Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T02:48:10.494Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Surgical treatment of prostate cancer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2009

By
Timothy A. Masterson  and
James A. Eastham
Edited by
Hedvig Hricak  and
Peter Scardino
Hedvig Hricak
Affiliation:
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
Peter Scardino
Affiliation:
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer and the second most common cause of cancer-related death of American men [1]. The American Cancer Society estimates that 186,320 new cases of prostate cancer will be diagnosed and that 28,660 men will die from this disease in the United States in 2008 [2]. The widespread use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for prostate cancer screening has led to a substantial decrease in stage at time of diagnosis. Data from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program reveal that 91% of diagnosed cancers in the period 1996–2002 were localized to the prostate [1], whereas only 80% are seen in series from previous years. The 5-year expected survival for prostate cancers diagnosed between 1996 and 2002 is 100%, up substantially from 76% between 1984 and 1986 [1]. With today's patients presenting at a younger age and with cancers at a lower stage and lower grade, the management of clinically localized prostate cancer has focused on decreasing the inherent morbidity and long-term consequences of specific therapies. Selecting the optimal therapeutic approach from an array of choices requires individualization of treatment plans based upon risk stratification, the effectiveness of the treatment, and the likelihood that a patient will experience a treatment-related complication.

Radical prostatectomy (RP) remains an excellent treatment option for men with clinically localized prostate cancer.

Type
Chapter
Information
Prostate Cancer , pp. 43 - 57
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Jemal, A., Siegel, R., Ward, E., et al., Cancer statistics, 2007. CA: Cancer J Clini, 57(1): (2007), 43–66.Google ScholarPubMed
Jemal, A., Siegal, R., Ward, E., et al., Cancer statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J Clin, 58:2 (2008), 71–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibbons, R. P., Correa, Jr R. J.., Brannen, G. E., et al., Total prostatectomy for clinically localized prostatic cancer: long-term results. J Urol, 141:3 (1989), 564–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Han, M., Partin, A. W., Pound, C. R., et al., Long-term biochemical disease-free and cancer-specific survival following anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy. The 15-year Johns Hopkins experience. Urol Clin North Am, 28:3 (2001), 555–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hull, G. W., Rabbani, F., Abbas, F., et al., Cancer control with radical prostatectomy alone in 1,000 consecutive patients. J Urol, 167:2 Pt 1 (2002), 528–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zincke, H., Oesterling, J. E., Blute, M. L., et al., Long-term (15 years) results after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized (stage T2c or lower) prostate cancer. J Urol, 152:5 Pt 2 (1994), 1850–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
D'Amico, A. V., Desjardin, A., Chung, A., et al., Assessment of outcome prediction models for patients with localized prostate carcinoma managed with radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy. Cancer, 82:10 (1998), 1887–96.3.0.CO;2-P>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kattan, M. W, Stapleton, A. M, Wheeler, T. M., et al., Evaluation of a nomogram used to predict the pathologic stage of clinically localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer, 79:3 (1997), 528–37.3.0.CO;2-5>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stephenson, A. J., Scardino, P. T., Eastham, J. A., et al., Preoperative nomogram predicting the 10-year probability of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst, 98:10 (2006), 715–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kattan, M. W., Eastham, J. A., Stapleton, A. M., et al., A preoperative nomogram for disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst, 90:10 (1998), 766–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stamey, T. A., Freiha, F. S., McNeal, J. E., et al., Localized prostate cancer. Relationship of tumor volume to clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer. Cancer, 71:3 Suppl (1993), 933–8.3.0.CO;2-L>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oesterling, J. E., Martin, S. K., Bergstralh, E. J., et al., The use of prostate-specific antigen in staging patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. JAMA, 269:1 (1993), 57–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Narayan, P., Gajendran, V., Taylor, S. P., et al., The role of transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy-based staging, preoperative serum prostate-specific antigen, and biopsy Gleason score in prediction of final pathologic diagnosis in prostate cancer. Urology, 46:2 (1995), 205–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gleason, D. F., Histologic grading and clinical staging of prostate carcinoma. In: Urologic Pathology: The Prostate, ed. Tannenbaum, M, Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger, 1977; 171–97.Google Scholar
Freedland, S. J., Kane, C. J., Amling, C. L., et al., Upgrading and downgrading of prostate needle biopsy specimens: risk factors and clinical implications. Urology, 69:3 (2007), 495–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinthus, J. H., Witkos, M., Fleshner, N. E., et al., Prostate cancers scored as Gleason 6 on prostate biopsy are frequently Gleason 7 tumors at radical prostatectomy: implication on outcome. J Urol, 176:3 (2006), 979–84; discussion 84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chun, F. K., Briganti, A., Shariat, S. F., et al., Significant upgrading affects a third of men diagnosed with prostate cancer: predictive nomogram and internal validation. BJU Int, 98:2 (2006), 329–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greene, F., Page, D., Fleming, I., et al., American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual, 6th edn., New York: Springer, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varenhorst, E., Berglund, K., Lofman, O., et al., Inter-observer variation in assessment of the prostate by digital rectal examination. Br J Urol, 72:2 (1993), 173–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grossfeld, G. D., Chang, J. J., Broering, J. M., et al., Under staging and under grading in a contemporary series of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: results from the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor database. J Urol, 165:3 (2001), 851–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sciarra, A., Voria, G., Monti, S., et al., Clinical understaging in patients with prostate adenocarcinoma submitted to radical prostatectomy: predictive value of serum chromogranin A. The Prostate, 58:4 (2004), 421–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
May, F., Treumann, T., Dettmar, P., et al., Limited value of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasonography in the staging of clinically localized prostate cancer. BJU Int, 87:1 (2001), 66–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sedelaar, J. P., Leenders, G. J., Goossen, T. E., et al., Value of contrast ultrasonography in the detection of significant prostate cancer: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimens. The Prostate, 53:3 (2002), 246–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schnall, M. D, Pollack, H. M, Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate gland. Urol Radiol, 12:2 (1990), 109–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mullerad, M., Hricak, H., Kuroiwa, K., et al., Comparison of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging, guided prostate biopsy and digital rectal examination in the preoperative anatomical localization of prostate cancer. J Urol, 174:6 (2005), 2158–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mullerad, M., Hricak, H., Wang, L., et al., Prostate cancer: detection of extracapsular extension by genitourinary and general body radiologists at MR imaging. Radiology, 232:1 (2004), 140–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sala, E., Akin, O., Moskowitz, C. S., et al., Endorectal MR imaging in the evaluation of seminal vesicle invasion: diagnostic accuracy and multivariate feature analysis. Radiology, 238:3 (2006), 929–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, L., Mullerad, M., Chen, H. N., et al., Prostate cancer: incremental value of endorectal MR imaging findings for prediction of extracapsular extension. Radiology, 232:1 (2004), 133–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, L., Hricak, H., Kattan, M. W., et al., Prediction of seminal vesicle invasion in prostate cancer: incremental value of adding endorectal MR imaging to the Kattan nomogram. Radiology, 242:1 (2007), 182–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, L., Hricak, H., Kattan, M. W., et al., Prediction of organ-confined prostate cancer: incremental value of MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging to staging nomograms. Radiology, 238:2 (2006), 597–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNeal, J. E., Redwine, E. A., Freiha, F. S., et al., Zonal distribution of prostatic adenocarcinoma. Correlation with histologic pattern and direction of spread. Am J Surg Pathol, 12:12 (1988), 897–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akin, O., Sala, E., Moskowitz, C. S., et al., Transition zone prostate cancers: features, detection, localization, and staging at endorectal MR imaging. Radiology, 239:3 (2006), 784–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scheidler, J., Hricak, H., Vigneron, D. B., et al., Prostate cancer: localization with three-dimensional proton MR spectroscopic imaging – clinicopathologic study. Radiology, 213:2 (1999), 473–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yu, K. K., Scheidler, J., Hricak, H., et al., Prostate cancer: prediction of extracapsular extension with endorectal MR imaging and three-dimensional proton MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology, 213:2 (1999), 481–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zakian, K. L., Sircar, K., Hricak, H., et al., Correlation of proton MR spectroscopic imaging with Gleason score based on step-section pathologic analysis after radical prostatectomy. Radiology, 234:3 (2005), 804–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Han, M., Partin, A. W., Zahurak, M., et al., Biochemical (prostate specific antigen) recurrence probability following radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol, 169:2 (2003), 517–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bianco, Jr F. J., Scardino, P. T, Eastham, J. A, Radical prostatectomy: long-term cancer control and recovery of sexual and urinary function (“trifecta”). Urology, 66:5 Suppl (2005), 83–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kundu, S. D., Roehl, K. A., Eggener, S. E., et al., Potency, continence and complications in 3,477 consecutive radical retropubic prostatectomies. J Urol, 172:6 Pt 1 (2004), 2227–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kausik, S. J., Blute, M. L., Sebo, T. J., et al., Prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in patients with extraprostatic carcinoma after radical prostatectomy. Cancer, 95:6 (2002), 1215–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klein, E. A., Kupelian, P. A., Tuason, L., et al., Initial dissection of the lateral fascia reduces the positive margin rate in radical prostatectomy. Urology, 51:5 (1998), 766–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wieder, J. A, Soloway, M. S, Incidence, etiology, location, prevention and treatment of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol, 160:2 (1998), 299–315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saranchuk, J. W., Kattan, M. W., Elkin, E., et al., Achieving optimal outcomes after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol, 23:18 (2005), 4146–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walsh, P. C., Marschke, P., Ricker, D., et al., Patient-reported urinary continence and sexual function after anatomic radical prostatectomy. Urology, 55:1 (2000), 58–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noh, C., Kshirsagar, A., Mohler, J. L., Outcomes after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology, 61:2 (2003), 412–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steiner, M. S, Morton, R. A, Walsh, P. C, Impact of anatomical radical prostatectomy on urinary continence. J Urol, 145:3 (1991), 512–14; discussion 514–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goad, J. R, Scardino, P. T, Modifications in the technique of radical retropubic prostatectomy to minimize blood loss. Atlas Urol Clin North Am, 2: (1994), 65–80.Google Scholar
Lepor, H., Nieder, A. M., Ferrandino, M. N., Intraoperative and postoperative complications of radical retropubic prostatectomy in a consecutive series of 1,000 cases. J Urol, 166:5 (2001), 1729–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maffezzini, M., Seveso, M., Taverna, G., et al., Evaluation of complications and results in a contemporary series of 300 consecutive radical retropubic prostatectomies with the anatomic approach at a single institution. Urology, 61:5 (2003), 982–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leibman, B. D., Dillioglugil, O., Abbas, F., et al., Impact of a clinical pathway for radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology, 52:1 (1998), 94–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chuang, M. S., O'Connor, R. C., Laven, B. A., et al., Early release of the neurovascular bundles and optical loupe magnification lead to improved and earlier return of potency following radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol, 173:2 (2005), 537–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eastham, J. A., Scardino, P. T., Radical prostatectomy for clinical Stage T1 and T2 prostate cancer. In: Comprehensive Textbook of Genitourinary Oncology, 3rd edn., eds. Vogelzang, N. J., Scardino, P. T, Shipley, W. U., et al., Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006; 166–89.Google Scholar
Graefen, M., Walz, J., Huland, H., Open retropubic nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol, 49:1 (2006), 38–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Montorsi, F., Salonia, A., Suardi, N., et al., Improving the preservation of the urethral sphincter and neurovascular bundles during open radical retropubic prostatectomy. Eur Urol, 48:6 (2005), 938–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Myers, R. P. and Villers, A., Anatomic considerations in radical prostatectomy. In: Prostate Cancer: Surgical Principles and Practice, eds. Kirby, R., Partin, A. W., Feneley, M., et al., London: Martin Dunitz Publishers Ltd, 2005.Google Scholar
Walsh, P. C., Anatomic radical prostatectomy: evolution of the surgical technique. J Urol, 160:6 Pt 2 (1998), 2418–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheng, L., Darson, M. R., Bergstralh, E. J., et al., Correlation of margin status and extraprostatic extension with progression of prostate carcinoma. Cancer, 86:9 (1999), 1775–82.3.0.CO;2-L>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blute, M. L., Bostwick, D. G., Seay, T. M., et al., Pathologic classification of prostate carcinoma: the impact of margin status. Cancer, 82:5 (1998), 902–8.3.0.CO;2-4>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ohori, M., Scardino, P. T., Localized prostate cancer. Curr Probl Surg, 39:9 (2002), 833–957.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swindle, P., Eastham, J. A., Ohori, M., et al., Do margins matter? The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol, 174:3 (2005), 903–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, J. R., Fine, S. W., Zhang, J., et al., Radical prostatectomy for clinical T3 disease: expanding indications while optimizing cancer control and quality of life. Nat Cin Pract Urol, 4:8 (2007), 451–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walsh, P. C., Donker, P. J., Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. J Urol, 128:3 (1982), 492–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hricak, H., Wang, L., Wei, D. C., et al., The role of preoperative endorectal magnetic resonance imaging in the decision regarding whether to preserve or resect neurovascular bundles during radical retropubic prostatectomy. Cancer, 100:12 (2004), 2655–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coakley, F. V., Eberhardt, S., Kattan, M. W., et al., Urinary continence after radical retropubic prostatectomy: relationship with membranous urethral length on preoperative endorectal magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol, 168:3 (2002), 1032–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peters, C. A., Walsh, P. C., Blood transfusion and anesthetic practices in radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol, 134:1 (1985), 81–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reiner, W. G., Walsh, P. C., An anatomical approach to the surgical management of the dorsal vein and Santorini's plexus during radical retropubic surgery. J Urol, 121:2 (1979), 198–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Myers, R. P., Improving the exposure of the prostate in radical retropubic prostatectomy: longitudinal bunching of the deep venous plexus. J Urol, 142:5 (1989), 1282–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coakley, F. V., Eberhardt, S., Wei, D. C., et al., Blood loss during radical retropubic prostatectomy: relationship to morphologic features on preoperative endorectal magnetic resonance imaging. Urology, 59:6 (2002), 884–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×