Background: To define whether in locally advanced prostate cancer submitted to radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) the presence of a Gleason score 8–10 represents an index of high risk for progression and cancer-specific death. Methods: Finally, a total of 130 men with pathologically confirmed T3 cancer were included in this analysis. On the basis of the histological grade obtained at RRP, patients were divided into two groups: patients with a Gleason score 8–10 (group 1) and patients with a Gleason score <8 (group 2). Postoperative follow-up ranged from 24 to 120 months (median 60). After RRP no patients received additional treatments until a biochemical or clinical disease progression was found. Kaplan-Meier projections were used in each group. Results: After RRP, 41 patients (31.5%) had a Gleason score 8–10 tumor. The incidence of positive lymph nodes was significantly higher (p = 0.0030) in group 1 (36.6%) when compared with group 2 (12.3%). Significant differences between the two groups were also found with respect to seminal vesicle involvement (p = 0.0045) and positive surgical margins (p = 0.0040). The actuarial cumulative disease-specific survival for group 1 and group 2 was, respectively, 69 and 82% at 10 years. A Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated a 100% disease-specific survival, a 92% clinical progression-free survival and a 38% biochemical progression-free survival 10 years postoperatively if patients in group 1 had negative surgical margins and negative lymph nodes (48.8%). Conclusions: Our data indicate a significant association between Gleason score 8–10 and disease-specific survival, only if patients in group 1 are stratified on the basis of surgical margins and/or lymph node involvement.

Keywords:
Prostate cancer, Radical prostatectomy, Gleason score, Tumors, locally advanced
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2003 S. Karger AG, Basel
2003
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.