4.6 Article

Low serum testosterone levels are associated with positive surgical margins in radical retropubic prostatectomy: Hypogonadism represents bad prognosis in prostate cancer

期刊

JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 174, 期 6, 页码 2178-2180

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000181818.51977.29

关键词

testosterone; prostatic neoplasms; prostatectomy; hypogonadism; prognosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: It has been reported that more aggressive prostate cancer (PC) can be associated with low serum testosterone levels. The relationship between serum androgens and PC is still not completely understood. In this study we examined the association of prognostic factors in men who underwent radical retropubic (RRP) prostatectomy with low or normal total testosterone. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 64 consecutive patients with localized PC treated with RRP between July 2002 and November 2003. PC was diagnosed by transrectal ultrasonography guided biopsy performed for either a suspicious digital rectal examination or serum prostate specific antigen greater than 4.0 ng/ml. Gleason score was determined in prostatic biopsies. Pathological TNM staging (1997), capsular perforation, seminal vesicle involvement and surgical margin status were determined in all surgical specimens. The threshold for serum total testosterone was 270 ng/dl. In all analyses p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: There were no statistically significant differences among prostate specific antigen, Gleason score (biopsy or specimen), pathological stage, capsular perforation and seminal vesicle involvement. However, patients with low total testosterone had increased positive surgical margins (p = 0.026). Conclusions: Patients with low total testosterone more frequently present with positive surgical margins in RRP specimens. The true association between low testosterone and poor clinical outcome in the long term needs validation in large prospective studies.

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