Abstract
Radical prostatectomy has been considered the gold standard for the curative treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. After an extensive review of the literature, we concluded that surgery probably functions primarily as a tumor debulking procedure rather than a curative one. Morphometric studies suggest that the majority of patients undergoing surgery have tumors too large for cure. Histologic studies demonstrate that 55% of radical prostatectomy specimens show evidence of extraprostatic disease and approximately 15% have tumors so small that a clinical impact on longevity is unlikely. Thus, only 30% of patients have surgery that is clearly beneficial on a histopathologic basis. Given the rather long doubling time of prostate cancers, many patients with residual cancer following surgery die of other causes, giving the false impression of cure. However, long-term studies in men with positive surgical margins have demonstrated that the majority die from prostate cancer. Furthermore, using prostate specific antigen as a measure of progression, the biochemical disease-free survival rates are substantially lower than the cause-specific survival rates. Although radical prostatectomy may be the best tumor debulking procedure available, it is associated with substantial morbidity and cost. This information is important for both physician and patient when deciding on management of prostate cancer.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
More From: Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.