Author:
Porcaro Antonio Benito,Gallina Sebastian,Bianchi Alberto,Tafuri Alessandro,Serafin Emanuele,Panunzio Andrea,Mazzucato Giovanni,Orlando Rossella,Ditonno Francesco,Ornaghi Paola Irene,Rizzetto Riccardo,Cerrato Clara,De Marco Vincenzo,Brunelli Matteo,Siracusano Salvatore,Cerruto Maria Angela,Antonelli Alessandro
Abstract
Abstract
Objective
This study aimed to evaluate the impact of palpable prostate tumors on digital rectal exam (DRE) on the disease progression of prostate cancer (PCa) treated with RARP surgery in a tertiary referral center.
Materials and methods
Overall, 901 patients were evaluated in a period ranging from January 2013 to October 2020. In the surgical specimen, unfavorable pathology included ISUP grade group ≥3, seminal vesicle invasion (SVI), and pelvic lymph node invasion (PLNI). Disease progression was defined as the occurrence of biochemical recurrence and/or local recurrence and/or distant metastases; its association with the primary endpoint was evaluated by Cox’s proportional model.
Results
Palpable prostate tumors were detected in 359 (39.8%) patients. The overall median (IQR) follow-up was 40 months (17–59). PCa progressed in 159 cases (17.6%). Nodularity or induration of the prostate at DRE was significantly associated with features of unfavorable pathology, increased risk of PCa progression (hazard ratio, HR = 1.902; 95% CI: 1.389–2.605; p < 0.0001) and, on multivariable analysis, was an independent prognostic factor for disease progression after adjusting for clinical and pathological variables.
Conclusions
Prostate tumors presenting with an abnormal DRE finding have an independent adverse outcome for disease progression after PCa surgery. They provide also independent prognostic information, as they may be more aggressive than impalpable PCa.
Funder
Università degli Studi di Verona
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Health Informatics,Surgery
Reference11 articles.
1. Mottet N, Cornford P, van den Bergh RCN et al (2022) EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. In: European Association of Urology. https://uroweb.org/guidelines/prostate-cancer. Accessed 15 Nov 2022
2. Schaeffer E, Srinivas S, An Y et al (2022) Prostate cancer, version 1.2023, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. In: National Comprehensive Cancer Network. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate.pdf. Accessed 15 Nov 2022
3. van den Broeck T, van den Bergh RCN, Arfi N et al (2019) Prognostic value of biochemical recurrence following treatment with curative intent for prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 75:967–987. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EURURO.2018.10.011
4. Dripps RD (1961) The role of anesthesia in surgical mortality. JAMA 178:261. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1961.03040420001001
5. Sebben M, Tafuri A, Shakir A et al (2020) The impact of extended pelvic lymph node dissection on the risk of hospital readmission within 180 days after robot assisted radical prostatectomy. World J Urol 38:2799–2809. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00345-020-03094-2