Previous studies investigating prostate cancer (PCa) features in younger men have reported conflicting findings. This study aimed to investigate pathologic outcomes and biochemical recurrence (BCR) status in younger men who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) for PCa. Records of 2057 patients who underwent RP at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital (Seongnam, Korea) between 2006 and 2015 were reviewed; patients were divided according to age into the younger and older groups (men aged ≤50 and >50 years, respectively). Postoperative BCR status and functional outcomes and clinicopathologic features were compared between both groups. All analyses were repeated after propensity score matching. Younger men were more likely to have low-risk disease (P < 0.001), lower pathologic Gleason score (P < 0.001) and pathologic stages (P < 0.001) than older men. The pathologic Gleason score (P = 0.002) and rates of extracapsular extension (P = 0.004) were lower in younger men after propensity score matching. In multivariate analysis, age at RP was not an independent predictor of BCR-free survival after RP (P = 0.669). Moreover, at 1 year after RP, younger men with preoperative 5-item International Index of Erectile Function score ≥22 (n = 228) showed more favorable results for urinary continence (defined as nonuse of pads daily) (99.4% vs 95%, P = 0.009) and erections sufficient for vaginal intercourse (81.8% vs 55.5%, P = 0.001). Younger men had more favorable clinicopathologic features at RP than their older counterparts. Although age was not an independent predictor of BCR status outcome, younger men had better functional outcomes following RP.
In low-risk PCa patients without hypointense lesions on an ADC map, biopsy-related parameters such as the percentage of positive cores and the percentage of cancer in the positive cores were independent predictors of pathological upgrading following radical prostatectomy.
Purpose: We aimed to study clinicopathological parameters and complications of patients who underwent magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasonography fusion guided prostate biopsy (MRI-TRUS FGB). Materials and Methods: We investigated 576 patients who underwent MRI-TRUS FGB of prostate from May 2003 to December 2017 retrospectively. The clinicopathological features and complications were presented, using the modified Clavien-Dindo classification system. Results: Fourteen patients (2.4%) readmitted within 30 days after MRI-TRUS FGB due to complications, and 85.7% (12 of 14) of them complained mild to moderate complications, the Clavien-Dindo classification grades I and II. The most common complication was hematuria (n=5, 0.9%), followed by acute urinary retention (n=3, 0.5%), dysuria (n=2, 0.3%), fever (n=1, 0.2%), hematochezia (n=1, 0.2%). According to multivariate analysis, only age was the significant risk factor of overall complications and bleeding related complications. Two hundred thirteen patients were diagnosed as prostate cancer after MRI-TRUS FGB. When the Likert suspicious scale of prostate cancer on apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) was ≤4, 27.8% (137 of 493) were diagnosed as prostate cancer, of whom 56.2% (77 of 137) were confirmed as prostate cancer only at randomized 12 cores. When the ADC suspicious level was grade 5, 91.6% (76 of 83) were diagnosed as prostate cancer, of whom 11.8% (7 of 76) were confirmed as prostate cancer only at randomized 12 cores. Conclusions: The present study demonstrates the safety of MRI-TRUS FGB in terms of complications. When ADC suspicious level is grade 5, MRI-TRUS FGB alone could be a reasonable measure to diagnose prostate cancer, but randomized 12-core prostate biopsy would be recommended additionally when ADC suspicious level is ≤4.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.