Tumor Volume Associated with Recurrence in Prostate Cancer Patients with Seminal Vesicle Invasion


Objectives: To examine predictors of progression-free survival in men with seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) following radical prostatectomy (RP) for clinically localized prostate cancer. Methods and Materials: Between 1999 and 2009, 1383 men underwent RP at Indiana University. Among them, 115 men were identified with SVI. Disease progression was defined by a rise in PSA ≥ 0.2 ng/ml, receipt of salvage therapy, progression to metastatic disease, or death. After excluding 13 patients for receiving adjuvant therapy, 102 were stratified according to surgical margin (SM) and lymph node (LN) status for Kaplan-Meier analysis of disease progression. Cox proportional hazards analyses of biochemical progression-free survival were undertaken with respect to margin status, pre-operative prostate specific antigen (PSA), tumor volume, age, and post-operative Gleason sum. Stem and leaf plot was undertaken for tumor volume by biochemical PFS. Results: Mean age was 61 years, median Gleason sum was 7, mean tumor volume was 9.7 ml, and mean pre-operative PSA was 13.6 ng/ml. Mean time to disease progression was 17 months. Mean follow-up was 37 months. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed statistically insignificant differences in progression-free survival stratified by SM and LN status (p = 0.12). Cox univariate analyses revealed tumor volume to be a statistically significant predictor of progression free survival (p = 0.02). Stem and Leaf plot revealed tumor volume to be statistically significantly larger in patients who experienced biochemical recurrence, compared to those who did not. Conclusion: Tumor volume was associated progression-free survival in this cohort of SVI patients, while pathologic Gleason sum, PSA, margin and nodal status were not.

Share and Cite:

P. H. Johnston, T. A. Masterson, L. Cheng and M. O. Koch, "Tumor Volume Associated with Recurrence in Prostate Cancer Patients with Seminal Vesicle Invasion," Open Journal of Urology, Vol. 2 No. 3A, 2012, pp. 183-187. doi: 10.4236/oju.2012.223033.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] P. M. Pierorazio, A. E. Ross, E. M. Schaeffer, et al., “A Contemporary Analysis of Outcomes of Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate With Seminal Vesicle Invasion (pT3b) after Radical Prostatectomy,” Journal of Urology, Vol. 185, No. 5, 2011, pp. 1691-1697.
[2] S. P. Porten, M. R. Cooperberg and P. R. Carroll, “The Independent Value of Tumour Volume in a Contemporary Cohort of Men Treated with Radical Prostatectomy for Clinically Localized Disease,” British Journal of Urology International, Vol. 105, No. 4, 2010, pp. 472-475.
[3] E. Kikuchi, P. T. Scardino, T. M. Wheeler, K. M. Slawin and M. Ohori, “Is Tumor Volume an Independent Prognostic Factor in Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer?” Journal of Urology, Vol. 172, No. 2, 2004, pp. 508-511.
[4] L. Salomon, A. G. Anastasiadis, C. W. Johnson, et al., “Seminal Vesicle Involvement after Radical Prostatectomy: Predicting Risk Factors for Progression,” Urology, Vol. 62, No. 2, 2003, pp. 304-309.
[5] S. J. Freedland, W. J. Aronson, J. C. Presti Jr., et al., “Predictors of Prostate-Specific Antigen Progression among Men with Seminal Vesicle Invasion at the Time of Radical Prostatectomy,” Cancer, Vol. 100, No. 8, 2004, pp. 1633-1638.
[6] M. V. Tefilli, E. L. Gheiler, R. Tiguert, et al., “Prognostic Indicators in Patients with Seminal Vesicle Involvement Following Radical Prostatectomy for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer,” Journal of Urology, Vol. 160, No. 3, 1998, pp. 802-806.
[7] T. A. Masterson, J. A. Pettus, R. G. Middleton and R. A. Stephenson, “Isolated Seminal Vesicle Invasion Imparts Better Outcomes after Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: Prognostic Stratification of pt3b Disease by Nodal and Margin Status,” Urology, Vol. 66, No. 1, 2005, pp. 152-155.
[8] A. R. Ramsden and G. Chodak, “An Analysis of Risk Factors for Biochemical Progression in Patients with Seminal Vesicle Invasion: Validation of Kattan’s Nomogram in a Pathological Subgroup,” British Journal of Urology International, Vol. 93, No. 7, 2004, pp. 961-964.
[9] A. W. Partin, J. I. Epstein, K. R. Cho, A. M. Gittelsohn and P. C. Walsh, “Morphometric Measurement of Tumor Volume and Percent of Gland Involvement as Predictors of Pathological Stage in Clinical Stage B Prostate Cancer,” Journal of Urology, Vol. 141, No. 2, 1989, pp. 341-345.
[10] J. I. Epstein, A. W. Partin, S. R. Potter and P. C. Walsh, “Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate Invading the Seminal Vesicle: Prognostic Stratification Based on Pathologic Parameters,” Urology, Vol. 56, No. 2, 2000, pp. 283-288.
[11] M. Sofer, M. Savoie, S. S. Kim, F. Civantos and M. S. Soloway, “Biochemical and Pathological Predictors of the Recurrence of Prostatic Adenocarcinoma with Seminal Vesicle Invasion,” Journal of Urology, Vol. 169, No. 1, 2003, pp. 153-156.
[12] L. Cheng, J. Slezak, E. J. Bergstralh, R. P. Myers, H. Zincke and D. G. Bostwick, “Preoperative Prediction of Surgical Margin Status in Patients with Prostate Cancer Treated by Radical Prostatectomy,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 18, No. 15, 2000, pp. 2862-2868.
[13] R. E. Emerson, M. O. Koch, J. K. Daggy and L. Cheng, “Closest Distance between Tumor and Resection Margin in Radical Prostatectomy Specimens: Lack of Prognostic Significance,” The American Journal of Surgical Pathology, Vol. 29, No. 2, 2005, pp. 225-229.
[14] J. I. Epstein, W. C. Allsbrook Jr., M. B. Amin and L. L. Egevad, “The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma,” The American Journal of Surgical Pathology, Vol. 29, No. 9, 2005, pp. 1228-1242.
[15] P. A. Humphrey and R. T. Vollmer, “Intraglandular Tumor Extent and Prognosis in Prostatic Carcinoma: Application of a Grid Method to Prostatectomy Specimens,” Human Pathology, Vol. 21, No. 8, 1990, pp. 799-804.
[16] J. I. Epstein, M. Carmichael and P. C. Walsh, “Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate Invading the Seminal Vesicle: Definition and Relation of Tumor Volume, Grade and Margins of Resection to Prognosis,” Journal of Urology, Vol. 149, No. 5, 1993, pp. 1040-1045.
[17] B. Debras, B. Guillonneau, J. Bougaran, E. Chambon and G. Vallancien, “Prognostic Significance of Seminal Vesicle Invasion on the Radical Prostatectomy Specimen. Rationale for Seminal Vesicle Biopsies,” European Urology, Vol. 33, No. 3, 1998, pp. 271-277.
[18] M. Ohori, P. T. Scardino, S. L. Lapin, C. Seale-Hawkins, J. Link and T. M. Wheeler, “The Mechanisms and Prognostic Significance of Seminal Vesicle Involvement by Prostate Cancer,” The American Journal of Surgical Pathology, Vol. 17, No. 12, 1993, pp. 1252-1261.
[19] A. V. D’Amico, R. Whittington, S. B. Malkowicz, et al., “Biochemical Outcome after Radical Prostatectomy, External Beam Radiation Therapy, or Interstitial Radiation Therapy for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer,” The Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 280, No. 1, 1998, pp. 969-974.
[20] P. Swindle, J. A. Eastham, M. Ohori, et al., “Do Margins Matter? The Prognostic Significance of Positive Surgical Margins in Radical Prostatectomy Specimens,” Journal of Urology, Vol. 179, No. 5, 2008, pp. S47-S51.

Copyright © 2024 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.