Abstract
Abstract
Background
The study aimed to test the hypothesis that endogenous testosterone density (ETD), in the low through favorable intermediate PCa risk classes patients undergoing surgery, might be associated with disease progression.
Materials and methods
ETD, PSAD, and percentage of biopsy positive cores density (BPCD) were calculated in relation to prostate volume (PV). Tumor load density (TLD) was estimated as the tumor load (TL) ratio to prostate weight. ET was considered low if < 230 ng/dL. Tumor upgrading (ISUP > 2), upstaging (pT > 2) and their related features were investigated.
Results
433 patients were included, 249 (57.5%) from the favorable intermediate-risk class. Upgrading occurred in 168 (38.8%) cases and upstaging in 62 (14.3%). ETD above the median (9.9 ng/(dL x mL)), was discriminated by PSAD (AUC = 0.719; 95% CI: 0.671–0.766; p < 0.0001), BPCD (AUC = 0.721; 95% CI: 0.673–0.768; p < 0.0001), TLD (AUC = 0.674; 95% CI: 0.624–0.724; p < 0.0001) with accuracy improved by the multivariable model (AUC = 0.798; 95% CI: 0.724–0.811; p < 0.0001). In linear multivariable models as ETD increased, so did TLD (rc = 0.019; 95% CI: 0.014; 0.025; p < 0.0001), further increased by low ET (rc = 0.097; 95% CI: 0.017; 0.176; p = 0.017). After adjusting for clinical and pathological features, ETD correlated with TLD above the first quartile. Disease progression occurred in 43 (11.9%) patients, independently predicted by PSAD (hazard ratio, HR = 99.906; 95% CI: 6.519–1531.133; p = 0.001) and tumor upgrading (HR = 3.586; 95% CI: 3.586–6.863; p < 0.0001).
Conclusions
ETD was associated with unfavorable PCa, and men with tumor upgrading were at increased risk of disease progression. ETD was related to predictors of PCa progression and could provide pivotal biological information about aggressive disease.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference37 articles.
1. Mottet N, Cornford P, van den Bergh RCN, et al (2022) EAU - EANM - ESTRO - ESUR - ISUP - SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. In: European Association of Urology. https://uroweb.org/guidelines/prostate-cancer. Accessed 5 Mar 2023
2. Schaeffer E, Srinivas S, An Y, et al (2022) Prostate Cancer, Version 1.2023, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. In: National comprehensive cancer network. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate.pdf. Accessed 5 Mar 2023
3. Artibani W, Porcaro AB, De Marco V et al (2018) Management of biochemical recurrence after primary curative treatment for prostate cancer: a review. Urol Int 100:251–262. https://doi.org/10.1159/000481438
4. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB et al (2016) The 2014 international society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol 40:244–252. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000530
5. Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD et al (2016) A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur Urol 69:428–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EURURO.2015.06.046