OBJECTIVES: Cancer at the resection margin is associated with an increased risk of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy (RP) even after adjusting for other known clinical and pathologic risk factors. In this study, we assessed the prognostic significance of sites of positive surgical margins (+SMs) in RP specimens. METHODS: We reviewed the data from 2442 patients with clinical Stage T1-T3 prostate cancer treated with RP from 1983 to 2004 who had had tumor maps generated from whole mount sections. The site of +SMs was assigned to six different areas (apex, bladder neck, seminal vesicle, anterior, posterolateral, and posterior). RESULTS: Of the 2442 patients, 201 (8.2%) had a +SM at a single site and 74 (3.0%) had a +SM at multiple sites in the RP specimen. The posterolateral and apex sections were the most commonly involved sites for a +SM. Those with a +SM had a greater risk of biochemical recurrence than those with negative surgical margins (hazard ratio 1.39, 95% confidence interval 1.004 to 1.92; P = 0.047). We found that a +SM at the posterolateral site was significantly associated with an increased risk of biochemical recurrence (hazard ratio 2.80 for +SMs versus negative SMs at the posterolateral region; 95% confidence interval 1.76 to 4.44). CONCLUSIONS: The effect on biochemical recurrence was influenced by the site of the +SM, with a posterolateral location having the most significant effect on prognosis. This heterogeneity of margin status has implications for predictive modeling, as well as the recommendation for adjuvant radiotherapy.
OBJECTIVES: Cancer at the resection margin is associated with an increased risk of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy (RP) even after adjusting for other known clinical and pathologic risk factors. In this study, we assessed the prognostic significance of sites of positive surgical margins (+SMs) in RP specimens. METHODS: We reviewed the data from 2442 patients with clinical Stage T1-T3 prostate cancer treated with RP from 1983 to 2004 who had had tumor maps generated from whole mount sections. The site of +SMs was assigned to six different areas (apex, bladder neck, seminal vesicle, anterior, posterolateral, and posterior). RESULTS: Of the 2442 patients, 201 (8.2%) had a +SM at a single site and 74 (3.0%) had a +SM at multiple sites in the RP specimen. The posterolateral and apex sections were the most commonly involved sites for a +SM. Those with a +SM had a greater risk of biochemical recurrence than those with negative surgical margins (hazard ratio 1.39, 95% confidence interval 1.004 to 1.92; P = 0.047). We found that a +SM at the posterolateral site was significantly associated with an increased risk of biochemical recurrence (hazard ratio 2.80 for +SMs versus negative SMs at the posterolateral region; 95% confidence interval 1.76 to 4.44). CONCLUSIONS: The effect on biochemical recurrence was influenced by the site of the +SM, with a posterolateral location having the most significant effect on prognosis. This heterogeneity of margin status has implications for predictive modeling, as well as the recommendation for adjuvant radiotherapy.
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: Andrew Vickers; Fernando Bianco; Angel Cronin; James Eastham; Eric Klein; Michael Kattan; Peter Scardino Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-02-19 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Georgios Hatzichristodoulou; Stefan Wagenpfeil; Gregor Weirich; Michael Autenrieth; Tobias Maurer; Mark Thalgott; Thomas Horn; Matthias Heck; Kathleen Herkommer; Jürgen E Gschwend; Hubert Kübler Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-06-23 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: H Wadhwa; M K Terris; W J Aronson; C J Kane; C L Amling; M R Cooperberg; S J Freedland; M R Abern Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2016-10-04 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Nathan Lawrentschuk; Andrew Evans; John Srigley; Joseph L Chin; Bish Bora; Amber Hunter; Robin McLeod; Neil E Fleshner Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 1.862
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
Authors: Elmar Heinrich; Georg Schön; Frank Schiefelbein; Maurice Stephan Michel; Lutz Trojan Journal: World J Urol Date: 2010-04-01 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Geoffrey A Sonn; Andrew S Behesnilian; Ziyue Karen Jiang; Kirstin A Zettlitz; Eric J Lepin; Laurent A Bentolila; Scott M Knowles; Daniel Lawrence; Anna M Wu; Robert E Reiter Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2015-10-21 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Jayakrishnan Jayachandran; William J Aronson; Martha K Terris; Joseph C Presti; Christopher L Amling; Christopher J Kane; Stephen J Freedland Journal: BJU Int Date: 2008-07-07 Impact factor: 5.588