Purpose: The study aimed to evaluate associations of basal levels of total testosterone (TT) with tumor upgrading to high risk disease in low-intermediate risk prostate cancer (PCA). Materials and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated the records of 135 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Evaluated factors included age, body mass index, prostate specific antigen (PSA), TT, prostate volume, PSA density (PSAD), proportion of biopsy positive cores (P+), clinical tumor stage, and biopsy grading system (1 or 2). Factors associating with tumor upgrading were investigated by the multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results: Tumor upgrading rate to high risk disease was 8.9%. TT, PSA, and PSAD were associated with tumor upgrading. On multivariate analysis, independent factors predicting tumor upgrading were PSA (OR 1.324; p = 0.001) and TT (OR 1.005; p = 0.015). Basal TT was dichotomized up to the third quartile (TT > q3) vs. TT ≤ q3 (426.0 ng/dL). The assessed tumor upgrading risk model showed that TT dichotomized to third quartile (TT > q3 vs. TT ≤ q3) stratified the risk of tumor upgrading (OR 6.577; p = 0.010) along increasing levels of PSA (OR 1.3; p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Low and intermediate risk PCA patients show a not negligible risk of tumor upgrading to high risk disease. In this particular subset of patients, basal levels of TT stratify the risk of tumor upgrading.

Keywords:
Prostate cancer, Radical prostatectomy, Tumor upgrading, Class risk, Active surveillance
1.
Huggins C, Hodges CV: Studies on prostatic cancer. I. The effect of castration, of estrogen and of androgen injection on serum phosphatases in metastatic carcinoma of the prostate. Cancer Res 1941;1:293.
2.
Stamey TA, Yang N, Hay AR, McNeal JE, Freiha FS, Redwine E: Prostate-specific antigen as a serum marker for adenocarcinoma of the prostate. N Engl J Med 1987;317:909-916.
3.
Armbruster DA: Prostate-specific antigen: biochemistry, analytical methods, and clinical application. Clin Chem 1993;39:181-195.
4.
Miller LR, Partin AW, Chan DW, et al: Influence of radical prostatectomy on serum hormone levels. J Urol 1998;160:449-453.
5.
D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al: Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998;280:969-974.
6.
Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI: Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int 2013;111:753-760.
7.
Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD, et al: A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur Urol 2016;69:428-435.
8.
Thomsen FB, Brasso K, Klotz LH, Roder MA, Berg KD, Iversen P: Active surveillance for clinically localized prostate cancer - a systematic review. J Surg Oncol 2014;109:830-835.
9.
Morash C, Tey R, Agbassi C, et al: Active surveillance for the management of localized prostate cancer: guideline recommendations. Can Urol Assoc J 2015;9:171-178.
10.
Romero-Otero J, Garcia-Gomez B, Duarte-Ojeda JM, et al: Active surveillance for prostate cancer. Int J Urol 2016;23:2011.
11.
Caster JM, Falchook AD, Hendrix LH, Chen RC: Risk of pathologic upgrading or locally advanced disease in early prostate cancer patients based on biopsy Gleason score and PSA: a population-based study of modern patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2015;92:244-251.
12.
Schiffmann J, Wenzel P, Salomon G, et al: Heterogeneity in D'Amico classification-based low-risk prostate cancer: differences in upgrading and upstaging according to active surveillance eligibility. Urol Oncol 2015;33:329.e13-e19.
13.
Porcaro AB, Siracusano S, De Luyk N, et al: Low-risk prostate cancer and tumor upgrading to higher patterns in the surgical specimen. Analysis of clinical factors predicting tumor upgrading to higher Gleason patterns in a contemporary series of patients who have been evaluated according to the modified Gleason score grading system. Urol Int 2016;97:32-41.
14.
Klap J, Schmid M, Loughlin K: The relationship between total testosterone levels and prostate cancer: a review of the continuing controversy. J Urol 2015;193:403-413.
15.
Loughlin KR: The testosterone conundrum: the putative relationship between testosterone levels and prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 2016;34:482.e1-482.e4.
16.
Porcaro AB, Petrozziello A, Ghimenton C, et al: Serum total testosterone is a significant preoperative variable independently contributing to separating the prostate cancer population into prostatectomy Gleason score groups. Urol Int 2013;91:55-61.
17.
Porcaro AB, Petrozziello A, Ghimenton C, et al: Associations of pretreatment serum total testosterone measurements with pathology-detected Gleason score cancer. Urol Int 2014;93:269-278.
18.
Porcaro AB, Petroziello A, Brunelli M, et al: High testosterone preoperative plasma levels independently predict biopsy Gleason score upgrading in men with prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy. Urol Int 2016;96:470-478.
19.
Srigley JR, Humphrey PA, Amin MB, et al: Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with carcinoma of the prostate gland. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2009;133:1568-1576.
20.
Thompson IM, Chi C, Ankerst DP, Goodman PJ, Tangen CM, Lippman Sm, Lucia MS, Parnes HL, Coltman CA Jr: Effect of finasteride on the sensitivity of PSA for detecting prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98:1128-1133.
21.
Peskoe SB, Joshu CE, Rohrmann S, et al: Circulating total testosterone and PSA concentrations in a nationally representative sample of men without a diagnosis of prostate cancer. Prostate 2015;75:1167-1176.
© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel
2017
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.