epstein, J.I. Positive proximal (bladder neck) margin at radical prostatectomy confers greater risk of biochemical progression. Urology 2004, 64, 551–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Sooriakumaran, P.; Ploumidis, A.; Nyberg, T.; Olsson, M.; Akre, O.; Haendler, L.; Egevad, L.; Nilsson, A.; Carlsson, S.; Jonsson, M.; et al. The impact of length and location of positive margins in predicting biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. BJU Int. 2015, 115, 106–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Shikanov, S.; Song, J.; Royce, C.; Al-Ahmadie, H.; Zorn, K.; Steinberg, G.; Zagaja, G.; Shalhav, A.; Eggener, S. Length of positive surgical margin after radical prostatectomy as a predictor of biochemical recurrence. J. Urol. 2009, 182, 139–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Kang, Y.J.; Abalajon, M.J.; Jang, W.S.; Kwon, J.K.; Yoon, C.Y.; Lee, J.Y.; Cho, K.S.; Ham, W.S.; Choi, Y.D. Association of Anterior and Lateral Extraprostatic Extensions with Base-Positive Resection Margins in Prostate Cancer. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0158922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Vrang, M.L.; Røder, M.A.; Vainer, B.; Christensen, I.J.; Gruschy, L.; Brasso, K.; Iversen, P. First Danish single-institution experience with radical prostatectomy: Impact of surgical margins on biochemical outcome. Scand. J. Urol. Nephrol. 2012, 46, 172–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. You, D.; Jeong, I.G.; Song, C.; Cho, Y.M.; Hong, J.H.; Kim, C.S.; Ahn, H. High percent tumor volume predicts biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy in pathological stage T3a prostate cancer with a negative surgical margin. Int. J. Urol. 2014, 21, 484–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. De La Roca, R.L.; Da Cunha, I.W.; Bezerra, S.M.; Da Fonseca, F.P. Radical prostatectomy and positive surgical margins: Relationship with prostate cancer outcome. Int. Braz. J. Urol. 2014, 40, 306–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Hashine, K.; Ueno, Y.; Shinomori, K.; Ninomiya, I.; Teramoto, N.; Yamashita, N. Correlation between cancer location and oncological outcome after radical prostatectomy. Int. J. Urol. 2012, 19, 855–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. O’Neil, L.M.; Walsh, S.; Cohen, R.J.; Lee, S. Prostate carcinoma with positive margins at radical prostatectomy: Role of tumour zonal origin in biochemical recurrence. BJU Int. 2015, 116 (Suppl. 3), 42–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Song, C.; Kang, T.; Yoo, S.; Jeong, I.G.; Ro, J.Y.; Hong, J.H.; Kim, C.S.; Ahn, H. Tumor volume, surgical margin, and the risk of biochemical recurrence in men with organ-confined prostate cancer. Urol. Oncol. 2013, 31, 168–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Shannon, B.A.; McNeal, J.E.; Cohen, R.J. Transition zone carcinoma of the prostate gland: A common indolent tumour type that occasionally manifests aggressive behaviour. Pathology 2003, 35, 467–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Augustin, H.; Hammerer, P.G.; Blonski, J.; Graefen, M.; Palisaar, J.; Daghofer, F.; Huland, H.; Erbersdobler, A. Zonal location of prostate cancer: Significance for disease-free survival after radical prostatectomy? Urology 2003, 62, 79–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ali, A.; Du Feu, A.; Oliveira, P.; Choudhury, A.; Bristow, R.G.; Baena, E. Prostate zones and cancer: Lost in transition? Nat. Rev. Urol. 2022, 19, 101–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Magheli, A.; Rais-Bahrami, S.; Peck, H.J.; Walsh, P.C.; Epstein, J.I.; Trock, B.J.; Gonzalgo, M.L. Importance of tumor location in patients with high preoperative prostate specific antigen levels (greater than 20 ng/mL) treated with radical prostatectomy. J. Urol. 2007, 178, 1311–1315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Hayee, A.; Lugo, I.; Iakymenko, O.A.; Kwon, D.; Briski, L.M.; Zhao, W.; Nemov, I.; Punnen, S.; Ritch, C.R.; Pollack, A.; et al. Anterior or Posterior Prostate Cancer Tumor Nodule Location Predicts Likelihood of Certain Adverse Outcomes at Radical Prostatectomy. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 2022, 146, 833–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Mygatt, J.G.; Cullen, J.; Streicher, S.A.; Kuo, H.C.; Chen, Y.; Young, D.; Gesztes, W.; Williams, G.; Conti, G.; Porter, C.; et al. Race, tumor location, and disease progression among low-risk prostate cancer patients. Cancer Med. 2020, 9, 2235–2242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Augustin, H.; Erbersdobler, A.; Graefen, M.; Fernandez, S.; Palisaar, J.; Huland, H.; Hammerer, P. Biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy: A comparison between prostate cancers located in different anatomical zones. Prostate 2003, 55, 48–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. 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. 2015, 8, 22319–22327. [Google Scholar]
  47. Kim, K.H.; Lim, S.K.; Shin, T.Y.; Kang, D.R.; Han, W.K.; Chung, B.H.; Rha, K.H.; Hong, S.J. Tumor volume adds prognostic value in patients with organ-confined prostate cancer. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2013, 20, 3133–3139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Thompson, I.M., III; Salem, S.; Chang, S.S.; Clark, P.E.; Davis, R.; Herrell, S.D.; Kordan, Y.; Baumgartner, R.; Phillips, S.; Smith, J.A., Jr.; et al. 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. 2011, 29, 15–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Yuk, H.D.; Byun, S.S.; Hong, S.K.; Lee, H. The tumor volume after radical prostatectomy and its clinical impact on the prognosis of patients with localized prostate cancer. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 6003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ates, M.; Teber, D.; Gözen, A.S.; Tefekli, A.; Sugiono, M.; Hruza, M.; Rassweiler, J. Do tumor volume, tumor volume ratio, type of nerve sparing and surgical experience affect prostate specific antigen recurrence after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy? A matched pair analysis. J. Urol. 2007, 177, 1771–1775; discussion 1775–1776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Hashimoto, Y.; Okamoto, A.; Imai, A.; Yoneyama, T.; Hatakeyama, S.; Yoneyama, T.; Koie, T.; Kaminura, N.; Ohyama, C. Biochemical outcome of small-volume or insignificant prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy in Japanese population. Int. J. Clin. Oncol. 2012, 17, 119–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Furusato, B.; Rosner, I.L.; Osborn, D.; Ali, A.; Srivastava, S.; Davis, C.J.; Sesterhenn, I.A.; McLeod, D.G. Do patients with low volume prostate cancer have prostate specific antigen recurrence following radical prostatectomy? J. Clin. Pathol. 2008, 61, 1038–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Lee, D.H.; Koo, K.C.; Lee, S.H.; Rha, K.H.; Choi, Y.D.; Hong, S.J.; Chung, B.H. Analysis of different tumor volume thresholds of insignificant prostate cancer and their implications for active surveillance patient selection and monitoring. Prostate Int. 2014, 2, 76–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  54. Chung, B.I.; Tarin, T.V.; Ferrari, M.; Brooks, J.D. Comparison of prostate cancer tumor volume and percent cancer in prediction of biochemical recurrence and cancer specific survival. Urol. Oncol. 2011, 29, 314–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Friedersdorff, F.; Groß, B.; Maxeiner, A.; Jung, K.; Miller, K.; Stephan, C.; Busch, J.; Kilic, E. Does the Prostate Health Index Depend on Tumor Volume?-A Study on 196 Patients after Radical Prostatectomy. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Shin, S.J.; Park, C.K.; Park, S.Y.; Jang, W.S.; Lee, J.Y.; Choi, Y.D.; Cho, N.H. Total intraglandular and index tumor volumes predict biochemical recurrence in prostate cancer. Virchows Arch. 2016, 469, 305–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Miyake, H.; Sakai, I.; Harada, K.; Takechi, Y.; Hara, I.; Eto, H. Prognostic significance of the tumor volume in radical prostatectomy specimens after neoadjuvant hormonal therapy. Urol. Int. 2005, 74, 27–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Raison, N.; Servian, P.; Patel, A.; Santhirasekaram, A.; Smith, A.; Yeung, M.; Lloyd, J.; Mannion, E.; Rockall, A.; Ahmed, H.; et al. Is tumour volume an independent predictor of outcome after radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer? Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2021, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Salomon, L.; Levrel, O.; Anastasiadis, A.G.; Irani, J.; De La Taille, A.; Saint, F.; Vordos, D.; Cicco, A.; Hoznek, A.; Chopin, D.; et al. Prognostic significance of tumor volume after radical prostatectomy: A multivariate analysis of pathological prognostic factors. Eur. Urol. 2003, 43, 39–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Akaza, H.; Onozawa, M.; Hinotsu, S. Prostate cancer trends in Asia. World J. Urol. 2017, 35, 859–865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Fuletra, J.G.; Kamenko, A.; Ramsey, F.; Eun, D.D.; Reese, A.C. African-American men with prostate cancer have larger tumor volume than Caucasian men despite no difference in serum prostate specific antigen. Can. J. Urol. 2018, 25, 9193–9198. [Google Scholar]
  62. Gupta, K.; Mehrotra, V.; Fu, P.; Scarberry, K.; MacLennan, G.T.; Gupta, S. Racial disparities in biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer. Am. J. Clin. Exp. Urol. 2022, 10, 266–270. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  63. Reinhardt, D.; Helfand, B.T.; Cooper, P.R.; Roehl, K.A.; Catalona, W.J.; Loeb, S. Prostate cancer risk alleles are associated with prostate cancer volume and prostate size. J. Urol. 2014, 191, 1733–1736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  64. Helfand, B.T.; Paterakos, M.; Wang, C.H.; Talaty, P.; Abran, J.; Bennett, J.; Hall, D.W.; Lehman, A.; Aboushwareb, T. The 17-gene Genomic Prostate Score assay as a predictor of biochemical recurrence in men with intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0273782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Santos, A.; Mattiolli, A.; Carvalheira, J.B.; Ferreira, U.; Camacho, M.; Silva, C.; Costa, F.; Matheus, W.; Lima, M.; Etchebehere, E. PSMA whole-body tumor burden in primary staging and biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2021, 48, 493–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Pinckaers, H.; van Ipenburg, J.; Melamed, J.; De Marzo, A.; Platz, E.A.; van Ginneken, B.; van der Laak, J.; Litjens, G. Predicting biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer with artificial intelligence. Commun. Med. 2022, 2, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Cancers 14 05823 g001 550
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of an anatomical division of the prostate. The location of the Anterior/Posterior and Peripheral/Transitional Zones are described. (A) Sagittal view. (B) Axial view.
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of an anatomical division of the prostate. The location of the Anterior/Posterior and Peripheral/Transitional Zones are described. (A) Sagittal view. (B) Axial view.
Cancers 14 05823 g001
Cancers 14 05823 g002 550
Figure 2. Prognostic significance of tumor location and tumor volume. (A) Patients with tumor in the PZ had significantly worse PFS than those in the TZ (p = 0.0354). (B) Patients with tumor in the posterior region had significantly worse PFS than those in the anterior region (p = 0.027). (C) There was no difference in PFS between apex and non-apex regions. (D) Patients with tumor volume ≥ 2.8 cc had significantly worse PFS than those <2.8 cc (p < 0.0001).
Figure 2. Prognostic significance of tumor location and tumor volume. (A) Patients with tumor in the PZ had significantly worse PFS than those in the TZ (p = 0.0354). (B) Patients with tumor in the posterior region had significantly worse PFS than those in the anterior region (p = 0.027). (C) There was no difference in PFS between apex and non-apex regions. (D) Patients with tumor volume ≥ 2.8 cc had significantly worse PFS than those <2.8 cc (p < 0.0001).
Cancers 14 05823 g002
Cancers 14 05823 g003 550
Figure 3. Prognostic model based on the location and tumor volume (A) Venn diagram of risk model based on the location and tumor volume. (B) Risk classification significantly differentiated the PFS between the Favorable and Unfavorable group (p = 0.001) and the Moderate and Unfavorable group (p < 0.0001). (C) The tumor volume showed significant differences among different risk groups.
Figure 3. Prognostic model based on the location and tumor volume (A) Venn diagram of risk model based on the location and tumor volume. (B) Risk classification significantly differentiated the PFS between the Favorable and Unfavorable group (p = 0.001) and the Moderate and Unfavorable group (p < 0.0001). (C) The tumor volume showed significant differences among different risk groups.
Cancers 14 05823 g003
Cancers 14 05823 g004 550
Figure 4. Prognostic significance of Tumor volume 2.8 cc based on the location. (A) Patients with tumor volume ≥ 2.8 cc had significantly worse PFS in the PZ (p < 0.0001). (B) Patients with tumor volume ≥ 2.8 cc had significantly worse PFS in the TZ (p = 0.0345). (C) Patients with tumor volume ≥ 2.8 cc had significantly worse PFS in the posterior region (p < 0.0001). (D) In the anterior region, there was no difference in PFS by tumor volume cutoff of 2.8 cc.
Figure 4. Prognostic significance of Tumor volume 2.8 cc based on the location. (A) Patients with tumor volume ≥ 2.8 cc had significantly worse PFS in the PZ (p < 0.0001). (B) Patients with tumor volume ≥ 2.8 cc had significantly worse PFS in the TZ (p = 0.0345). (C) Patients with tumor volume ≥ 2.8 cc had significantly worse PFS in the posterior region (p < 0.0001). (D) In the anterior region, there was no difference in PFS by tumor volume cutoff of 2.8 cc.
Cancers 14 05823 g004
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of patients.
Table 1. Characteristics of patients.
Characteristics
Number of patients557
Median age at operation (range), years67 (46–77)
Median follow-up time (range), months45.3 (12–161.5)
Median initial PSA (range) (ng/mL)7.71 (2.15–87.16)
Gleason score sum, n (%)
≤7444 (79.7)
848 (8.6)
≥961 (11.0)
T stage, n (%)
≤2b195 (35.0)
≥2c361 (64.8)
Risk Group; Low/Intermediate/High, n (%)77 (13.8)/279 (50.1)/201 (36.1)
Tumor Volume (range), cc2.12 (0.02–57)
Tumor Location, n (%)
apex355 (63.7)
middle353 (63.4)
bladder neck119 (21.4)
Tumor Location, n (%)
anterior268 (48.1)
posterior292 (52.4)
Tumor Location, n (%)
PZ374 (67.1)
TZ208 (37.3)
N stage, n (%)
positive8 (1.4)
Seminal Vesicle Invasion, n, (%)48 (8.6)
Extracapsular Extension, n, (%)138 (24.8)
Resection Margins, n, (%)169 (30.3)
PSA Recurrence, n, (%)66 (11.8)
PSA = prostate-specific antigen; T stage = tumor stage; N stage = lymph node stage; PZ = peripheral zone; TZ = transition zone.
Table
Table 2. Univariable and multivariable cox proportional hazard regression models in predictive factors for PFS in localized Pca (overall risk).
Table 2. Univariable and multivariable cox proportional hazard regression models in predictive factors for PFS in localized Pca (overall risk).
UnivariableMultivariable
Cut OffHR95% CIp ValueHR95% CIp Value
Age ≥670.96 0.59–1.570.8842
initial PSA ≥7.71 ng/mL1.65 1.00–2.730.0505
PSAD≥0.262.06 1.21–3.530.0082 1.51 0.73–3.090.2643
GS ≥71.15 0.46–2.880.7593
T stage ≥T34.66 2.81–7.73<0.00011.69 0.77–3.710.1894
RM positive4.18 2.46–7.10<0.00011.99 0.94–4.200.0712
Tumor location
Apex1.45 0.70–3.020.3166
PZ3.28 1.01–10.600.0472 2.21 0.49–10.050.3030
posterior2.24 1.07–4.650.0314 1.72 0.72–4.120.2193
TV
≥0.5 cc1.61 0.73–3.530.2344
≥1.0 cc2.18 1.11–4.270.0240
≥2.0 cc2.74 1.55–4.820.0005
≥2.8 cc **3.10 1.86–5.17<0.00012.47 1.14–5.360.0225 *
≥3.0 cc2.96 1.80–4.88<0.0001
≥3.5 cc2.801.72–4.58<0.0001
PSA = prostate-specific antigen; PSAD = prostate-specific antigen density; GS = Gleason score; T stage = tumor stage; RM = resection margins; HR = hazard ratio; CI = confidence interval; * p-value < 0.05, ** tumor volume cutoff value based on the ROC curve.
Table
Table 3. Univariable and multivariable cox proportional hazard regression models in predictive factors for PFS in localized Pca (overall risk) with unfavorable risk.
Table 3. Univariable and multivariable cox proportional hazard regression models in predictive factors for PFS in localized Pca (overall risk) with unfavorable risk.
UnivariableMultivariable
Cut OffHR95% CIp ValueHR95% CIp Value
Age ≥670.960.59–1.570.8842---
initial PSA ≥7.71 ng/mL1.651.00–2.730.0505---
PSAD≥0.262.061.21–3.530.00821.550.76–3.150.2307
GS ≥71.150.46–2.880.7593---
T stage ≥T34.662.81–7.73<0.00011.640.74–3.650.2261
RM positive4.182.46–7.10<0.00012.090.99–4.420.0548
Unfavorable RiskPZ + Post + TV2.8 cc4.742.60–8.65<0.00013.161.52–6.560.0020 *
PSA = prostate-specific antigen; PSAD = prostate-specific antigen density; GS = Gleason score; T stage = tumor stage; RM = resection margins; PZ + Post + TV2.8 cc = tumor volume ≥ 2.8 cc in posterior location of peripheral zone; HR = hazard ratio; CI = confidence interval; * p-value < 0.05.
Table
Table 4. Univariable and multivariable cox proportional hazard regression models in predictive factors for PFS in localized Pca (high risk).
Table 4. Univariable and multivariable cox proportional hazard regression models in predictive factors for PFS in localized Pca (high risk).
UnivariableMultivariable
Cut OffHR95% CIp ValueHR95% CIp Value
Age ≥670.760.40–1.470.4167---
initial PSA≥7.71 ng/mL1.040.52–2.080.9097---
PSAD≥0.261.90.82–4.400.1326---
GS ≥71.290.18–9.460.7991---
T stage ≥T34.382.11–9.10<0.00011.980.75–5.250.1701
RM positive4.652.16–10.02<0.00012.370.95–5.910.0649
Unfavorable RiskPZ + Post + TV2.8 cc3.51.64–7.470.00121.870.77–4.530.1653
PSA = Prostate Specific Antigen; PSAD = Prostate Specific Antigen Density; GS = Gleason Score; T stage = Tumor Stage; RM = Resection Margins; HR = Hazard Ratio; CI = Confidence Interval.
Table
Table 5. Univariable and multivariable cox proportional hazard regression models in predictive factors for PFS in localized Pca (low to intermediate risk).
Table 5. Univariable and multivariable cox proportional hazard regression models in predictive factors for PFS in localized Pca (low to intermediate risk).
UnivariableMultivariable
Cut OffHR95% CIp ValueHR95% CIp Value
Age ≥671.070.51–2.250.8546---
initial PSA≥7.71 ng/mL1.560.74–3.280.2458---
PSAD≥0.261.520.72–3.190.2716---
GS ≥70.740.26–2.150.5855---
T stage ≥T33.341.59–7.010.00150.970.28–3.380.961
RM positive3.031.42–6.470.00431.380.43–4.410.5904
Unfavorable RiskPZ + Post + TV2.8 cc4.711.75–12.690.00224.431.51–13.010.0068 *
PSA = prostate-specific antigen; PSAD = prostate-specific antigen density; GS = Gleason score; T stage = tumor stage; RM = resection margins; HR = hazard ratio; CI = confidence interval; PZ + Post + TV2.8 cc = tumor volume ≥ 2.8 cc in posterior location of the peripheral zone. * p-value < 0.05.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Baba, H.; Sakamoto, S.; Zhao, X.; Yamada, Y.; Rii, J.; Fujimoto, A.; Kanesaka, M.; Takeuchi, N.; Sazuka, T.; Imamura, Y.; et al. Tumor Location and a Tumor Volume over 2.8 cc Predict the Prognosis for Japanese Localized Prostate Cancer. Cancers 2022, 14, 5823. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14235823

AMA Style

Baba H, Sakamoto S, Zhao X, Yamada Y, Rii J, Fujimoto A, Kanesaka M, Takeuchi N, Sazuka T, Imamura Y, et al. Tumor Location and a Tumor Volume over 2.8 cc Predict the Prognosis for Japanese Localized Prostate Cancer. Cancers. 2022; 14(23):5823. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14235823

Chicago/Turabian Style

Baba, Haruki, Shinichi Sakamoto, Xue Zhao, Yasutaka Yamada, Junryo Rii, Ayumi Fujimoto, Manato Kanesaka, Nobuyoshi Takeuchi, Tomokazu Sazuka, Yusuke Imamura, and et al. 2022. "Tumor Location and a Tumor Volume over 2.8 cc Predict the Prognosis for Japanese Localized Prostate Cancer" Cancers 14, no. 23: 5823. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14235823

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop