Abstract
To show the increased necessity of routine prostate biopsy in men older than 75 years and to identify markers, which reliably indicate the presence of a prostate cancer (PCa), we evaluate several different parameters from elderly patients.
196 patients over 75 years were included in the study, inclusion criteria for the biopsy were: PSA levels >4 ng/ml and/or a suspicious finding on dig ital rectal examination (DRE). The parameters analyzed included: age, prostate size, PSA levels, DRE findings, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) PCa detection rate, Gleason score, clinically significant PCa detection rate and type of therapy once PCa had been detected (curative intent or palliative intent).
PCa was detected in N=115 patients (59%), with 84.3% of them being defined as clinically significant (p<0.05) and 60.8% (p<0.05) as high grade. Only a PSA level > 10 ng/ml with a simultaneous positive DRE finding was a marker for high-grade or significant PCa (p< 0.001) in patients >70 years.
Our findings demonstrate that the prevalence of significant and high-grade PCa in the elderly patients is high raised (~60%). We identified two significant markers for patients over the age of 75, namely an increased high PSA level (PSA>10 ng/ml) and positive DRE. The combination of both markers indicates that the patient is suffering under a significant and high-grade PCa. In our opinion, every patient showing a combinational increase of both markers should be biopsied in order to receive an adequate therapy.
Author Contributions
Copyright© 2017
Zugor Vahudin, et al.
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Competing interests The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Funding Interests:
Citation:
Introduction
With the aging of the population and the fact that over 70% of all PCa are diagnosed in men over 65 years, it seems that most patients over the age of 70 years will present with PCa The choice of PCa treatment regime for elderly patients is complex. Published data suggest that older men with localized PCa may not receive potentially life prolonging treatment since they will not benefit from these therapies Nevertheless, according to the US Preventive Services Task Force screening for PCa in men younger than age 75 years is necessary due to a clearly defined benefit. However, in the Task Force’s opinion and due to insufficient data, the screening of elderly patients (>75 years) is deemed not necessary Chodak et al. performed a meta-analysis of 828 men with clinically localized PCa and a median age of 69 years who were treated with watchful waiting or hormone therapy The upper age limit for RPE as a curative treatment for localized PCa is controversial. A curative treatment is currently discussed because of the increasing age of the population. Minino et al. showed that the overall survival of RPE patients older than 70 years is 13 years Alibhai et al. reported the effect of RPE on life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy in elderly men During recent years robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP) has become popular among urologists for the treatment of localized PCa. RARP is a well-tolerated treatment option for localized PCa due to fast recovery, less blood loss, improved cosmetics and surgical outcomes, in comparison to RPE. Due to these factors RARP is frequently chosen for the treatment of localised PCa The term significant PCa determines prostate cancers with a volume of less than 0.5 cm In general, PCas were categorized according to their Gleason Score. The Gleason Score classifies prostate tumors according to their aggressiveness. The grading system is a numbered from 2 to 10, high Gleason grade numbers indicating greater risks and a higher mortality rate for the patient. The first half of the score is based according to the microscopic appearance, tissue samples which look more like normal prostate tissue receive a lower Gleason number (Gleason grade 2) than tissue samples with predominantly representing cancer (Gleason grade 5). The second half of the Gleason grade is based on the second most common cell morphology (grade 1-5). Both numbers in combination produce the total score of the cancer To the best of our knowledge, this is the first publication identifying two already pre-operativechracteristic markers, which are significantly positive in patients over 75 years suffering under a significant or high grade PCa.
Results
Patients with a negative biopsy 42 patients (50.6%), did not undergo further treatment, while 29 patients (34.9%) underwent TUR-P, 7 patients (8.4%) green light laser treatment, and 5 patients (6.1%) underwent prostatectomy (Data not listed in
Parameters
All patients
Prostate cancer patients
BPH patients
Patients
N=196 (100%)
N=115 (59%)
N=83 (41%)
Age 75-87
Median 79
Median 79
Median 78
ASA score 1-3
Median 1.8
Median 2.03
Median 1.5
PSA 3.7 -233 ng/ml
Median 22.1
Median 30.5
Median 10.3
Positive DRE
N=156 (79.5%)
N=88 (76.6%)
N=68 (81.9%)
Significant PCa
N=97 (84.3%)
High-grade PCa
N=70 (60.8%)
Gleason scoreGleason 6:Gleason 7:Gleason 8:Gleason 9:
N=45 (39.1%)N=23 (20%)N=25 (21.7%)N=22 (19.9%)
Therapy:Curative Intent:Palliative Intent:No intervention:
N=56 (48.6%)N=49 (42.6%)N=10 (8.6%)
Curative Intent:
Radiation: N=30 Patients (26.1%)ASA: 2.1 PSA 33.2 ng/ml Age 79RPE: N=26 Patients (22.5%)ASA: 1.4 PSA 10.6 ng/ml Age 77
Palliative Intent:
Hormonal: N=30 Patients (26.1%)ASA: 2,6 PSA 36.6 ng/ml Age 79Orchidectomy N= 7 Patients (6.1%)ASA: 2.1 PSA 127.3 ng/ml Age 82Green light laser N=5 Patients (4,6%)ASA: 2,2 PSA 12,4 ng/ml Age 86TUR-P N=7 Patients (6,1%)ASA: 1,8 PSA 26,5 ng/ml Age 82
Discussion
The diagnosis and treatment of PCa in elderly patients is frequently discussed. Published data suggest that men aged over 75 should not be routinely screened for PCa In our case the patients received different treatments, shown in Furthermore, it is important to consider that men who are 75 years old today are different from the 75-year-olds alive half a century ago : they are physically younger, and, in many cases, still sexually active In a recent study, we evaluated the surgical, the oncologic and the functional outcome in men ≥75 years undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP) We identified 45 patients and evaluated various parameters including: minor and major postoperative complications, postoperative Gleason score, pathological stage, positive-margin status, continence and potency in 12 months, disease-specific mortality, and presence of biochemical progression at the follow-up period. Major complications were noted in 2.2% of cases. Organ-confined disease was noted in 68.8%, extra prostatic extension in 31.2%, and a positive surgical margin status was encountered in 11.1% of cases. At 12 months, 86.9% of patients were continent and 39.6% were potent. After a median follow-up of 17.2 months no disease-specific mortality was evident and 95.5% were free of biochemical progression. We demonstrated that RARP in patients ≥75 years of age is a safe surgical procedure with limited complications, excellent oncologic and continence outcome as well as acceptable potency. There are certain limitations that should be addressed regarding our study. The first one is that the retrospective and non-controlled design of our work limits our ability to generalize our findings. The second one is that although after diagnosis was made 56 patients underwent therapy with a curative intent (48.6%), 30 patients underwent radiation therapy (26.1%), and 26 RPE (22.5%). As yet, we have no long term follow-up data on these men to evaluate the impact of PCa and its treatment on the quality and longevity of their lives. However, patients with high grade PCa suffer more than those with lower grade, since the tumor is more aggressive and they have metastases. It could be shown that elderly patients with high grade PCa receiving curative therapy had better outcomes and a higher life quality Nevertheless, in a further effort to improve personalized treatment, we show in this study the importance of screening of patients over the age of 75 years with our defined markers.
Conclusion
We show that elderly patients (>75 years) suffer under significant and high grade PCas more frequently than previously suspected. We chose the evaluation of the correlation between PSA and DRE, as marker for significant or high grade PCa, since these two factors are well characterised. The PSA level is usually established in every routine laboratory and the routine diagnose of PSA is even more prostate specific than the analysis of other markers such as CA 19-9 or CA 50, which are considered to be more general tumor biomarkers Nevertheless, as seen in our retrospective study, prostate biopsy should be performed in patients in whom high PSA levels (PSA > 10 ng/ml) and a positive DRE are found simultaneously, since they have an increased chance of exhibiting significant and high-grade PCa and could benefit from curative therapy. Finally, we believe that all patients over the age of 75 years with an increased PSA over 10 ng/ml and a positive DRE should be biopsied for adequate therapy and to increase the patient’s survival rate. This retrospective study was approved by the ethics committee of the Medical Faculty of the University of Cologne, which met the requirement to prove informed consent. Since the study is retrospective, no further ethics considerations apply. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.