Literature DB >> 10510928

Positive surgical margins with radical retropubic prostatectomy: anatomic site-specific pathologic analysis and impact on prognosis.

C Obek1, S Sadek, S Lai, F Civantos, D Rubinowicz, M S Soloway.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To correlate the extent and location of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy with disease progression.
METHODS: Data on 495 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy by one surgeon were analyzed. All radical prostatectomy specimens were sectioned entirely using 2 to 3-mm step sections by one pathologist. One hundred fifty-one patients (30.5%) had one or more positive surgical margins and were subjected to further detailed analysis. Recurrence was defined as a serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of 0.2 ng/mL and rising on at least two postoperative measurements.
RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 25.3 months (range 3 to 73). The overall recurrence rate was 13.3%. Neoadjuvant hormonal treatment was given to 37 (25%) of those with a positive margin. Patients with positive surgical margins had a significantly higher incidence of recurrence compared with those with negative margins (27.8% versus 6.9%, P = 0.001). The recurrence rate for various locations was 29% apex/urethra, 30% posterior, 33% anterior, 36% lateral, 48% posterolateral, and 57% bladder neck. Time to recurrence was shorter in patients older than 70 years (P<0.055); with a preoperative PSA greater than 10 ng/mL (P<0.0001); with a biopsy Gleason score greater than 7 (P = 0.02); with a prostatectomy Gleason score greater than 7 (P<0.001); with seminal vesicle invasion (P = 0.0001); having more than 1 location of a positive margin (P = 0.002); or having a positive margin at the bladder neck (P = 0.0003) or the posterolateral surface of the prostate (P = 0.02) compared with other locations. Multivariate proportional hazards analyses indicated that age older than 70 (P = 0.005), a prostatectomy Gleason score of 7 (P = 0.015) or 8 to 10 (P = 0.003), and positive margin(s) at the bladder neck (P = 0.003) were independently associated with a shorter time to recurrence among patients with a positive margin.
CONCLUSIONS: In our study, among patients with positive surgical margins, those with multiple positive margins, or a margin involving the bladder neck or the posterolateral surface of the specimen carried a higher risk of progression. A positive margin at the bladder neck appears to be the most significant adverse prognostic indicator. This information may help in decisions regarding additional therapy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10510928     DOI: 10.1016/s0090-4295(99)00204-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  11 in total

Review 1.  Value of frozen section biopsies during radical prostatectomy: significance of the histological results.

Authors:  Miguel Ramírez-Backhaus; Robert Rabenalt; Sunjay Jain; Minh Do; Evangelos Liatsikos; Roman Ganzer; Lars-Christian Horn; Martin Burchardt; Fernando Jiménez-Cruz; Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2008-12-10       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Timothy J Wilt; Michael K Brawer; Karen M Jones; Michael J Barry; William J Aronson; Steven Fox; Jeffrey R Gingrich; John T Wei; Patricia Gilhooly; B Mayer Grob; Imad Nsouli; Padmini Iyer; Ruben Cartagena; Glenn Snider; Claus Roehrborn; Roohollah Sharifi; William Blank; Parikshit Pandya; Gerald L Andriole; Daniel Culkin; Thomas Wheeler
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2012-07-19       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  The influence of extent of surgical margin positivity on prostate specific antigen recurrence.

Authors:  R E Emerson; M O Koch; T D Jones; J K Daggy; B E Juliar; L Cheng
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 3.411

4.  Positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy predict prostate cancer specific mortality.

Authors:  Jonathan L Wright; Bruce L Dalkin; Lawrence D True; William J Ellis; Janet L Stanford; Paul H Lange; Daniel W Lin
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Treatment results of adjuvant radiotherapy and salvage radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Koichi Wadasaki; Yuko Kaneyasu; Masahiro Kenjo; Kanji Matsuura; Yuji Murakami; Yasutoshi Hashimoto; Katsuhide Ito; Hiroshi Kiriu; Atsushi Ito
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2007-02-25       Impact factor: 3.402

6.  Assessment of low prostate weight as a determinant of a higher positive margin rate after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective pathologic study of 1,500 cases.

Authors:  Peiguo G Chu; Sean K Lau; Lawrence M Weiss; Mark Kawachi; Jeffrey Yoshida; Christopher Ruel; Rebecca Nelson; Laura Crocitto; Timothy Wilson
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2008-09-24       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Risk stratification for biochemical recurrence in men with positive surgical margins or extracapsular disease after radical prostatectomy: results from the SEARCH database.

Authors:  Jayakrishnan Jayachandran; Lionel L Bañez; Donna E Levy; William J Aronson; Martha K Terris; Joseph C Presti; Christopher L Amling; Christopher J Kane; Stephen J Freedland
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2008-03-17       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Prognostic factors for failure after prostatectomy.

Authors:  Gregory P Swanson; Joseph W Basler
Journal:  J Cancer       Date:  2010-12-07       Impact factor: 4.207

9.  Complications and functional results of surgery for locally advanced prostate cancer.

Authors:  S G Joniau; A A Van Baelen; C Y Hsu; H P Van Poppel
Journal:  Adv Urol       Date:  2012-01-12

10.  Disease-specific outcomes of radical prostatectomies in Northern Norway; a case for the impact of perineural infiltration and postoperative PSA-doubling time.

Authors:  Sigve Andersen; Elin Richardsen; Yngve Nordby; Nora Ness; Oystein Størkersen; Khalid Al-Shibli; Tom Donnem; Helena Bertilsson; Lill-Tove Busund; Anders Angelsen; Roy M Bremnes
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2014-06-14       Impact factor: 2.264

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.