Clinicopathological Features of Prostate Ductal Carcinoma: Matching Analysis and Comparison with Prostate Acinar Carcinoma.
10.3346/jkms.2015.30.4.385
- Author:
Aram KIM
1
;
Taekmin KWON
;
Dalsan YOU
;
In Gab JEONG
;
Heounjeong GO
;
Yong Mee CHO
;
Jun Hyuk HONG
;
Hanjong AHN
;
Choung Soo KIM
Author Information
1. Department of Urology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. cskim@amc.seoul.kr
- Publication Type:Comparative Study ; Original Article
- Keywords:
Prostate Neoplasms;
Prostatectomy;
Disease Progression;
Recurrence
- MeSH:
Aged;
Carcinoma, Acinar Cell/*pathology;
Carcinoma, Ductal/*pathology;
Humans;
Male;
Middle Aged;
Neoplasm Grading;
Prostate-Specific Antigen/blood;
Prostatic Neoplasms/*pathology;
SEER Program
- From:Journal of Korean Medical Science
2015;30(4):385-389
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
We evaluated the clinicopathological features and prognosis of 29 cases of prostate ductal carcinoma was considered to be an aggressive subtype of prostate acinar carcinoma. We selected 29 cases who were diagnosed prostate ductal carcinoma and had a radical prostatectomy (RP). The acinar group (n = 116) was selected among 3,980 patients who underwent a prostatectomy. The acinar group was matched to the ductal group for prostate specific antigen (PSA), clinical stage, Gleason score, and age. The mean (range) of the follow-up periods for the ductal and acinar group was 23.8 +/- 20.6 and 58 +/- 10.5 months, respectively. The mean age of the prostate ductal and acinar carcinoma patients was 67.3 and 67.0 yr and the mean PSA level was 14.7 and 16.2 ng/mL, respectively. No statistical differences were evident between groups in terms of the final pathologic stage or positive resection margin rate other than the postoperative Gleason score. A greater proportion of the ductal group demonstrated a postoperative Gleason score > or = 8 in comparison with the acinar group (P = 0.024). Additionally, we observed significant prognostic difference in our patient series in biochemical recurrence. The ductal group showed a poorer prognosis than the acinar group (P = 0.016). There were no differences significantly in terms of final pathology and rate of positive resection margin, but a greater proportion of the ductal group demonstrated a Gleason score > or = 8 than the acinar group after matching for PSA, Gleason score in biopsy and clinical stage. The ductal group also showed a poorer prognosis.
