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.
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.
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
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: 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
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
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