Literature DB >> 18537951

Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: do they have an impact on biochemical or clinical progression?

Jesco Pfitzenmaier1, Sascha Pahernik, Tina Tremmel, Axel Haferkamp, Stephan Buse, Markus Hohenfellner.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To prospectively examine the effects of the margin status after radical prostatectomy (RP), the location, and the number of positive surgical margins (PSMs) on biochemical and clinical outcome, as even if there seems to be little debate that there is a higher risk of both local and distant recurrence of prostate cancer in the face of a PSM the significance of a PSM after RP is only followed for biochemical progression in most studies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From our prospective database, 406 consecutive well-described patients without neoadjuvant and 'direct postoperative' adjuvant therapy who underwent RP were included. The median age was 64.7 years, the median preoperative PSA level was 7.9 ng/mL, and the median follow-up was 5.2 years. We analysed pathological tumour stage, grading, number and location of PSMs, PSA-free survival, local recurrence-free survival, metastasis-free survival, prostate cancer-specific and, overall survival prospectively.
RESULTS: The overall rate of PSMs was 17.2%. The number was higher in higher stage (P < 0.001) and higher grade tumours (P = 0.041). For a PSM the PSA recurrence rate was 64.3%, the local recurrence rate was 18.6%, the development of distant metastasis was 15.7% and therefore much higher than in patients with negative margins (20.5%, 2.7%, and 1.5%). A PSM was an adverse predictor for PSA-free survival (P < 0.001), local recurrence-free survival (P = 0.002), and development of metastasis (P = 0.003) on multivariate analysis. The number and location of PSMs was of no additional prognostic value.
CONCLUSIONS: A PSM increases the risk of biochemical and clinical e.g. local, disease progression after RP. The number and location of PSMs is of minor importance. Although only approximately 20% of patients with a PSM will develop local recurrence, surgeons should continue to strive to reduce the rate of PSMs to improve cancer control.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18537951     DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.07791.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  41 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.  Preoperative circulating sex hormones are not predictors of positive surgical margins at open radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Andrea Salonia; Andrea Gallina; Firas Abdollah; Alberto Briganti; Umberto Capitanio; Nazareno Suardi; Matteo Ferrari; Marco Raber; Renzo Colombo; Massimo Freschi; Patrizio Rigatti; Francesco Montorsi
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2011-09-21       Impact factor: 4.226

3.  Prognostic factors identifying biochemical recurrence in patients with positive margins after radical prostatectomy.

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

4.  Factors determining biochemical recurrence in low-risk prostate cancer patients who underwent radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Sıtkı Ün; Hakan Türk; Osman Koca; Rauf Taner Divrik; Ferruh Zorlu
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2015-06

5.  Do robotic prostatectomy positive surgical margins occur in the same location as extraprostatic extension?

Authors:  Matthew T Johnson; Mitchell L Ramsey; Joshua J Ebel; Ronney Abaza; Debra L Zynger
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2013-10-06       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  Matched comparison of robot-assisted, laparoscopic and open radical prostatectomy regarding pathologic and oncologic outcomes in obese patients.

Authors:  Jonas Busch; Mark L Gonzalgo; Natalia Leva; Michelle Ferrari; Hannes Cash; Carsten Kempkensteffen; Stefan Hinz; Kurt Miller; Ahmed Magheli
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-05-23       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 7.  Quality of evidence to compare outcomes of open and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy.

Authors:  Branden Duffey; Briony Varda; Badrinath Konety
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 3.092

8.  Long-term oncological outcomes of apical positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy in the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital cohort.

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

9.  Impact of surgeon-defined capsular incision during radical prostatectomy on biochemical recurrence rates.

Authors:  Philipp Mandel; Su J Oh; Christoph Hagner; Pierre Tennstedt; Maximilian C Kriegmair; Hartwig Huland; Markus Graefen; Derya Tilki
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-03-22       Impact factor: 4.226

10.  Prostate cancer that is within 0.1 mm of the surgical margin of a radical prostatectomy predicts greater likelihood of recurrence.

Authors:  Jason P Izard; Lawrence D True; Philip May; William J Ellis; Paul H Lange; Bruce Dalkin; Daniel W Lin; Rodney A Schmidt; Jonathan L Wright
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 6.394

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.