• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.40-44
• /
• 2001

Purpose : To evaluate effect and tolerance of external beam radiotherapy for carcinoma of the prostate and define the optimal radiotherapeutic regimen. Materials and methods : We retrospectively analyzed the records of 60 patients with prostate cancer who were treated with external beam radiotherapy with curative intent in our institution between September, 1987 and March, 2000. Histologic diagnosis was established by transurethral resection or ultrasonography guided biopsy. The major presenting symptoms were a nodule at routine prostatic examination and frequency and urgency of urination, along with dysuria. The median age was 63 years with range of 51 to 87 years. There were 6 patients in Stage A, 20 in Stage 8, 26 in Stage C, and 8 in Stage Dl. All patients were treated with megavoltage equipment producing 10 MV photons. The 4 field pelvic brick technique was used to a dose of 45 Gy or 50.4 Gy at 1.8 Gy per day in 5 to 6 weeks, after which a small boost field was delivered 2.0 Gy per day to a total dose of 66 to 70 Gy. The follow-up period ranged from 1 to 8 years. Results : Actuarial 5-year and 7-year survival rates for Stage A, B, C, and D1 were $100\%\;and\;84\%$, $83\%\;and\;72\%$, $67\%\;and\;54\%$, and $v$, respectively. The corresponding 5-year and 7-year relapse free survival rates were $84\%\;and\;84\%$, $77\%\;and\;67\%$, $48\%\;and\;40\%$, and $33\%\;and\;25\%$, respectively. Relapse free 5-year survival rates for Stage B were $80\%,\;80\%,\;and\;50\%$ for well, moderately, and poorly differentiated tumors, respectively. These were $64\%,\;44\%,\;and\;33\%$ for Stage C, respectively. The local control rates at 5 years were $84\%,\;85\%,\;78\%,\;and\;60\%$ for Stage A, B, C, and D1, respectively. Mild to moderate complications were observed in $22\%$ of patients. Severe complications requiring surgical procedures were documented in only $3\%$ of patients. Conclusion : This study confirms that external beam irradiation is an effective and safe treatment for prostatic cancer, providing long-term local control and good survival with acceptable complications.

• Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
• /
• v.17 no.4
• /
• pp.2255-2258
• /
• 2016

Background: Awareness about prostate cancer has increased in the community, and prostate cancer screening examinations, including prostate specific antigen (PSA) assays, are now widely available. Prior to the PSA era, up to 27% of prostate cancers were detected incidentally at the time of transurethral resection of prostate (TURP). After PSA testing became widely available, the incidence of incidentally detected carcinoma prostate in TURP specimens without prior diagnosis reduced to 5-13%. However, the incidence of incidentally detected carcinoma prostate has been reported to vary across the globe since various factors can influence the identification of this malignancy in TURP specimens. In this paper, we focus on rates of incidentally detected prostate cancer in TURP specimens in our hospital and correlate it with various parameters. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study of histopathological findings of biopsy specimens was conducted for patients undergoing TURP during a period of 5 years from April 2010. The inclusion criteria were patients diagnosed with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) (digital rectal examination (DRE) not showing any abnormally hard areas and normal age adjusted PSA values). Patients with elevated PSA, abnormal DRE, documented urinary tract infection and proved adenocarcinoma prostate (CaP) were excluded from the study. The total weight of prostatectomy specimen, occurrence of carcinoma prostate in the chips, percentage of total tissue resected showing malignancy and Gleason's scores were recorded. Results: A total of 597 patients belonging to the inclusion criteria were studied. The incidence of occult CaP in the study group was 5.2 % (31/597). Out of these, 8 belonged to T1a and 23 belonged to T1b stages. The age group 70 - 79 years had the maximum incidence of occult CaP. It was observed that the clinical grading of prostate did not have a bearing on the incidence of occult CaP whereas the weight of resected specimen correlated with the incidence of CaP. The incidence of occult CaP was greater with low volume prostates (<20 g). (P=0.15). Conclusions: The rate of incidentally detected adenocarcinoma prostate in patients undergoing TURP for clinically diagnosed BPH was found to be only 5.2 % in our study which is low when compared with similar studies done elsewhere. The age of the patient and weight of the resected specimen correlated with incidence of occult prostate cancer. The clinical grading of prostate by DRE however, demonstrated no correlation.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.33 no.3
• /
• pp.239-243
• /
• 2010

Even though clinical use DRE, PSA and TRUS for screening while diagnosing prostate cancer early, however, we cannot achieve to diagnose it accurately by one method. Thus, mutual supplements are strongly required in diagnosis. It means that we should identify relationship between prostate volume and serum PSA under different ages for better diagnosis. The subjects(405 men) visited the department of diagnostic radiology in a general university hospital from January 2008 to December 2008, who was going to take the prostatic evaluation by TRUS. 13 men, who did definite diagnosis of prostate cancer before through biopsy, were excluded in this study. All data were expressed as mean and standard deviations by using SPSS 14.0 package programs and were analyzed by using one-way ANOVA to evaluate the effect of different ages. And Scheffe Post hoc comparison is accomplished in order to make significant difference in prostate volume, PSA and PSAD according to ages. Pearson correlation was used for ages, prostate volume, PSA and PSAD. According to examination, the subjects' prostate volume and serum PSA level increase as person's age. We can see significant difference between group over 70 years and group from 40 and 50 years. Moreover, age, prostate volume and serum PSA have significant positive correlation. Even though we can get variations in serum PSA level by changing prostate volume according to ages, it is worthwhile to mention that more strong association for prostate volume is observed than ages in elevation of serum PSA. Therefore, it is strongly recommended to consider prostate volume weightly when it comes to evaluate for men with elevated PSA level. Finally, TRUS is an excellent extra equipment to diagnose prostate cancer because it can contribute to early diagnose and pertinent treatment of prostate cancer.

• Korean Journal of Radiology
• /
• v.22 no.7
• /
• pp.1100-1109
• /
• 2021

Objective: To compare the diagnostic performance between Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version 2.0 (PI-RADSv2.0) and version 2.1 (PI-RADSv2.1) for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in the peripheral zone (PZ). Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included 317 patients who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsy for PZ lesions. Definition of csPCa was International Society of Urologic Pathology grade ≥ 2 cancer. Area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy for csPCa were analyzed by two readers. The cancer detection rate (CDR) for csPCa was investigated according to the PI-RADS categories. Results: AUC of PI-RADSv2.1 (0.856 and 0.858 for reader 1 and 2 respectively) was higher than that of PI-RADSv2.0 (0.795 and 0.747 for reader 1 and 2 respectively) (both p < 0.001). Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy for PI-RADSv2.0 vs. PI-RADSv2.1 were 93.2% vs. 88.3% (p = 0.023), 52.8% vs. 76.6% (p < 0.001), 48.7% vs. 64.5% (p < 0.001), 94.2% vs. 93.2% (p = 0.504), and 65.9% vs. 80.4% (p < 0.001) for reader 1, and 96.1% vs. 92.2% (p = 0.046), 34.1% vs. 72.4% (p < 0.001), 41.3% vs. 61.7% (p < 0.001), 94.8% vs. 95.1% (p = 0.869), and 54.3% vs. 78.9% (p < 0.001) for reader 2, respectively. CDRs of PI-RADS categories 1-2, 3, 4, and 5 for PI-RADSv2.0 vs. PI-RADSv2.1 were 5.9% vs. 5.9%, 5.8% vs. 12.5%, 39.8% vs. 56.2%, and 88.9% vs. 88.9% for reader 1; and 4.5% vs. 4.1%, 6.1% vs. 11.1%, 32.5% vs. 53.4%, and 85.0% vs. 86.8% for reader 2, respectively. Conclusion: Our data demonstrated improved AUC, specificity, PPV, accuracy, and CDRs of category 3 or 4 of PI-RADSv2.1, but decreased sensitivity, compared with PI-RADSv2.0, for csPCa in PZ.