4.6 Article

The long-term clinical impact of biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer 5 or more years after radical prostatectomy

期刊

JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 170, 期 5, 页码 1872-1876

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000091876.13656.2e

关键词

disease progression; follow-up studies; prostate-specific antigen; prostatectomy; prostatic neoplasms

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Information regarding the clinical impact of delayed (5 years or greater) biochemical failure (BF) after radical prostatectomy (RP) is lacking. We undertook an investigation to differentiate the innocuous recurrence of serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) from that which heralds an eventual clinical failure (CF), and to determine if there is a period following RP when a patient is cured of clinical disease. Materials and Methods: Men with clinically localized prostate cancer (PCA) undergoing RP (1987 to 1995) were identified from our longitudinal PCA registry. Outcome measurements were based on the detection of post-RP serum PSA 0.4 ng/ml or greater, clinical identification of cancer recurrence and disease related death. Results: Following RP in 3,903 eligible men, 33% had a detectable PSA (median followup 8.8 years). Of these BFs 27% occurred after 5 or more disease-free years. Currently, 29% of all men with BF have clinical evidence of PCA, with 8% dying of PCA (median actuarial survival time from CF to death 9.8 years). Progression from BF to CF was not significantly altered by the disease-free interval (p = 0.544). A PSA doubling time less than 12 months significantly increased the risk of CF regardless of the interval from surgery. Risk factors for BF were significant throughout the duration of followup. Conclusions: Patients are at prolonged risk for BF and CF following RP. Regardless of the timing of the initial PSA recurrence the PSA doubling time is the most powerful predictor of progression, stratifying patients with BF into high and low risk groups for CF.

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