The Predictive Role of Prostate-Specific Antigen Changes Following Transurethral Resection of the Prostate for Patients with Localized Prostate Cancer.

Abstract

Simple SummaryA part of localized prostate cancer (PC) was an incidental finding in patients who received transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for urinary symptoms. The present study examined whether changes in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels after TURP possess a predictive value for localized PC. Our data revealed that patients at intermediate risk who are associated with tumor involvement ≤5% in TURP specimens, PSA_TURP ≤ 4 ng/mL, and ≥68% PSA reduction following TURP might be suitable for conservation management instead of immediate local therapy. Moreover, for patients with no pre-TURP PSA, Gleason score (GS) < 7, and low PSA_TURP could potentially be utilized to select which patients could be considered for conservative management after TURP. The findings suggest the pathologic finding of TURP and changes in PSA could be used as adjuvant markers to guide a risk-adaptive strategy for patients with localized PC.Regarding localized prostate cancer (PC), questions remain regarding which patients are appropriate candidates for conservative management. Some localized PC was an incidental finding in patients who received transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for urinary symptoms. It is known that TURP usually affects the level of prostate-specific antigen (PSA). In the present study, we examined whether changes in PSA levels after TURP possess a predictive value for localized PC. We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of 846 early-stage PC patients who underwent TURP for urinary symptoms upon diagnosis at our hospital. Of 846 patients, 687 had tumor involvement in TURP specimens, and 362 had post-TURP PSA assessment. Our data revealed that, in addition to low GS and PSA levels at diagnosis, ≤5% tumor involvement in TURP specimens, greater PSA reduction (≥68%) following TURP, and post-TURP PSA ≤ 4 were significantly associated with better progression-free survival (PFS). Survival analysis revealed that the addition of prostate-directed local therapy significantly improved PFS in intermediate- and high-risk groups, but not in the low-risk group. Moreover, in the intermediate-risk group, local therapy improved PFS only for patients who were associated with post-TURP PSA > 4 ng/mL or <68% PSA reduction following TURP. We also found that local therapy had no obvious improvement in PFS for those with post-TURP ≤ 4 ng/mL regardless of pre-TURP PSA. In conclusion, conservative management is considered for patients at low or intermediate risk who have greater PSA reduction following TURP and low post-TURP PSA. Therefore, the levels of PSA following TURP might be helpful for risk stratification and the selection of patients for conservative management.