Literature DB >> 15204423

Positive apical surgical margins after radical retropubic prostatectomy, truth or artefact?

Stephen S Connolly1, Gary C O'Toole, Kiaran J O'Malley, Rustom Manecksha, Anne O'Brien, David W Mulvin, David M Quinlan.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The significance of a positive apical surgical margin following radical retropubic prostatectomy has been the subject of controversy. We examined the hypothesis that a positive apical margin alone is not associated with an increased probability of biochemical relapse.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 162 men underwent radical prostatectomy for clinically organ-confined disease between May 1990 and December 1998. The mean follow-up period was 55 months (minimum 24 months). The mean patient age was 60.8 years. Clinical staging was 67.9% T1 and 32.1% T2. The mean preoperative prostate-specific antigen level was 11.5 ng/ml, and the mean Gleason score was 5.8.
RESULTS: Overall, 5/64 patients (7.8%) with negative surgical margins and 42/98 (42.9%) with at least one positive surgical margin had biochemical recurrence (p < 0.001). Seven of 25 patients (28%) with a solitary positive apical margin relapsed. A solitary apical positive margin was associated with a statistically significant higher risk of recurrence versus controls (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: All patients with a positive surgical margin, including those with a solitary apical margin alone, are at significantly increased risk of biochemical failure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15204423     DOI: 10.1080/00365590310017334

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Scand J Urol Nephrol        ISSN: 0036-5599


  4 in total

1.  Surgery: surgical quality assurance for robot-assisted prostatectomy.

Authors:  Joseph L Chin; Stephen E Pautler
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2011-05-03       Impact factor: 14.432

2.  Ethnic variation in pelvimetric measures and its impact on positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Christian von Bodman; Mika P Matikainen; Luis Herran Yunis; Vincent Laudone; Peter T Scardino; Oguz Akin; Farhang Rabbani
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 2.649

3.  Randomized trial comparing an anterograde versus a retrograde approach to open radical prostatectomy: results in terms of positive margin rate.

Authors:  Alessandro Sciarra; Cristiano Cristini; Magnus Von Heland; Stefano Salciccia; Vincenzo Gentile
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 1.862

4.  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
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.