期刊文献+

前列腺癌患者根治术后生化复发危险因素的单中心研究 被引量:20

Risk factors for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: a single center analysis
原文传递
导出
摘要 目的 回顾性分析前列腺癌患者根治术后生化复发生存曲线及其危险因素.方法 回顾性分析我院2000年5月至2015年3月1 122例行根治手术的前列腺癌患者资料.排除失访及术前、术后进行辅助治疗患者,883例纳入研究.生化复发定义为患者术后未进行内分泌治疗及放疗,随访过程中连续2次前列腺特异性抗原(PSA) ≥0.2 μg/L.使用Kaplan-Meier法绘制无生化复发生存曲线,采用Log-rank对确诊时年龄,术前PSA,手术方式,不同手术方式下早、中、后期手术,术后病理情况(包膜是否侵犯、精囊是否侵犯、切缘是否阳性、区域淋巴结是否转移、术后Gleason评分)进行单因素分析.运用Cox比例风险模型行多因素分析.结果 中位随访7个月.883例患者中251例发生生化复发,总生化复发率为28.4%,患者3、5年无生化复发生存率为60.5%和45.3%.术后Gleason评分>7(HR=1.774,95% CIl.358~2.316,P<0.001)、术前PSA≥10 μg/L(HR=1.758,95% CI 1.288 ~2.399,P<0.001)和精囊侵犯(HR=1.512,95% CIl.049 ~2.177,P=0.027)均是前列腺癌患者根治术后生化复发的高危因素.结论 术前PSA、精囊侵犯和术后Gleason评分是前列腺癌患者根治术后生化复发的危险因素.需要更大样本量及更长时间的随访研究进行验证. Objective To analyze biochemical recurrence (BCR) survival curve and its risk factors of patients receiving radical prostatectomy.Methods 1 122 patients treated with radical prostatectomy were retrospectively collected from May,2000 to March,2015.The patients who lost follow-up or had adjuvant radiation or hormonal therapy were excluded,the remaining 883 patients were evaluated in the present study.BCR was defined as follow-up prostate specific antigen(PSA) level ≥0.2 μg/L on two separate occasions.Kaplan-Meier curves and Log-rank test were used for univariate anaysis of BCR,including age,preoperative PSA,surgical procedure,early or middle or later period in different surgical manner,pathological status (capsula,seminal vesicle,surgical margin,lymph node status,Gleason score).Cox regression analyses were performed for multivariate analysis.Results At a median follow-up of 7 months,251 out of 883 had BCR,the overall BCR rate was 28.4%.Overall 3-year and 5-year BCR-free survival rates were 60.5% and 45.3%,respectively.On the multivariate analysis,pathological Gleason score 〉 7 (HR =1.774,95% CI 1.358-2.316,P 〈 0.001),preoperative PSA ≥ 10 μg/L (HR =1.758,95% CI 1.288-2.399,P 〈 0.001) and seminal vesicle invasion (HR =1.512,95% CI 1.049-2.177,P =0.027) were significantly associated with BCR.Conclusions Preoperative PSA,seminal vesicle invasion and pathological Gleason score were found to be risk factors of BCR.Larger study and longer follow-up period are needed to confirm the present study's conclusions.
出处 《中华泌尿外科杂志》 CAS CSCD 北大核心 2015年第8期573-577,共5页 Chinese Journal of Urology
关键词 前列腺肿瘤 根治性前列腺切除术 随访研究 生化复发 危险因素 Prostatic neoplasms Radical prostatectomy Follow-up studies Biochemical recurrence Risk factors
  • 相关文献

参考文献3

二级参考文献18

  • 1Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al. Cancer statistics,2007. CA Cancer J Clin, 2007, 57 ( 1 ) : 43..66.
  • 2Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subong EN, et al. Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update. JAMA, 1997, 277 (18): 1445-1451.
  • 3Seaman EK, Whang IS, Cooner W, et al. Predictive value of prostate specific antigen density for the presence of mierometastatic carcinoma of the prostate. Urology, 1994, 43 (5) : 645-648.
  • 4Taneja SS, Hsu EI, Cheli CD, et al. Complexed prostate specific antigen as a staging tool: Results based on a muhicenter prospective evaluation of complexed prostate specific antigen in cancer diagnosis. Urology, 2002, 60( 4 Supp 1) : 10-17.
  • 5Horiguchi A, Nakashima J, Horiguchi Y,et al. Prediction of extraprostatic cancer by prostate specific antigen density, endorectal MRI, and biopsy Gleason score in clinically localized prostate cancer. Prostate, 2003, 56( 1 ) : 23-29.
  • 6Shinohara K, Wolf JS Jr, Narayan P, et al. Comparison of prostate specific antigen with prostate specific antigen density for 3 cli-nical applications. J Urol, 1994, 152 (1) : 120-123.
  • 7Custovic Z, Kraus O, Tomaskovic I, et al. Serum tPSA, cPSA, related density parameters and chromogranin A as predictors of positive margins after radical prostatectomy. Anticancer Res, 2007, 27(4C) : 2817-2821.
  • 8Giannarini G, Scott CA, Moro U, et al. Are PSA density and PSA density of the transition zone more accurate than PSA in pre- dicting the pathological stage of clinically localized prostate cancer? Uro! Oncol, 2008, 26(4) : 353-360.
  • 9Poulakis V, Witzsch U, De Vries R, et al. Preoperative neural network using combined magnetic resonance imaging variables, prostate specific antigen, and Gleason score to predict prostate cancer stage. J Urol, 2004, 172(4 Pt 1) : 1306-1310.
  • 10Tombal B, Querton M, de Nayer P, et al. Free / total PSA ratio does not improve prediction of pathologic stage and biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Urology, 2002, 59 (2) : 256 -260.

共引文献794

同被引文献166

  • 1Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, et al. Global cancer statis- tics[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2011,61 (2) :69-90.
  • 2Menon M, Bhandari M, Gupta N, et al. Biochemical reur- renee following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy:Anal- ysis of 1384 patients with a median 5-year follow-up[J]. Eur Urol, 2010,58 (6) : 838 -846.
  • 3Abern MR,Terris MK,Aronsen WJ,et al. The impact of pathologic staging on the long-term oncologic outcomes of patients with clinically high ,risk prostate cancer[J].Cancer, 2014,120( 11 ) : 1656-1662.
  • 4Ritch CR,You C,May AT,et al. Biochemical recur- rence-free survival after robotic-assisted laparoscopic vs open radical prostateetomy for intermediate and high- risk prostate cancer[J]. Urology, 2014,83 (6) : 1309-1315.
  • 5Bell N, Connor Gorber S,Shane A, et al. Recommenda- tions on screening for prostate cancer with the prostate- specific antigen test[J]. CMAJ,2014,186(16) : 1225-1234.
  • 6Diaz M,Peabody JO,Kapoor V,et al. Oncologic outcomes at 10 years following robotic radical prostatectomy [J]. Eur Urol,2015,67(8) : 1168-1176.
  • 7Zareba P, Zhang J, Yilmaz A, et al. The impact of the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology(ISUP) consensus on Gleason grading in contemporary practice [J]. Histopathology, 2009,55:384-391. DIO : 10.1111/j. 1365-2559. 2009. 03405. x.
  • 8Phillip MP, Patrick CW, Alan WP, et al. Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system[ J]. BJU Int, 2013, 111: 753-760. DOI: 10. llll/j. 1464-410X. 2012. 11611. x.
  • 9Loeb S,Folkvaljon Y, Robinson D, et al. Evaluation of the 2015 gleason grade groups in a nationwide population-based cohort [ J ]. Eur Urol,2015,15 : 1207. DOI : 10. 1016/j. eururo. 2015.11. 036.
  • 10Epstein JI, Allsbrook JW, Amin MB,et al. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma [ J ]. Am J Surg Pathol, 2005,29:1228-1242.

引证文献20

二级引证文献179

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部