Literature DB >> 11711353

Does capsular incision at radical retropubic prostatectomy affect disease-free survival in otherwise organ-confined prostate cancer?

D A Barocas1, M Han, J I Epstein, D Y Chan, B J Trock, P C Walsh, A W Partin.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the influence of isolated, histologically identified capsular incision (CI) (exposure of benign or malignant glands to the inked surgical margin in the setting of organ-confined disease) on disease progression after anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) for clinically localized prostate cancer.
METHODS: Between March 1993 and September 1999, 4747 men underwent RRP at the Johns Hopkins Hospital; 107 men (2.3%) were diagnosed with CI in otherwise organ-confined disease; 92 (86%) had at least 6 months (mean 30) of follow-up. We matched these CI cases (based on surgeon, age, clinical stage, final pathologic Gleason grade, and preoperative serum prostate-specific antigen level) one-for-one with controls in three additional pathologically defined groups and compared the freedom from disease progression (prostate-specific antigen level greater than 0.2 ng/mL and/or local palpable recurrence) after RRP.
RESULTS: The actuarial 3-year likelihood of freedom from disease progression was 87.8% for the CI group, 96.4% for men with organ-confined disease (P = 0.10), 91.3% for men with extraprostatic extension and negative surgical margins (P = 0.99), and 73.9% for men with positive surgical margins resulting from extraprostatic extension (P <0.01). No statistically significant difference was found in the actuarial likelihood of freedom from disease progression between men with CI into benign glands (n = 22) and men with CI into tumor (n = 70) (P = 0.93).
CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant difference was found in the likelihood of early recurrence between patients with isolated CI and other specimen-confined disease. Patients with isolated CI have a significantly lower likelihood of early recurrence than patients with positive surgical margins due to extraprostatic extension, regardless of whether the CI is into benign glands or tumor. Long-term follow-up is necessary to confirm these findings.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11711353     DOI: 10.1016/s0090-4295(01)01336-x

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


  11 in total

1.  Does periprostatic local anesthesia for prostate biopsy affect the operative difficulty of open radical prostatectomy? A prospective randomized trial.

Authors:  Nobuhiro Haga; Ken Aikawa; Kei Ishibashi; Tomohiko Yanagida; Norio Takahashi; Souichiro Ogawa; Toshiki Oguro; Masao Kataoka; Chiharu Irisawa; Yoshiyuki Kojima
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2012-08-15       Impact factor: 2.370

2.  The presence of benign prostatic glandular tissue at surgical margins does not predict PSA recurrence.

Authors:  K M Kernek; M O Koch; J K Daggy; B E Juliar; L Cheng
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 3.411

3.  The role of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging in predicting extraprostatic extension and seminal vesicle invasion in clinically localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Seo Yong Park; Jung Jun Kim; Tae Heon Kim; Soo Hyun Lim; Deok Hyun Han; Byung Kwan Park; Chan Kyo Kim; Ghee Young Kwon; Han Yong Choi; Hyun Moo Lee
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2010-05-19

4.  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

5.  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

6.  Risk Factors for Intraprostatic Incision into Malignant Glands at Radical Prostatectomy.

Authors:  Sung-Woo Park; Nathaniel Readal; Byong Chang Jeong; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Jonathan I Epstein; Alan W Partin; Misop Han
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2014-07-31       Impact factor: 20.096

7.  Iatrogenic and non-iatrogenic positive margins: incidence, site, factors involved, and time to PSA progression following radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Athanase Billis; Isabela C Watanabe; Matheus V Costa; Gilliat H Telles; Luis A Magna
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2007-06-30       Impact factor: 2.370

8.  Association of Anterior and Lateral Extraprostatic Extensions with Base-Positive Resection Margins in Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Yong Jin Kang; Mark Joseph Abalajon; Won Sik Jang; Jong Kyou Kwon; Cheol Yong Yoon; Joo Yong Lee; Kang Su Cho; Won Sik Ham; Young Deuk Choi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-07-08       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  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

10.  Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy outcome data: how should surgeon's performance be reported? A retrospective learning curve analysis of two surgeons.

Authors:  Sarah Mason; Mieke Van Hemelrijck; Ashish Chandra; Christian Brown; Declan Cahill
Journal:  Ecancermedicalscience       Date:  2016-07-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.