Andrade-Platas JD, Fernández-Carreño AJ, Mata-Miranda M, Parraguirre-Martínez S, Morales-Montor JG, Pacheco-Gahbler C, Calderón-Ferro F

Language: Spanish
References: 19
Page: 314-317
PDF size: 138.52 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Radical prostatectomy is the most common treatment method in Mexico for patients presenting with clinically localized prostate cancer. Different options for managing these patients after radical prostatectomy include observation, radiotherapy, the different modalities of hormone therapy and even a combination of radiotherapy and hormone therapy.
Materials and methods: An analytical cross-sectional study was carried out. The case records of 176 patients that had undergone radical retropubic prostatectomy forclinically localized cancer from June 1991 to August 2007 were reviewed. The analyzed variables were: age at the time of surgery, initial prostate specific antigen (PSA), Biopsy Gleason score, clinical and pathological stages, definitive Gleason score, adjuvant treatment received, biochemical recurrence and death.
Results: A total of 66 patients presenting with locally advanced disease and a mean follow-up period of 74 months were included in the study. There was a 3-year follow-up for 54 patients, a 5-year follow-up for 39 patients, a 10-year follow-up for 9 patients and a 15-year follow-up for 3 patients. Overall survival rate was 97%; survival rate at 5 years was 95% and at 10 years was 85%. Overall biochemical recurrence-free survival for patients receiving adjuvant treatment was 68% and at 3 years was 51%. There was biochemical recurrence in 21 of the 27 patients that were treated only with observation, resulting in a percentage of 77% in a mean time of 26 months.
Conclusions: Biochemical recurrence did not present in stage pT3 patients that received a second treatment after radical prostatectomy. Even though the patients received different second treatments, overall survival rate was 97%. This is comparable with the published results for series in large uro-oncological centers. There was a low incidence of hormone-refractory patients (only 3%).

REFERENCES

2. Carver BS, Bianco FJ, Scardino PT, Eastham JA. Long-Term Outcome Following Radical Prostatectomy in Men With Clinical Stage T3 Prostate Cancer. J Urol 2006;176:564-568.

3. Wirth MP, Hakenberg OW, Froehner M. Optimal treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer. World J Urol 2007;25:169-176.

4. Aragón CMA, et al. Primer Consenso Nacional sobre el Manejo del Cáncer de Próstata T3. Rev Mex Urol 2005:65:217-220.

5. Van Den Ouden D, Hop WCJ, Schröder FH. Progression in and survival of patients with locally advanced prostate cancer (T3) treated with radical prostatectomy as monotherapy. J Urol 1998;160:1392-1397.

6. Granfors T, Modig H, Damber JE, Tomic R. Long-Term followup of a randomized study of locally advanced prostate cancer treated with combined orchiectomy and external radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone. J Urol 2006;176:544-547.

7. Boustead G, Edwards SJ. Systematic review of early vs. deferred hormonal treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BJU Int 2007;99:1383-1389.

8. Freedland SJ, Aronson WJ, Presti JC, Kane CJ et al. Should a positive surgical margin following radicalprostatectomy be pathologicalstage t2 or t3? Results from the search database. J Urol 2003;169: 2142-2146.

9. Swanson GP. Management of locally advanced prostate cancer: past present, future. J Urol 2006;176:S34-S41.