Predicting pelvic lymph node involvement in current-era prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: The Roach formula [2/3 × prostate-specific antigen + (Gleason score--6) × 10], derived in 1993 during the early prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening era, has been used to predict the risk of pelvic lymph node involvement in patients with prostate cancer. In the current era of widespread PSA screening with a shift to earlier disease stages, there is evidence to suggest that the Roach score overestimates risk of nodal metastasis. This study retrospectively reviews the validity of this formula as a prediction tool. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We conducted a retrospective institutional review including men with clinical T1c-T3 prostate cancer, with baseline PSA levels and biopsy-obtained Gleason scores who underwent radical prostatectomy with pelvic node dissection from 2001 through 2009 (N = 1,022). The predicted risk of nodal involvement was calculated for each patient using the Roach formula and then compared with actual rates following surgery. RESULTS: The study included 1,022 patients; 99.6% had clinical T1c/T2 disease, with a mean of 10.3 lymph nodes surgically evaluated. Overall, 42 patients (4.1%) had nodal metastasis. For every range of scores, the Roach formula overestimates the risk of nodal involvement. Observed nodal positivity was 1%, 6.3%, 10%, 15.2%, and 16.7% for Roach scores ≤ 10%, >10%-20%, >20%-30%, >30%-40%, and >40%, respectively. The Roach score overestimates the risk by approximately 4.5-fold in patients with scores ≤ 10%, by 2.5-fold for all scores between 10% and 40%, and by 4-fold for scores >40%. CONCLUSION: The Roach formula overpredicts the risk of pelvic nodal involvement in current-era prostate cancer patients undergoing regular PSA screening and with mainly T1c/T2 disease. Contemporary patients are much less likely to have nodal involvement for a given PSA and Gleason score.

Metaplastic carcinoma of the breast: a retrospective review.

PURPOSE: Metaplastic carcinoma of the breast represents a rare and heterogeneous group of malignancies that accounts for less than 1% of all breast cancers. The purpose of this study is to better characterize the clinical management of this disease including the role of radiation therapy after surgery. We compared patients that have been treated with either modified radical mastectomy (MRM) or breast-conserving surgery (BCS). METHODS AND MATERIALS: We performed a retrospective review of 43 patients with metaplastic breast cancer who were evaluated in our regional radiation oncology department between 1987 and 2002. Twenty-one patients were treated with an MRM and 22 with BCS. Five patients from the MRM group received adjuvant radiation, as did 19 patients from the BCS group. Univariate and multivariate analysis of pathologic and treatment-related factors was performed. Local control, disease-free, and overall survival rates were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared for the two groups. RESULTS: Mean follow-up for all patients was 44.2 months. Mean tumor size was 3.4 cm. Four patients (9%) had positive estrogen receptors and 20 (25%) had positive nodes. The overall 5-year projected local recurrence-free (88% vs. 85%, p = 0.86), disease-free (55% vs. 84%, p = 0.13), and overall survivals (80% vs. 89%, p = 0.58) were not significantly different for both groups. The only tumor parameter significantly associated with overall survival was nodal status. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that breast conservation appears to be a reasonable treatment option for women with metaplastic breast cancer, achieving equal survival to mastectomy. The use of adjuvant radiation seems essential for achieving high local control rates after conservation therapy. Further studies will be needed to determine the impact of chemotherapy on survival outcomes.