ANKMJ

Ankyra Medical Journal (AnkMJ), formerly known as the Journal of Translational and Practical Medicine, regularly publishes international quality issues in the field of Medicine in the light of current information.

EndNote Style
Index
Original Article
Comparative examination of patients with suspect and diagnosis of prostate cancer before and during the COVID-19 pandemic
Aims: We aimed to determine the clinical stage (CS) alteration in recently diagnosed prostate cancer(PCa) patients with a delay in outpatient diagnostic evalutions and procedures due to COVID-19.
Methods: We reviewed patients underwent 12 quadrant biopsies in our clinic between January 2018 and April 2022 , 86 pre-pandemic (Group-1) and 86 pandemic. The results of patients with PCa, during pandemic (Group-2) were evaluated cross-sectionally. Serum PSA levels, prostate volume, biopsy parameters, gleason score and groups, CS, presence of high and low volume metastatic disease, clinical risk assessments were compared in both groups.
Results: In Group-1, 440 patients were included and PCa was reported in the pathology results of 86 patients (19.54% of biopsies performed). Group-2 encompassed 287 patients in which we identified 86 patients with PCa. We identified PCa in 29.96% of biopsies performed in the Group-2. Encountering a malignant prostate biopsy was found to be significantly higher in the Group-1(p=0.001). The average clinical stage was T2b in Group-1, and T2c in Group-2 which was found statistically significant (p=0.019). The number of cancer-positive cores was 4 in Group-1 and 5 in Group-2(p = 0.007). The average values ??of tumor percentages in cancerous cores were determined as 47% in Group-1 and 57% in Group-2(p = 0.024). The probability of a patient with a malignant biopsy being in the local stage is higher in Group-1(p = 0,043).
Conclusion: Serum PSA levels, CS, number of cancer-positive cores and average tumor percentages in cancerous cores during the pandemic are significantly higher compared to the Group-1. Postponing prostate biopsy in suspected PCa; may negatively affect disease-related survival or overall survival.


1. Vickers AJ, Bianco FJ, Boorjian S, Scardino PT, Eastham JA. Does a delay between diagnosis and radical prostatectomy increase the risk of disease recurrence? Cancer. 2006;106(3):576-580. doi:10.1002/cncr. 21643
2. Epstein MM, Sundaresan D, Fair M, Garber L. Abstract S11-03:impact of COVID-19 on breast and prostate cancer screening and early detection in a large health care provider group. Clin Cancer Res. 2020;26(18_Supplement):S11-03-S11-03. doi:10.1158/1557-3265.COVID-19-S11-03
3. Savin Z, Dekalo S, Marom R, et al. The effect of delaying transperineal fusion biopsy of the prostate for patients with suspicious MRI findings—implications for the COVID-19 era. Urol Oncol. 2021;39(1):73.e1-73.e8. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.07.009
4. Xu Z, Shi L, Wang Y, et al. Pathological findings of COVID-19 associated with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Lancet Respir Med. 2020;8(4):420-422. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30076-X
5. Tang N, Li D, Wang X, Sun Z. Abnormal coagulation parameters are associated with poor prognosis in patients with novel coronavirus pneumonia. J Thromb Haemost. 2020;18(4):844-847. doi:10.1111/jth. 14768
6. Klok FA, Kruip MJHA, Van Der Meer NJM, et al. Incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. Thromb Res. 2020;191:145-147. doi:10.1016/j.thromres.2020.04.013
7. Yang X, Yu Y, Xu J, et al. Clinical course and outcomes of critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a single-centered, retrospective, observational study. Lancet Respir Med. 2020; 8(5):475-481. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30079-5
8. Caulfield S, Menezes G, Marignol L, Poole C. Nomograms are key decision-making tools in prostate cancer radiation therapy. Urol Oncol. 2018;36(6):283-292. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2018.03.017
9. Diblasio C, Rhee AC, Cho D, Scardino PD, Kattan MW. Predicting clinical end points: treatment nomograms in prostate cancer. Semin Oncol. 2003;30(5):567-586. doi:10.1016/S0093-7754(03)00351-8
10. Nørgaard M, Jensen AØ, Jacobsen JB, Cetin K, Fryzek JP, Sørensen HT. Skeletal related events, bone metastasis and survival of prostate cancer: a population based cohort study in Denmark (1999 to 2007). J Urol. 2010;184(1):162-167. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2010.03.034
11. Fall K, Garmo H, Andren O, et al. Prostate-specific antigen levels as a predictor of lethal prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99(7):526-532. doi:10.1093/jnci/djk110
12. Cooperberg MR, Lubeck DP, Mehta SS, Carroll PR. Time trends in clinical risk stratification for prostate cancer: implications for outcomes (Data From CaPSURE). J Urol. 2003;170(6 Pt 2):S21-S27. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000095025.03331.c6
13. Shah MB, Raju K, Kumar G H. Revisiting prostate biopsy with 2014 ISUP modified Gleason score and Gleason grade-a cross section study. Biomed Res Ther. 2018;5(12):2918-2925. doi:10.15419/bmrat.v5i12.511
14. Johansson JE, Holmberg L, Johansson S, Bergström R, Adami HO. Fifteen-year survival in prostate cancer. A prospective, population-based study in Sweden. JAMA. 1997;277(6):467-471. doi:10.1093/jnci/ 88.17.1216
15. Buelens S, De Bleser E, Dhondt B, et al. Importance of metastatic volume in prognostic models to predict survival in newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer. World J Urol. 2019;37(12):2565-2571. doi:10. 1007/s00345-018-2449-6
16. Francini E, Gray KP, Xie W, et al. Time of metastatic disease presentation and volume of disease are prognostic for metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Prostate. 2018;78(12):889-895. doi:10.1002/pros.23645
Volume 4, Issue 3, 2025
Page : 39-44
_Footer