OBJECTIVES: To identify the prognostic significance of positive bladder neck margin as the sole positive margin after radical retropubic prostatectomy for treatment of prostate cancer. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the data from patients who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy at Johns Hopkins Hospital between 1984 and 2001. Of 164 patients with positive margins, 38 had a positive margin only at the bladder neck margin and 126 had a positive margin at one or more locations separate from the bladder neck margin. RESULTS: Kaplan-Meier analyses showed that patients with a positive bladder neck margin had a greater biochemical progression risk than patients with positive margins at one or more locations other than the bladder neck margin. The 5-year actuarial risk of progression in men with positive and negative bladder neck margins was 69.8% and 33.0%, respectively. A positive bladder neck margin was statistically an independently significant predictor of progression (P = 0.001), along with the prostatectomy Gleason score (P = 0.0001) in the multivariate analysis. The hazard ratio for predicting progression for postoperative Gleason score and bladder neck positivity was 2.1 and 2.5, respectively. Serum prostate-specific antigen values, clinical stage, age, and the percentage of tumor at the bladder neck margin were not predictors of progression in either univariate or multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a positive bladder neck margin as the sole positive margin at radical retropubic prostatectomy have a greater risk of biochemical progression than patients with one or more positive margins at other locations, although not as adverse as the risk reported for those with Stage T4 disease.
OBJECTIVES: To identify the prognostic significance of positive bladder neck margin as the sole positive margin after radical retropubic prostatectomy for treatment of prostate cancer. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the data from patients who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy at Johns Hopkins Hospital between 1984 and 2001. Of 164 patients with positive margins, 38 had a positive margin only at the bladder neck margin and 126 had a positive margin at one or more locations separate from the bladder neck margin. RESULTS: Kaplan-Meier analyses showed that patients with a positive bladder neck margin had a greater biochemical progression risk than patients with positive margins at one or more locations other than the bladder neck margin. The 5-year actuarial risk of progression in men with positive and negative bladder neck margins was 69.8% and 33.0%, respectively. A positive bladder neck margin was statistically an independently significant predictor of progression (P = 0.001), along with the prostatectomy Gleason score (P = 0.0001) in the multivariate analysis. The hazard ratio for predicting progression for postoperative Gleason score and bladder neck positivity was 2.1 and 2.5, respectively. Serum prostate-specific antigen values, clinical stage, age, and the percentage of tumor at the bladder neck margin were not predictors of progression in either univariate or multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with a positive bladder neck margin as the sole positive margin at radical retropubic prostatectomy have a greater risk of biochemical progression than patients with one or more positive margins at other locations, although not as adverse as the risk reported for those with Stage T4 disease.
Authors: Ioannis Anastasiou; Stavros I Tyritzis; Ioannis Adamakis; Dionysios Mitropoulos; Konstantinos G Stravodimos; Ioannis Katafigiotis; Antonios Balangas; Anastasios Kollias; Kitty Pavlakis; Constantinos A Constantinides Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2010-10-30 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Joseph L Chin; John Srigley; Linda A Mayhew; R Bryan Rumble; Claire Crossley; Amber Hunter; Neil Fleshner; Bish Bora; Robin McLeod; Sheila McNair; Bernard Langer; Andrew Evans Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 1.862
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
Authors: Pedro Bargão Santos; Bruno Graça; Miguel Lourenço; Manuel Ferreira Coelho; Fernando Ribeiro; Júlio Fonseca; A Pepe Cardoso; João Varregoso; Fernando Ferrito; Francisco Carrasquinho Gomes Journal: Cent European J Urol Date: 2011-12-09