Literature DB >> 10547551

Correlation of margin status and extraprostatic extension with progression of prostate carcinoma.

L Cheng1, M F Darson, E J Bergstralh, J Slezak, R P Myers, D G Bostwick.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The correlation of surgical margins and extraprostatic extension (EPE) with progression is uncertain with regard to prostate carcinoma patients treated by radical prostatectomy. The objective of this study was to define factors predictive of cancer progression; emphasis was placed on surgical margins and their relation to extraprostatic extension.
METHODS: The study group consisted of 377 patients who were treated by radical retropubic prostatectomy and bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy at the Mayo Clinic between 1986 and 1993. All specimens were totally embedded and whole-mounted. Patients ranged in age from 41 to 79 years (mean, 65 years). Those with seminal vesicle invasion or lymph node metastasis and those treated preoperatively with radiation or androgen deprivation were excluded. Final pathologic T classifications were pT2a (41 patients), pT2b (237), and pT3a (99). Progression was defined as biochemical failure (prostate specific antigen [PSA] >0.2 ng/mL), clinical or biopsy-proven local recurrence, or distant metastasis. The mean follow-up was 5.8 years (range, 0.2-11.4 years). Seventy-nine patients who received adjuvant treatment within 3 months after surgery were excluded from survival analysis.
RESULTS: The overall margin positivity rate was 29%. Seventy-two patients (19%) had only positive surgical margins without evidence of EPE ("surgical incision"), 53 (14%) had only EPE, 37 (10%) had both, and 215 (57%) had neither. Positive margins were correlated with the finding of EPE (P = 0.003). Progression free survival rates at 5 and 10 years were 88% and 67%, respectively. In univariate analysis, preoperative PSA concentration, positive surgical margins, Gleason grade, cancer volume, and DNA ploidy were significant in predicting progression (P values, <0.001, <0.001, 0.01, 0.007, and <0.001, respectively). In multivariate analysis, margin status and DNA ploidy were independent predictors of progression (relative risk for margin status, 1.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-3.4; P = 0.03; relative risk for DNA ploidy, 5.1; 95% CI, 2.4-10.9; P<0.001). Among patients with positive margins, 5-year progression free survival was 78% for those with negative EPE and 55% for those with positive EPE.
CONCLUSIONS: Surgical margin status and DNA ploidy were independent predictors of progression after radical prostatectomy. To improve cancer control, adjuvant therapy may be considered for patients with positive surgical margins or nondiploid cancer. Copyright 1999 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10547551     DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(19991101)86:9<1775::aid-cncr20>3.0.co;2-l

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  26 in total

1.  Do robotic prostatectomy positive surgical margins occur in the same location as extraprostatic extension?

Authors:  Matthew T Johnson; Mitchell L Ramsey; Joshua J Ebel; Ronney Abaza; Debra L Zynger
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2013-10-06       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  Magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer clinical application.

Authors:  Bing Li; Yong Du; Hanfeng Yang; Yayong Huang; Jun Meng; Dongmei Xiao
Journal:  Chin J Cancer Res       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 5.087

3.  Impact of the extent of extraprostatic extension defined by Epstein's method in patients with negative surgical margins and negative lymph node invasion.

Authors:  T Maubon; N Branger; C Bastide; G Lonjon; K-A Harvey-Bryan; P Validire; S Giusiano; D Rossi; X Cathelineau; F Rozet
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2016-07-12       Impact factor: 5.554

4.  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

5.  Incidence and location of positive surgical margins following open, pure laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy and its relation with neurovascular preservation: a single-institution experience.

Authors:  W Villamil; N Billordo Peres; P Martinez; C Giudice; J Liyo; P García Marchiñena; A Jurado; O Damia
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2012-02-01

6.  Impact of surgeon-defined capsular incision during radical prostatectomy on biochemical recurrence rates.

Authors:  Philipp Mandel; Su J Oh; Christoph Hagner; Pierre Tennstedt; Maximilian C Kriegmair; Hartwig Huland; Markus Graefen; Derya Tilki
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-03-22       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  Is the transition from open to robotic prostatectomy fair to your patients? A single-surgeon comparison with 2-year follow-up.

Authors:  Robert B Nadler; Jessica T Casey; Lee C Zhao; Neema Navai; Zachary L Smith; Ali Zhumkhawala; Amanda M Macejko
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2009-11-19

8.  Benign prostate glandular tissue at radical prostatectomy surgical margins.

Authors:  Anobel Y Odisho; Samuel L Washington; Maxwell V Meng; Janet E Cowan; Jeffry P Simko; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2013-03-21       Impact factor: 2.649

9.  Adverse prognostic impact of capsular incision at radical prostatectomy for Japanese men with clinically localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Masafumi Kumano; Hideaki Miyake; Mototsugu Muramaki; Toshifumi Kurahashi; Atsushi Takenaka; Masato Fujisawa
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2008-09-11       Impact factor: 2.370

10.  Impact of capsular incision on biochemical recurrence after radical perineal prostatectomy.

Authors:  K W Kwak; H M Lee; H Y Choi
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2009-06-02       Impact factor: 5.554

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.