4.6 Article

Disease-specific survival of patients with invasive cribriform and intraductal prostate cancer at diagnostic biopsy

期刊

MODERN PATHOLOGY
卷 29, 期 6, 页码 630-636

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2016.49

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Invasive cribriform and intraductal carcinoma in radical prostatectomy specimens have been associated with an adverse clinical outcome. Our objective was to determine the prognostic value of invasive cribriform and intraductal carcinoma in pre-treatment biopsies on time to disease-specific death. We pathologically revised the diagnostic biopsies of 1031 patients from the first screening round of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (1993-2000). Ninety percent of all patients (n=923) had received active treatment, whereas 10% (n=108) had been followed by watchful waiting. The median follow-up was 13 years. Patients who either had invasive cribriform growth pattern or intraductal carcinoma were categorized as CR/IDC+. The outcome was disease-specific survival. Relationships with outcome were analyzed using multivariable Cox regression and log-rank analysis. In total, 486 patients had Gleason score 6 (47%) and 545 had >= 7 (53%). The 15-year disease-specific-survival probabilities were 99% in Gleason score 6 (n = 486), 94% in CR/IDC - Gleason score >= 7 (n = 356) and 67% in CR/IDC+ Gleason score >= 7 (n = 189). CR/IDC- Gleason score 3+4 = 7 patients did not have statistically different survival probabilities from those with Gleason score 6 (P=0.30), while CR/IDC+ Gleason score 3+4 = 7 patients did (P < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, CR/IDC+ status was independently associated with a poorer disease-specific survival (HR 2.6, 95% CI 1.4-4.8, P=0.002). We conclude that CR/IDC+ status in prostate cancer biopsies is associated with a worse disease-specific survival. Our findings indicate that men with biopsy CR/IDC- Gleason score 3+4 = 7 prostate cancer could be candidates for active surveillance, as these patients have similar survival probabilities to those with Gleason score 6.

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

4.6
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