Comparación entre las calculadoras de riesgo del European Randomized Study for Screening of Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) y Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group (PBCG): predicción del riesgo de cáncer de próstata clínicamente significativo en una cohorte de pacientes de Argentina / Comparison between the European Randomized Study for Screening of Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group (PBCG) risk calculators: Prediction of clinically significant prostate cancer risk in a cohort of patients from Argentina

Objetivo Comparar el desempeño de las calculadoras de riesgo del European Randomised Study for Screening of Prostate Cancer (ERSPC-RC) y el Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group (PBCG-RC) en predecir el riesgo de presentar cáncer de próstata clínicamente significativo. Material y métodos Retrospectivamente, se identificó a los pacientes que fueron sometidos a biopsia prostática en el Sanatorio Allende Cerro, Ciudad de Córdoba, Argentina, desde enero de 2018 a diciembre de 2021. Se calculó la probabilidad de tener cáncer de próstata con las dos calculadoras por separado y luego se compararon los resultados para establecer cuál de las dos tuvo mejor desempeño. Para esto, se analizaron áreas bajo la curva (ABC). Resultados Se incluyeron 250 pacientes, 140 (56%) presentaron cáncer de próstata, de los cuales 92 (36,8%) tuvieron cáncer de próstata clínicamente significativo (Score de Gleason ≥7). Los pacientes que presentaron cáncer tenían mayor edad, mayor valor de antígeno prostático específico (PSA) y menor tamaño prostático. El ABC para predecir la probabilidad de tener cáncer de próstata clínicamente significativo fue de 0,79 y 0,73 para PBCG-RC y ERSPC-RC, respectivamente (p=0,0084). Conclusión En esta cohorte de pacientes, ambas calculadoras de riesgo de cáncer de próstata mostraron un buen desempeño para predecir el riesgo de cáncer de próstata clínicamente significativo, si bien el PBCG-RC mostró mejor exactitud. (AU)

Objective To compare the performance of the risk calculators of the European Randomized Study for Screening of Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group (PBCG) in predicting the risk of presenting clinically significant prostate cancer. Material and methods Retrospectively, patients who underwent prostate biopsy at Sanatorio Allende Cerro, Ciudad de Córdoba, Argentina, were identified from January 2018 to December 2021. The probability of having prostate cancer was calculated with the two calculators separately and then the results were compared to establish which of the two performed better. For this, areas under the curve (AUC) were analyzed. Results 250 patients were included, 140 (56%) presented prostate cancer, of which 92 (65.71%) had clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason score ≥7). The patients who presented cancer were older, had a higher prostate-specific antigen (PSA) value, and had a smaller prostate size. The AUC to predict the probability of having clinically significant prostate cancer was 0.79 and 0.73 for PBCG-RC and ERSPC-RC respectively (p=0.0084). Conclusion In this cohort of patients, both prostate cancer risk calculators performed well in predicting clinically significant prostate cancer risk, although the PBCG-RC showed better accuracy. (AU)

Comparison between the European Randomized Study for Screening of Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group (PBCG) risk calculators: Prediction of clinically significant Prostate Cancer risk in a cohort of patients from Argentina.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of the risk calculators of the European Randomized Study for Screening of Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group (PBCG) in predicting the risk of presenting clinically significant prostate cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospectively, patients who underwent prostate biopsy at Sanatorio Allende Cerro, Ciudad de Córdoba, Argentina, were identified from January 2018 to December 2021. The probability of having prostate cancer was calculated with the two calculators separately and then the results were compared to establish which of the two performed better. For this, areas under the curve (AUC) were analyzed. RESULTS: 250 patients were included, 140 (56%) presented prostate cancer, of which 92 (65.71%) had clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason score ≥7). The patients who presented cancer were older, had a higher prostate-specific antigen (PSA) value, and had a smaller prostate size. The AUC to predict the probability of having clinically significant prostate cancer was 0.79 and 0.73 for PBCG-RC and ERSPC-RC respectively (P=0.0084). CONCLUSION: In this cohort of patients, both prostate cancer risk calculators performed well in predicting clinically significant prostate cancer risk, although the PBCG-RC showed better accuracy.

Outcome of radical prostatectomy in patients meeting criteria for active surveillance.

OBJECTIVES: Advances in diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa)have led to an increased detection of these tumors, some of them with low-risk of progression, with the consequent risk of overdiagnosis and overt treatment. In consequence, there is a tendency to offer alternatives to active therapy, like active surveillance (AS)however, some patients under AS need definitive therapy and after surgery it becomes evident that they are not "low-risk" patients. We retrospectively reviewed the data of patients who met criteria for low-risk tumors treated with radical prostatectomy. METHODS: We selected 21 out of 190 patients treated with radical prostatectomy from January 2004 to December 2008 who met Epstein's criteria for low-risk tumors. We analyzed the number of organ-confined tumors,Gleason undergrading and understaging by biopsy, surgical margins and postoperative PSA. RESULTS: Mean age was 58.6 years; mean PSA was 6.6 ng/ml, predominant Gleason score was 6 (3+3), 76%were unilateral tumors and 90%were organ-confined, 10% had extracapsular extension, none had involvement of the seminal % vesicles, 15% of the patients had Gleason score >6 and surgical margins were positive in 30% of the specimens. Eighty five percent had their first postoperative PSA <0.10 ng/ml and 75% remain free of biochemical recurrence. According to the Johns Hopkins criteria for "incurable tumors ", our cohort had 28%. CONCLUSION: Patients with low-risk prostate cancer include cases that may have greater risk than estimated. In our series, we had 10% extracapsular disease, 15% understaging for Gleason score and 25% biochemical recurrence, which demonstrates that current criteria do not warrant good oncological results. Active surveillance offers good quality of life and acceptable oncological results, it can be proposed until definitive therapy, without seriously endangering the patient. Anyway, as a therapeutic tool, it still requires improvements. Technical advances are awaited so as to properly assess each patient's risk and to define the best therapeutic option for every case.

Tumor renal bilatareal asincrónico / Asinchronic renal bilateral tumor

Paciente de 61 años de edad a quien se le realizó nefrectomía derecha en 1991 por tumor de polo superior (carcinorna renal de células claras). Comienza con terapia inmunomoduladora con control durante 1.5 año perdiéndose el paciente hasta 1995 en que vuelve a la consulta por tumoración palpable en hipocondrio izquierdo. Los estudios revelaron tumor sólido de 6 cm en región media y polo inferior del riñón izquierdo. Se comenzó tratamiento con interleukina y 5-fluoracilo con los controles necesarios por T.A.C. que mostraban reducción del tamaño tumoral. Actualmente continúa con la misma terapia más ciclos de vimblastina observando disminución importante del tamaiío tumoral que permitiría en un futuro realizar nefrectomía parcial o tumorectomía