Prognostic Implication of Microvascular Invasion in Biochemical Failure in Patients Treated with Radical ProstatectomyIto K.a · Nakashima J.a · Mukai M.b · Asakura H.a · Ohigashi T.a · Saito S.a · Tachibana M.a · Hata J.-i.b · Murai M.a
Departments of aUrology and bPathology, School of Medicine, Keio University, Tokyo, Japan
Do you have an account?
- Rent for 48h to view
- Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
- Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
- Printing and saving restrictions apply
Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00
Article / Publication Details
Introduction: Micrometastasis before radical prostatectomy (RP) is considered to be related to the biochemical failure after surgery in patients with prostate cancer. To predict the biochemical failure, we evaluated microvascular (lymphatic/vascular) invasion and other pathological findings as prognostic factors for biochemical failure after RP. Materials and Methods: Eighty-two men who underwent RPs and received neither preoperative nor postoperative adjuvant therapy were analyzed. Pathological findings of each patient were carefully reviewed to determine pathological factors predicting biochemical failure. The influence of pathological findings on the biochemical failure was evaluated. Results: The overall biochemically assessed disease-free survival rate was 55.7% at 3 years. By univariate analysis, Gleason sum, capsular penetration, and microvascular invasion were significantly associated with the rate of biochemical failure. Microvascular invasion was strongly correlated with Gleason sum, capsular penetration, surgical margin, perineural invasion, and pathological stage. By multivariate analysis, Gleason sum, capsular penetration, and microvascular invasion were independent predictors of biochemical failure. Conclusion: This study suggests that in addition to Gleason grade and capsular penetration, microvascular invasion is one of independent prognostic factors in patients with prostate cancer treated with RPs.
© 2003 S. Karger AG, Basel
Lerner SE, Blute ML, Zincke H: Risk factors for progression in patients with prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy. Semin Urol Oncol 1996;14(suppl 2):12–20.
- Murphy GP, Mettlin C, Menck H, Winchester DP, Davidson AM: National patterns of prostate cancer treatment by radical prostatectomy: Results of a survey by the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer. J Urol 1994;152:1817–1819.
- Trapasso JG, deKernion JB, Smith RB, Dorey F: The incidence and significance of detectable levels of serum prostate-specific antigen after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1994;152:1821–1825.
- Oesterling JE: Prostate specific antigen: A critical assessment of the most useful tumor marker for adenocarcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 1991;145:907–923.
Bahnson RR, Dresner SM, Gooding W, Becich MJ: Incidence and prognostic significance of lymphatic and vascular invasion in radical prostatectomy specimens. Prostate 1989;15/2:149–155.
- McNeal JE, Yemoto CE: Significance of demonstrable vascular space invasion for the progression of prostatic adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 1996;20:1351–1360.
- Salomao DR, Graham SD, Bostwick DG: Microvascular invasion in prostate cancer correlates with pathologic stage. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1995;119:1050–1054.
- Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Yemoto CM, Sigal BM, Johnstone IM: Biological determinants of cancer progression in men with prostate cancer. JAMA 1999;281:1395–1400.
van den Ouden D, Kranse R, Hop WC, van der Kwast TH, Schroder FH: Microvascular invasion in prostate cancer: Prognostic significance in patients treated by radical prostatectomy for clinically localized carcinoma. Urol Int 1998;60/1:17–24.
Partin AW, Borland RN, Epstein JI, Brendler CB: Influence of wide excision of the neurovascular bundle(s) on prognosis in men with clinically localized prostate cancer with established capsular penetration. J Urol 1993;150/1:142–146.
- Catalona WJ, Smith DS: 5-year tumor recurrence rates after anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 1994;152:1837–1842.
Slawin KM, Ohori M, Dillioglugil O, Scardino PT: Screening for prostate cancer: An analysis of the early experience. CA Cancer J Clin 1995;45/3:134–147.
Lerner SE, Blute ML, Bergstralh EJ, Bostwick DG, Eickholt JT, Zincke H: Analysis of risk factors for progression in patients with pathologically confined prostate cancers after radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 1996;156/1:137–143.
- Epstein JI, Carmichael M, Partin AW, Walsh PC: Is tumor volume an independent predictor of progression following radical prostatectomy? A multivariate analysis of 185 clinical stage B adenocarcinomas of the prostate with 5 years of follow-up. J Urol 1993;149:1478–1481.
Epstein JI, Carmichael MJ, Pizov G, Walsh PC: Influence of capsular penetration on progression following radical prostatectomy: A study of 196 cases with long-term follow-up. J Urol 1993;150/1:135–141.
- Epstein JI, Carmichael M, Walsh PC: Adenocarcinoma of the prostate invading the seminal vesicle: Definition and relation of tumor volume, grade and margins of resection to prognosis. J Urol 1993;149:1040–1045.
Lopez JI, Angulo JC: The prognostic significance of vascular invasion in stage T1 bladder cancer. Histopathology 1995;27/1:27–33.
- Lee AK, DeLellis RA, Silverman ML, Wolfe HJ: Lymphatic and blood vessel invasion in breast carcinoma: A useful prognostic indicator? Hum Pathol 1986;17:984–987.
- Gervasi LA, Mata J, Easley JD, Wilbanks JH, Seale-Hawkins C, Carlton CE, Scardino PT: Prognostic significance of lymph nodal metastases in prostate cancer. J Urol 1989;142:332–336.
- Endrizzi J, Seay T: The relationship between early biochemical failure and perineural invasion in pathological T2 prostate cancer. BJU Int 2000;85:696–698.
- Villers A, McNeal JE, Redwine EA, Freiha FS, Stamey TA: The role of perineural space invasion in the local spread of prostatic adenocarcinoma. J Urol 1989;142:763–768.
- Stone NN, Stock RG, Parikh D, Yeghiayan P, Unger P: Perineural invasion and seminal vesicle involvement predict pelvic lymph node metastasis in men with localized carcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 1998;160:1722–1726.
Article / Publication Details
Copyright / Drug Dosage / DisclaimerCopyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.