Literature DB >> 12597953

Location of positive surgical margins after retropubic, perineal, and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for organ-confined prostate cancer.

Laurent Salomon1, Aristotelis G Anastasiadis, Olivier Levrel, Ran Katz, Fabien Saint, Alexandre de la Taille, Antony Cicco, Dimitri Vordos, Andras Hoznek, Dominique Chopin, Clement Claude Abbou.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare the location of positive surgical margins after retropubic, perineal, and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for organ-confined prostate cancer (pT2).
METHODS: From 1988 to 2001, 538 patients underwent radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Patient age at surgery, clinical stage, preoperative prostate-specific antigen, and Gleason score of positive biopsies were noted. Postoperatively, specimen weight, final Gleason score, and capsular, seminal vesicle, and lymph node status, as well as tumor volume, were studied. The incidence and location of positive margins and the pathologic stage were noted according to the surgical approach.
RESULTS: A total of 371 patients (69.5%) had organ-confined tumors. Of the 371 patients, 116 underwent the retropubic, 86 the perineal, and 169 the laparoscopic approach, and positive surgical margins were noted in 22 (18.9%), 12 (13.9%), and 32 (18.9%) patients, respectively. Positive surgical margins were reported in 72 specimen locations, 32 (44.4%) at the apex, 17 (23.6%) at the bladder neck, and 29 (31.9%) posterolaterally. The distribution for the retropubic, perineal, and laparoscopic approaches was apex in 50%, 33.3%, and 44.4%, bladder neck in 29.1%, 41.7%, and 13.9%, and posterolaterally in 20.8%, 25%, and 41.6%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: In our series, each approach had a specific high-risk location of positive margins: the apex for the retropubic, the bladder neck for the perineal, and posterolaterally for the laparoscopic approach. Improvements in the surgical techniques should take these specific locations under consideration to decrease the incidence of positive surgical margins.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12597953     DOI: 10.1016/s0090-4295(02)02255-0

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


  9 in total

Review 1.  Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: review and assessment of an emerging technique.

Authors:  J B Basillote; T E Ahlering; D W Skarecky; D I Lee; R V Clayman
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2004-10-26       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  A multi-institutional comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy, radical perineal prostatectomy, and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy for treatment of localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Eric E Coronato; Justin D Harmon; Phillip C Ginsberg; Richard C Harkaway; Kulwant Singh; Leonard Braitman; Bruce B Sloane; Jamison S Jaffe
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2009-10-01

3.  Prostate cancer at the peripheral end of prostate biopsy specimen predicts increased risk of positive resection margin after radical prostatectomy: results of a prospective multi-institutional study.

Authors:  Anton Ponholzer; Sophina Trubel; Paul Schramek; Florian Wimpissinger; Hans Feichtinger; Christopher Springer; Clemens Wehrberger; Katja Fischereder; Karl Pummer; Thomas Martini; Roman Mayr; Armin Pycha; Stephan Madersbacher
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-02-08       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Location, extent, and multifocality of positive surgical margins for biochemical recurrence prediction after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Guillaume Ploussard; Sarah J Drouin; Julie Rode; Yves Allory; Dimitri Vordos; Andras Hoznek; Claude-Clément Abbou; Alexandre de la Taille; Laurent Salomon
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-01-21       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  Surgical margin status of specimen and oncological outcomes after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: experience after 400 procedures.

Authors:  Francesco Porpiglia; Cristian Fiori; Matteo Manfredi; Susanna Grande; Massimiliano Poggio; Enrico Bollito; Mauro Papotti; Roberto Mario Scarpa
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2011-06-23       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  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

7.  Contemporary radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Qiang Fu; Judd W Moul; Leon Sun
Journal:  Prostate Cancer       Date:  2011-04-14

8.  Analysis of preoperative detection for apex prostate cancer by transrectal biopsy.

Authors:  Tomokazu Sazuka; Takashi Imamoto; Takeshi Namekawa; Takanobu Utsumi; Mitsuru Yanagisawa; Koji Kawamura; Naoto Kamiya; Hiroyoshi Suzuki; Takeshi Ueda; Satoshi Ota; Yukio Nakatani; Tomohiko Ichikawa
Journal:  Prostate Cancer       Date:  2013-02-21

9.  Case for resurgence of radical perineal prostatecomy in Indian subcontinent.

Authors:  Rajeev Sood; Nikhil Khattar; Rishi Nayyar; Sachin Kathuria; Vineet Narang; Devashish Kaushal
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2012-10
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.