4.5 Article

Histological characteristics of the index lesion in whole-mount radical prostatectomy specimens: implications for focal therapy

期刊

PROSTATE CANCER AND PROSTATIC DISEASES
卷 14, 期 1, 页码 46-52

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/pcan.2010.16

关键词

prostatic neoplasm; ultrasound; high intensity focused; transrectal

资金

  1. USHIFU/Misonix/UKHIFU/Focus Surgery
  2. Medical Research Council, Pelican Cancer Foundation, Prostate UK
  3. Prostate Cancer Research Centre
  4. St Peters Trust
  5. MRC [G0701302, G1002509] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Medical Research Council [G0701302, G1002509] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It has been suggested that in multifocal prostate cancer (PCa), focal therapy to the largest (index) lesion is sufficient, because secondary non-index lesions are unlikely to contribute to disease progression. In this study, the role of PCa focality in selecting men for focal therapy was evaluated. A histopathological analysis of the index and non-index lesions of 100 consecutive radical prostatectomy specimens was carried out. Cases that would have been suitable for focal ablation were also evaluated. Tumours were more often multifocal (78%) and bilateral (86%). In total, 270 tumour foci were identified. In multifocal disease, tumour volume, Gleason score and pathological stage were almost invariably defined by the index lesion of the specimen; among the 170 satellite foci, 148 (87%) were < 0.5cm(3) and 169 (99.4%) had Gleason score <= 6. Using the defined criteria, 51% of men in this series would have been considered suitable for focal ablation of the index lesion. Histological features of poor prognosis in the prostate are associated with the index lesion. There is a high proportion of patients who may be suitable for focal therapy, and clinical trials of index lesion ablation should be considered as part of this therapeutic strategy. Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases (2011) 14, 46-52; doi: 10.1038/pcan.2010.16; published online 25 May 2010

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据