Predictive factors and the important role of detectable prostate-specific antigen for detection of clinical recurrence and cancer-specific mortality following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy
To evaluate predictive factors associated with detectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and describe clinical recurrence (CR) and cancer-specific mortality (CSM) after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).
The study included 2500 patients who were treated with RARP at a single institution between 2000 and 2016. All patients had clinically localized PCa. Patients were divided into two groups according to PSA value at 6 weeks after surgery: undetectable (n = 2271; PSA < 0.1 ng/dl) and persistently elevated (n = 229; PSA ≥ 0.1 ng/dl). The association between various covariates and: (1) detectable PSA and (2) CR was evaluated. Kaplan–Meier analyses estimated CR and CSM rates according to PSA persistence.
Inside the group of detectable PSA, 146 men (63.75%) received adjuvant treatments, 44 patients (19.21%) salvages therapies and 38 men (16.5%) experienced CR. Factors associated with aggressive disease predicted PSA persistence. Within patients with detectable PSA, pathologic stage ≥ pT3a (HR 2.71; p < 0.029) and to received adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) due to bad prognosis tumors (HR 13.36; p < 0.001) were associated with CR. Overall 14 (0.56%) died of PCa. 5 and 10-year CSM rates were higher for patients with CR (9.6 and 23.7%, p < 0.001), and Gleason ≥ 8 (5.7 and 6.9%, p = 0.003).
A detectable PSA is affected by factors associated with aggressive prostate cancer. Within men with persistent PSA, those with higher pathologic stage and who received adjuvant ADT are more likely to have CR. Patients with CR, Gleason ≥ 8, and those who received adjuvant ADT must have a close monitoring due to the high rate of mortality.
KeywordsProstate cancer Minimal-invasive radical prostatectomy Detectable prostate-specific antigen
SG-B: project development, data collection and manuscript writing. FR: project development. IN-S: statistical analysis. VS: data collection. RS-S: data collection. EB: editing. MG: editing. XC: project development and manuscript writing.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
CEPAR: Comité d’Evaluation des Protocoles et d’Aide à la Recherche (Protocol Evaluation Committee and for Research Assistance) committee approved the study.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 1.Arnold M, Karim-Kos HE, Coebergh JW, Byrnes G, Antilla A, Ferlay J, et al. Recent trends in incidence of five common cancers in 26 European countries since 1988: analysis of the European Cancer Observatory. Eur J Cancer. 2013;8:S0959–8049.Google Scholar
- 3.Edwards BK, Noone AM, Mariotto AB, Simard EP, Boscoe FP, Henley SJ, et al. Annual Report to the Nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2010, featuring prevalence of comorbidity and impact on survival among persons with lung, colorectal, breast, or prostate cancer. Cancer. 2014;120:1290–314.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Suardi N, Ficarra V, Willemsen P, De Wil P, Gallina A, De Naeyer G, Schatteman P, Montorsi F, Carpentier P, Mottrie A. Long-term biochemical recurrence rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: analysis of a single-center series of patients with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. Urology. 2012;79:133–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.Sooriakumaran P, Haendler L, Nyberg T, Gronberg H, Nilsson A, Carlsson S, Hosseini A, Adding C, Jonsson M, Ploumidis A, Egevad L, Steineck G, Wiklund P. Biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in a European single-centre cohort with a minimum follow-up time of 5 years. Eur Urol. 2012;62:768–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.Bianchi L, Nini A, Bianchi M, Gandaglia G, Fossati N, Suardi N, Moschini M, Dell’Oglio P, Schiavina R, Montorsi F, Briganti A. The role of prostate-specific antigen persistence after radical prostatectomy for the prediction of clinical progression and cancer-specific mortality in node-positive prostate cancer patients. Eur Urol. 2016;69:1142–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar