Literature DB >> 16941153

Impact of pathology review of stage and margin status of radical prostatectomy specimens (EORTC trial 22911).

Theodorus H van der Kwast1, Laurence Collette, Hein Van Poppel, Paul Van Cangh, Kris Vekemans, Luigi DaPozzo, Jean-François Bosset, Karl H Kurth, Fritz H Schröder, Michel Bolla.   

Abstract

Pathological staging and surgical margin status of radical prostatectomy specimens are next to grading the most important prognosticators for recurrence. A central review of pathological stage and surgical margin status was performed on a series of 552 radical prostatectomy specimens of patients, participating in the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer trial 22911. Inclusion criteria of the trial were pathological stage pT3 and/or positive surgical margin at local pathology. All specimens were totally embedded. Data of the central review were compared with those of local pathologists and related to clinical follow-up. Although a high concordance between review pathology and local pathologists existed for seminal vesicle invasion (94%, kappa=0.83), agreement was much less for extraprostatic extension (57.5%, kappa=0.33) and for surgical margin status (69.4%, kappa=0.45). Review pathology of surgical margin status was a stronger predictor of biochemical progression-free survival in univariate analysis [hazard ratio (HR)=2.16 and p=0.0002] than local pathology (HR=1.08 and p>0.1). The review pathology demonstrated a significant difference between those with and without extraprostatic extension (HR=1.83 and p=0.0017), while local pathology failed to do so (HR=1.05 and p>0.8). The observations suggest that review of pathological stage and surgical margin of radical prostatectomy strongly improves their prognostic impact in multi-institutional studies or trials.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16941153     DOI: 10.1007/s00428-006-0254-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Virchows Arch        ISSN: 0945-6317            Impact factor:   4.064


  14 in total

Review 1.  Handling and pathology reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens.

Authors:  Rodolfo Montironi; Theodorus van der Kwast; Liliane Boccon-Gibod; Aldo V Bono; Laurent Boccon-Gibod
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 2.  Surgical margin status after radical retropubic prostatectomy.

Authors:  Masood A Khan; Alan W Partin
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 5.588

3.  Anatomic site-specific positive margins in organ-confined prostate cancer and its impact on outcome after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  M L Blute; D G Bostwick; E J Bergstralh; J M Slezak; S K Martin; C L Amling; H Zincke
Journal:  Urology       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 2.649

4.  Do close but negative margins in radical prostatectomy specimens increase the risk of postoperative progression?

Authors:  J I Epstein; J Sauvageot
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  The role of the pathologist in the evaluation of radical prostatectomy specimens.

Authors:  Sinan Ekici; Ayse Ayhan; Ilhan Erkan; Mehmet Bakkaloğlu; Haluk Ozen
Journal:  Scand J Urol Nephrol       Date:  2003

6.  Analysis of risk factors associated with prostate cancer extension to the surgical margin and pelvic node metastasis at radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  D A Ackerman; J M Barry; R A Wicklund; N Olson; B A Lowe
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Assessment of clinical and pathologic characteristics predisposing to disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy in men with pathologically organ-confined prostate cancer.

Authors:  R Jüri Palisaar; Markus Graefen; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Peter G Hammerer; Edith Huland; Alexander Haese; Salvator Fernandez; Andreas Erbersdobler; Rolf-Peter Henke; Hartwig Huland
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 20.096

8.  Interobserver reproducibility of percent Gleason grade 4/5 in total prostatectomy specimens.

Authors:  Axel Glaessgen; Hans Hamberg; Carl-Gustaf Pihl; Birgitta Sundelin; Bo Nilsson; Lars Egevad
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  Time trends in clinical risk stratification for prostate cancer: implications for outcomes (data from CaPSURE).

Authors:  Matthew R Cooperberg; Deborah P Lubeck; Shilpa S Mehta; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Detection rates of high-grade prostate cancer during subsequent screening visits. Results of the European Randomized Screening Study for Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Theodorus H van der Kwast; Stefano Ciatto; Paula M Martikainen; Robert Hoedemaeker; Marita Laurila; Carl-Gustaph Pihl; Jonas Hugosson; Ingrid Neetens; Vera Nelen; Simonetta Di Lollo; Monique J Roobol; Liisa Määtänen; Carlos Santonja; Sue Moss; Fritz H Schröder
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2006-05-15       Impact factor: 7.396

View more
  14 in total

1.  Prognostic value of unifocal and multifocal positive surgical margins in a large series of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Etienne Xavier Keller; Jacqueline Bachofner; Anna Jelena Britschgi; Karim Saba; Ashkan Mortezavi; Basil Kaufmann; Christian D Fankhauser; Peter Wild; Tullio Sulser; Thomas Hermanns; Daniel Eberli; Cédric Poyet
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-12-05       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  Interobserver variability in histologic evaluation of radical prostatectomy between central and local pathologists: findings of TAX 3501 multinational clinical trial.

Authors:  George J Netto; Mario Eisenberger; Jonathan I Epstein
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2010-12-13       Impact factor: 2.649

3.  Influence of pathologist experience on positive surgical margins following radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Jacob E Tallman; Vignesh T Packiam; Kristen E Wroblewski; Gladell P Paner; Scott E Eggener
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2017-03-13       Impact factor: 3.498

4.  Clinicopathologic characteristics of anterior prostate cancer (APC), including correlation with previous biopsy pathology.

Authors:  Martin J Magers; Tianyu Zhan; Aaron M Udager; John T Wei; Scott A Tomlins; Angela J Wu; Lakshmi P Kunju; Madelyn Lew; Felix Y Feng; Daniel A Hamstra; Javed Siddiqui; Arul M Chinnaiyan; Jeffrey S Montgomery; Alon Z Weizer; Todd M Morgan; Brent K Hollenbeck; David C Miller; Ganesh S Palapattu; Hui Jiang; Rohit Mehra
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2015-10-06       Impact factor: 3.064

5.  Prediction of extraprostatic extension on multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging in patients with anterior prostate cancer.

Authors:  Hyungwoo Ahn; Sung Il Hwang; Hak Jong Lee; Hyoung Sim Suh; Gheeyoung Choe; Seok-Soo Byun; Sung Kyu Hong; Sangchul Lee; Joongyub Lee
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-08-05       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Long-term Outcomes of Salvage Lymph Node Dissection for Nodal Recurrence of Prostate Cancer After Radical Prostatectomy: Not as Good as Previously Thought.

Authors:  Carlo A Bravi; Nicola Fossati; Giorgio Gandaglia; Nazareno Suardi; Elio Mazzone; Daniele Robesti; Daniar Osmonov; Klaus-Peter Juenemann; Luca Boeri; R Jeffrey Karnes; Alexander Kretschmer; Alexander Buchner; Christian Stief; Andreas Hiester; Alessandro Nini; Peter Albers; Gaëtan Devos; Steven Joniau; Hendrik Van Poppel; Shahrokh F Shariat; Axel Heidenreich; David Pfister; Derya Tilki; Markus Graefen; Inderbir S Gill; Alexander Mottrie; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Francesco Montorsi; Alberto Briganti
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2020-07-02       Impact factor: 24.267

7.  Significance and management of positive surgical margins at the time of radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Jonathan L Silberstein; James A Eastham
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2014-10

8.  Development and Validation of a Deep Learning Algorithm for Gleason Grading of Prostate Cancer From Biopsy Specimens.

Authors:  Kunal Nagpal; Davis Foote; Fraser Tan; Yun Liu; Po-Hsuan Cameron Chen; David F Steiner; Naren Manoj; Niels Olson; Jenny L Smith; Arash Mohtashamian; Brandon Peterson; Mahul B Amin; Andrew J Evans; Joan W Sweet; Carol Cheung; Theodorus van der Kwast; Ankur R Sangoi; Ming Zhou; Robert Allan; Peter A Humphrey; Jason D Hipp; Krishna Gadepalli; Greg S Corrado; Lily H Peng; Martin C Stumpe; Craig H Mermel
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2020-09-01       Impact factor: 31.777

9.  The use of digital pathology and image analysis in clinical trials.

Authors:  Robert Pell; Karin Oien; Max Robinson; Helen Pitman; Nasir Rajpoot; Jens Rittscher; David Snead; Clare Verrill
Journal:  J Pathol Clin Res       Date:  2019-03-25

10.  Are you now a good surgeon? T2 positive margin status as a quality outcome measure following radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Arees Damani; Mieke Van Hemelrijck; Wahyu Wulaningsih; Danielle Crawley; Declan Cahill
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-04-25       Impact factor: 4.226

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.