PURPOSE: Surgical margin status is commonly used as an end point for surgical learning. We examined the surgical margin learning curve and investigated whether surgical margins are a good marker for oncological outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study cohort included 7,765 patients with prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy by 1 of 72 surgeons at a total of 4 major American academic medical centers. We calculated the learning curve for surgical margins and a concordance probability between the surgeon rates of positive surgical margins and 5-year biochemical recurrence. RESULTS: A positive surgical margin was identified in 2,059 patients (27%). On multivariate analysis surgeon experience was strongly associated with surgical margin status (p = 0.017). The probability of a positive surgical margin was 40% for a surgeon with 10 prior cases, which decreased to 25% for a surgeon with 250 (absolute difference 15%, 95% CI 11 to 18). Learning curves differed dramatically among surgeons. For surgeon pairs the surgeon with the superior positive surgical margin rate also had the better biochemical recurrence rate only 58% of the time. CONCLUSIONS: We noted a learning curve for surgical margins after open radical prostatectomy. The poor concordance between surgeon margin and recurrence rates suggests that while margins clearly matter and efforts should be made to decrease positive margin rates, surgical margin status is not a strong surrogate for cancer control. These results have implications for using the margin rate to evaluate changes in surgical technique and as surgeon feedback. Copyright (c) 2010 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PURPOSE: Surgical margin status is commonly used as an end point for surgical learning. We examined the surgical margin learning curve and investigated whether surgical margins are a good marker for oncological outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study cohort included 7,765 patients with prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy by 1 of 72 surgeons at a total of 4 major American academic medical centers. We calculated the learning curve for surgical margins and a concordance probability between the surgeon rates of positive surgical margins and 5-year biochemical recurrence. RESULTS: A positive surgical margin was identified in 2,059 patients (27%). On multivariate analysis surgeon experience was strongly associated with surgical margin status (p = 0.017). The probability of a positive surgical margin was 40% for a surgeon with 10 prior cases, which decreased to 25% for a surgeon with 250 (absolute difference 15%, 95% CI 11 to 18). Learning curves differed dramatically among surgeons. For surgeon pairs the surgeon with the superior positive surgical margin rate also had the better biochemical recurrence rate only 58% of the time. CONCLUSIONS: We noted a learning curve for surgical margins after open radical prostatectomy. The poor concordance between surgeon margin and recurrence rates suggests that while margins clearly matter and efforts should be made to decrease positive margin rates, surgical margin status is not a strong surrogate for cancer control. These results have implications for using the margin rate to evaluate changes in surgical technique and as surgeon feedback. Copyright (c) 2010 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Andrew J Stephenson; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham; Fernando J Bianco; Zohar A Dotan; Christopher J DiBlasio; Alwyn Reuther; Eric A Klein; Michael W Kattan Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-10-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: James A Eastham; Kentaro Kuroiwa; Makoto Ohori; Angel M Serio; Alex Gorbonos; Norio Maru; Andrew J Vickers; Kevin M Slawin; Thomas M Wheeler; Victor E Reuter; Peter T Scardino Journal: Urology Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Peter Swindle; James A Eastham; Makoto Ohori; Michael W Kattan; Thomas Wheeler; Norio Maru; Kevin Slawin; Peter T Scardino Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Andrew J Vickers; Fernando J Bianco; Angel M Serio; James A Eastham; Deborah Schrag; Eric A Klein; Alwyn M Reuther; Michael W Kattan; J Edson Pontes; Peter T Scardino Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2007-07-24 Impact factor: 13.506
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: Quoc-Dien Trinh; Anders Bjartell; Stephen J Freedland; Brent K Hollenbeck; Jim C Hu; Shahrokh F Shariat; Maxine Sun; Andrew J Vickers Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-04-19 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Victor Srougi; Jose Bessa; Mohammed Baghdadi; Igor Nunes-Silva; Jose Batista da Costa; Silvia Garcia-Barreras; Eric Barret; Francois Rozet; Marc Galiano; Rafael Sanchez-Salas; Xavier Cathelineau Journal: World J Urol Date: 2017-02-27 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: David I Chu; Daniel M Moreira; Leah Gerber; Joseph C Presti; William J Aronson; Martha K Terris; Christopher J Kane; Christopher L Amling; Stephen J Freedland Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-03-13 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Phillip M Pierorazio; Jeffrey K Mullins; John B Eifler; Kipp Voth; Elias S Hyams; Misop Han; Christian P Pavlovich; Trinity J Bivalacqua; Alan W Partin; Mohamad E Allaf; Edward M Schaeffer Journal: BJU Int Date: 2013-01-28 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Jonathan L Silberstein; Daniel Su; Leonard Glickman; Matthew Kent; Gal Keren-Paz; Andrew J Vickers; Jonathan A Coleman; James A Eastham; Peter T Scardino; Vincent P Laudone Journal: BJU Int Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Sung-Woo Park; Nathaniel Readal; Byong Chang Jeong; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Jonathan I Epstein; Alan W Partin; Misop Han Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-07-31 Impact factor: 20.096