[Clinical studies on endocrine therapy of prostatic carcinoma (1): Multivariate analyses of prognostic factors in patients with prostatic carcinoma given endocrine therapy].
The general trend on the treatment for prostatic carcinoma has been changing from endocrine therapy alone to an alternative type according to stage. We evaluated clinically the favorable and unfavorable outcome of endocrine therapy in Japan, so that others will be appropriately evaluated. In a cooperative study made by members of five universities, 572 patients with clinically or histologically reconfirmed prostatic carcinoma were entered in this retrospective study. We studied the true influence of prognostic factors on the prognosis of 497 patients with prostatic carcinoma who had received endocrine therapy, employing multivariate analyses, such as quantification method II, multiple regression analysis and Cox's proportional hazard model. Twelve factors were considered in the study; "age", "stage", "histological findings (structural atypism = SAT, nuclear anaplasia = NAN, Gleason's primary and secondary pattern)", "pretreatment level of total acid (ACP) and of alkaline phosphatase (ALP)", "castration performed or not performed", "doses of estrogen", "type of response of local prostatic tumor and of ACP to endocrine therapy". Analysis of the "importance" of a prognostic factor by a partial correlation determined by quantification method II, revealed "stage" to have the greatest "importance" on prognosis throughout the entire period. "Response of local prostatic tumor", "response of ACP" and "Gleason's primary pattern" tended to be important factors for prognosis, in particular, in the first half period, and "age" and "Gleason's secondary pattern" were important in the latter half. Multiple regression analysis revealed the "stage", once again to be the most influential factor on the prognosis for the entire observation period. Also "response of local prostatic tumor", "SAT" and "Gleason's primary pattern" affected the patients' prognosis in the first half of the observation period. In the latter half, "age" became more of an influential factor than "histological findings". Analysis with Cox's proportional hazard model revealed that "response of ACP", "stage", "age", "Gleason's primary and secondary pattern", and "response of local prostatic tumor" were definitely the more influential prognostic factors, of which chi-square values (or t values) were statistically significant. Comparison of the significant factors in each multivariate analysis revealed that common influential prognostic factors, such as "age", "stage", "histological findings (mainly Gleason's primary and secondary pattern)", "response of local prostatic tumor" and "response of ACP" were coincident to the clinical impression. The clarification of these factors would be clinically beneficial when treating patients with endocrine therapy.
Kumamoto
Y
Y
Department of Urology, Sapporo Medical College.
Tsukamoto
T
T
Umehara
T
T
Shimazaki
J
J
Fuse
H
H
Ohshima
H
H
Takeuchi
H
H
Yoshida
O
O
Okada
K
K
Saito
Y
Y
D004967:Estrogens / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D006801:Humans; D007564:Japan / Q000453:epidemiology; D008297:Male; D015337:Multicenter Studies as Topic; D015999:Multivariate Analysis; D009376:Neoplasms, Hormone-Dependent / Q000188:drug therapy* / Q000453:epidemiology; D011379:Prognosis; D011471:Prostatic Neoplasms / Q000188:drug therapy* / Q000453:epidemiology
D004967:Estrogens