The role of transurethral resection of prostatic gland in treatment of prostatic іntraepithelial neoplasia

  • М. P. Melnychuk Scientific–Practical Centre of Prophylactic and Clinical Medicine of Department of Affairs of the President, Kyiv
Keywords: prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia; transurethral resection of prostatic gland

Abstract

Objective. To establish the efficacy of transurethral resection of prostatic gland (TURPG) in patients, suffering prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN) of central zone.

Маterials and methods. Results of treatment of 72 patients, suffering benign hyperplasia of prostatic gland Stages І–ІІІ and PIN of central zone, are adduced. Depending on the treatment tactic applied, the patients were divided into 3 Groups: dynamical follow–up (Group 1), medicinal therapy, using dutasterid (Group 2), and TURPG (Group 3). Follow–up period have constituted 3 years.

Results. Among the patients, suffering PIN of the prostatic gland central zone, prostatic gland cancer (PGC) was revealed in 15 (20,8%). In the treatment absence, the PGC occurrence rate have constituted 42,9%. At the same time the pancreatic gland adenocarcinoma after ТURPG during follow–up period was not revealed.

Conclusion. Оperative intervention, using TURPG, constitutes an effective prophylactic method for the PIN malignant transformation. Treatment of patients, suffering PIN, is directed to prophylaxis of the PGC occurrence.

Author Biography

М. P. Melnychuk, Scientific–Practical Centre of Prophylactic and Clinical Medicine of Department of Affairs of the President, Kyiv

Maksym P. Melnychuk, MD, PhD, Senior Researcher
Research and practical center of preventive and clinical medicine
5, Verhnia St., Kyiv, Ukraine, 01014,
+380442848453
maksymmelnychulk1980@gmail.com
orcid 0000–0003–1194–3496

References

1. Kolesnik OO, Fedorenko ZP, Hulak LO, Mykhaylovych YuY, Horokh YeL. Rak v Ukrayini, 2015–2016. Byuleten' Natsional'noho kantser–reyestru Ukrayiny. 2017;18.
2. Bostwick D. Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia is a risk factor for cancer. Semin Urol Oncol. 1999;17:187–98.
3. Merrimen J, Evans A. Preneoplasia in the prostate gland with emphasis on high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Pathology. 2013;45(3):251–63. doi: 10.1097/PAT.0b013e32835f6134.
4. Lindberg J, Kristiansen A, Wiklund P, Gronberg H, Egevad L. Tracking the origin of metastatic prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2015 May;67(5):819–22. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.09.006. Epub 2014 Sep 22.
5. Bosland MC, Ozten N, Eskra JN, Abeer MM. A perspective on prostate carcinogenesis and chemoprevention. Curr Pharmacol Rep. 2015 Aug 1;1(4):258–65. doi: 10.1007/s40495–015–0031–0. Published online 2015 Apr 11.
6. Benetou V, Lagiou A, Lagiou P. Chemoprevention of cancer: current evidence and future prospects. F1000Research 4 (F1000 Faculty Rev). 2015;4:916–926. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.6684.1. Published online 2015 Sep 28.
7. Miyai K, Divatia MK, Shen SS, Miles BJ, Ayala AG, Ro JY. Heterogeneous clinicopathological features of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate: a comparison between "precursor–like" and "regular type" lesions. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2014 Apr 15;7(5):2518–26. eCollection 2014.
8. Munireddy M, Girish H, Prasad K. Rajareddy H. Prevalence of Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia in Patients Diagnosed as Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Underwent Transurethral Resection. International Journal for Scientific Study. 2016;3(11):134–8. doi: 10.17354/ijss/2016/72.
Published
2018-04-04
Section
General Problems of Surgery