Literature DB >> 19450829

Length of positive surgical margin after radical prostatectomy as a predictor of biochemical recurrence.

Sergey Shikanov1, Jie Song, Cassandra Royce, Hikmat Al-Ahmadie, Kevin Zorn, Gary Steinberg, Gregory Zagaja, Arieh Shalhav, Scott Eggener.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Length and location of positive surgical margins are independent predictors of biochemical recurrence after open radical prostatectomy. We assessed their impact on biochemical recurrence in a large robotic prostatectomy series.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected prospectively from 1,398 men undergoing robotic radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer from 2003 to 2008 at a single institution. The associations of preoperative prostate specific antigen, pathological Gleason score, pathological stage and positive surgical margin parameters (location, length and focality) with biochemical recurrence rate were evaluated. Margin status and length were measured by a single uropathologist. Biochemical recurrence was defined as serum prostate specific antigen greater than 0.1 ng/ml on 2 consecutive tests. Cox regression models were constructed to evaluate predictors of biochemical recurrence.
RESULTS: Of 1,398 consecutive patients who underwent robotic prostatectomy positive margins were present in 243 (17%) (11% of pathological T2 and 41% of T3). Preoperative prostate specific antigen, pathological stage, Gleason score, margin status, and margin length as a continuous and categorical variable (less than 1, 1 to 3, more than 3 mm) were independent predictors of biochemical recurrence. Patients with negative margins and those with a positive margin less than 1 mm had similar rates of biochemical recurrence (log rank test p = 0.18). Surgical margin location was not independently associated with biochemical recurrence.
CONCLUSIONS: Margin status and length are independent predictors of biochemical recurrence following robotic radical prostatectomy. Although longer followup and validation studies are necessary for confirmation, patients with a positive margin less than 1 mm appear to have similar recurrence rates as those with negative margins.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19450829     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.02.139

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  16 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.  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

3.  Surgical margin status among men with organ-confined (pT2) prostate cancer: a population-based study.

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

Review 4.  Comparative effectiveness of robotic and open radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Rodrigo Rodrigues Pessoa; Paul Maroni; Janet Kukreja; Simon P Kim
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2021-05

5.  Frequency of positive surgical margin at prostatectomy and its effect on patient outcome.

Authors:  Kenneth A Iczkowski; M Scott Lucia
Journal:  Prostate Cancer       Date:  2011-06-09

6.  Risk factors for biochemical recurrence after robotic assisted radical prostatectomy: a single surgeon experience.

Authors:  Ryuta Tanimoto; Yomi Fashola; Kymora B Scotland; Anne E Calvaresi; Leonard G Gomella; Edouard J Trabulsi; Costas D Lallas
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2015-04-08       Impact factor: 2.264

7.  Ki-67 expression predicts biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy in the setting of positive surgical margins.

Authors:  Mohammed Shahait; Samer Nassif; Hani Tamim; Deborah Mukherji; Maya Hijazi; Marwan El Sabban; Raja Khauli; Muhammad Bulbul; Wassim Abou Kheir; Albert El Hajj
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2018-03-05       Impact factor: 2.264

8.  Clinical utility of subclassifying positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Shawn Dason; Emily A Vertosick; Kazuma Udo; Daniel D Sjoberg; Andrew J Vickers; Hikmat Al-Ahmadie; Ying-Bei Chen; Anuradha Gopalan; S Joseph Sirintrapun; Satish K Tickoo; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham; Victor E Reuter; Samson W Fine
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2021-07-11       Impact factor: 5.969

9.  Does size matter? The significance of prostate size on pathologic and functional outcomes in patients undergoing robotic prostatectomy.

Authors:  Carl A Olsson; Hugh J Lavery; Dov Sebrow; Ardavan Akhavan; Adam W Levinson; Jonathan S Brajtbord; John Carlucci; Paul Muntner; David B Samadi
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2011-11-16

10.  The surgical learning curve for robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: experience of a single surgeon with 500 cases in Taiwan, China.

Authors:  Yen-Chuan Ou; Chun-Kuang Yang; Kuangh-Si Chang; John Wang; Siu-Wan Hung; Min-Che Tung; Ashutosh K Tewari; Vipul R Patel
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2014 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.285

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.