head JofIMAB
Journal of IMAB - Annual Proceeding (Scientific Papers)
Publisher: Peytchinski Publishing Ltd.
ISSN: 1312-773X (Online)
Issue: 2024, vol. 30, issue1
Subject Area: Medicine
DOI: 10.5272/jimab.2024301.5392
Published online: 27 February 2024

Original article
J of IMAB. 2024 Jan-Mar;30(1):5392-5396
Boyan LazarovORCID logoCorresponding Autoremail,
Clinic of Urology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, MHAT "Sveta Anna-Varna", Medical University-Varna, Bulgaria.

Purpose: The European Association of Urology (EAU) classifies patients with prostate cancer into three risk groups - low-risk, intermediate- and high-risk depending on the probability of biochemical progression after treatment with curative intent (either radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy). The aim of the present study is to analyze our experience with patients who underwent radical prostatectomy and to look for the relationship between the pathological results from the operation and the distribution of patients into risk groups.
Material/Methods: A single-center, non-interventional study was conducted. The study was performed after analysis of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (either open or laparoscopic) at the Clinic of Urology in St. Anna Hospital in Varna. The number of patients available for analysis was 201. Data were analyzed with IBM SPSS version 23.
Results: We found that high-risk patients had unfavorable results from the examination of the pathology specimens- patients with pT3a and pT3b were more often from the high-risk group. High-risk patients were also at increased risk of PSA progression and development of distant metastases.
Conclusions: The EAU-risk groups will probably undergo changes connected with the improved methods for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. But still, it is a valid tool which correctly predicts the unfavorable pathology of the removed specimen and also the risk of biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy.

Keywords: Overall survival, PSA-progression, lymph node metastases, extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle involvement,

pdf - Download FULL TEXT /PDF 920 KB/
Please cite this article as: Lazarov B. EAU risk groups applied on patients treated with radical prostatectomy - analysis of pathology specimens and patient survival. J of IMAB. 2024 Jan-Mar;30(1):5392-5396. [Crossref - 10.5272/jimab.2024301.5392]

Corresponding AutorCorrespondence to: Boyan Lazarov, Multiprofile Hospital for Active Treatment "Sveta Anna-Varna"- Clinic of urology, Medical University-Varna, Department of surgery; 100, Tzar Osvoboditel Blvd., Varna, 9000, Bulgaria; E-mail: boyanlazarov@yahoo.com

1. Petkova L, Ganev T, Statelov T, Evtimov N. Prostate-Specific Antigen PSA: its Role in Diagnosis and Screening of Prostate Cancer Varna Medical Forum 2014 Dec;3(2):29-32.
2. Ganev Т, Petkova L, Statelov T, Evtimov N. [To screen or not to screen for prostate cancer?] [in Bulgarian] J Med. 2012 Aug;367:595-605.
3. Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Holding P, et al. 10-Year Outcomes after Monitoring, Surgery, or Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016 Oct 13;375(15):1415-1424. [ PubMed ]
4. Cooperberg MR, Pasta DJ, Elkin EP, Litwin MS, Latini DM, Du Chane J, et al. The University of California, San Francisco Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score: a straightforward and reliable preoperative predictor of disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2005 Jun;173(6):1938-42. [PubMed]
5. Ishizaki F, Hoque MA, Nishiyama T, Kawasaki T, Kasahara T, Hara N, et al. External validation of the UCSF-CAPRA (University of California, San Francisco, Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment) in Japanese patients receiving radical prostatectomy. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2011 Nov;41(11):1259-64. [PubMed]
6. May M, Knoll N, Siegsmund M, Fahlenkamp D, Vogler H, Hoschke B, et al. Validity of the CAPRA score to predict biochemical recurrence-free survival after radical prostatectomy. Results from a european multicenter survey of 1,296 patients. J Urol. 2007 Nov;178(5):1957-62. [PubMed]
7. Cooperberg MR, Freedland SJ, Pasta DJ, Elkin EP, Presti JC Jr, Amling CL, et al. Multiinstitutional validation of the UCSF cancer of the prostate risk assessment for prediction of recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Cancer. 2006 Nov 15;107(10):2384-91. [PubMed]
8. Zhao KH, Hernandez DJ, Han M, Humphreys EB, Mangold LA, Partin AW. External validation of University of California, San Francisco, Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score. Urology. 2008 Aug;72(2):396-400. [PubMed]
9. Goel S, Shoag JE, Gross MD, Al Hussein Al Awamlh B, Robinson B, Khani F, et al. Concordance Between Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Pathology in the Era of Targeted Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur Urol Oncol. 2020 Feb;3(1):10-20. [PubMed]
10. Ploussard G, Manceau C, Beauval JB, Lesourd M, Almeras C, Gautier JR, et al. Decreased accuracy of the prostate cancer EAU risk group classification in the era of imaging-guided diagnostic pathway: proposal for a new classification based on MRI-targeted biopsies and early oncologic outcomes after surgery. World J Urol. 2020 Oct;38(10):2493-2500. [PubMed]
11. Evtimov N, Ganev T. S002: Urethro – vesicale anastomate after laparoscopic radical prostate - ectomy single versus continued suture Evtimov. N. department of urology St. Ann. Hospital, Varna Bulgarian. European Urology Supplements. 2014 Nov;13(7):e1408. [Crossref]
12. Hinev A, Ganev T, Radical prostatectomy in cases of locally advanced prostatic carcinoma. Scripta scient med. 1997; 29(Suppl 4):57-61.
13. Omri N, Kamil M, Alexander K, Alexander K, Edmond S, Ariel Z, et al. Association between PSA density and pathologically significant prostate cancer: The impact of prostate volume. Prostate. 2020 Dec;80(16):1444-1449. [PubMed]

Received: 26 September 2023
Published online: 27 February 2024

back to Online Journal