Literature DB >> 20171687

The learning curve for surgical margins after open radical prostatectomy: implications for margin status as an oncological end point.

Andrew Vickers1, Fernando Bianco, Angel Cronin, James Eastham, Eric Klein, Michael Kattan, Peter Scardino.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20171687      PMCID: PMC2861336          DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.12.015

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


  8 in total

1.  Comparison of early oncologic results of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal approach.

Authors:  Leticia Ruiz; Laurent Salomon; András Hoznek; Dimitrios Vordos; René Yiou; Alexandre de la Taille; Clément-Claude Abbou
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 20.096

2.  Postoperative nomogram predicting the 10-year probability of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

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

3.  Radical prostatectomy with preservation of sexual function: pathological findings in the first 100 cases.

Authors:  J C Eggleston; P C Walsh
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1985-12       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  Prognostic significance of location of positive margins in radical prostatectomy specimens.

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

5.  Do margins matter? The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens.

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

6.  The surgical learning curve for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Andrew J Vickers; Caroline J Savage; Marcel Hruza; Ingolf Tuerk; Philippe Koenig; Luis Martínez-Piñeiro; Gunther Janetschek; Bertrand Guillonneau
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2009-04-01       Impact factor: 41.316

7.  The surgical learning curve for prostate cancer control after radical prostatectomy.

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

8.  Functional outcomes and oncological efficacy of Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy with Veil of Aphrodite nerve-sparing: an analysis of 154 consecutive patients.

Authors:  Sanjeev Kaul; Adnan Savera; Ketan Badani; Michael Fumo; Akshay Bhandari; Mani Menon
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 5.588

  8 in total
  25 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

Review 2.  [Prostate cancer].

Authors:  J Noldus
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 0.639

3.  Prostate cancer: Nerve-sparing surgery and risk of positive surgical margins.

Authors:  Katharina Boehm; Markus Graefen
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2015-01-06       Impact factor: 14.432

4.  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

Review 5.  A systematic review of the volume-outcome relationship for radical prostatectomy.

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

Review 6.  Surgical method influences specimen margins and biochemical recurrence during radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

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

7.  Effect of race and socioeconomic status on surgical margins and biochemical outcomes in an equal-access health care setting: results from the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital (SEARCH) database.

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

8.  Contemporaneous comparison of open vs minimally-invasive radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer.

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

9.  A case-mix-adjusted comparison of early oncological outcomes of open and robotic prostatectomy performed by experienced high volume surgeons.

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

10.  Risk Factors for Intraprostatic Incision into Malignant Glands at Radical Prostatectomy.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.