PURPOSE: Positive surgical margins in men undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer are associated with an increased risk of biochemical recurrence. Few data are available on the role of positive surgical margins in prostate cancer specific mortality. Using a large, population based national cancer registry we evaluated the risk of prostate cancer specific mortality associated with margin status. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The SEER cancer registry data for patients diagnosed between 1998 and 2006 were used to identify men undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Margin status, pathological stage, Gleason grade and postoperative radiation therapy were recorded along with demographic data. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to estimate the risk of prostate cancer specific mortality associated with positive surgical margins. RESULTS: A total of 65,633 patients comprised the cohort in which 291 (0.44%) prostate cancer specific deaths occurred during an average followup of 50 months. Positive surgical margins were reported in 21.2% of cases and were more common in pT3a than pT2 tumors (44% vs 18%, p <0.001) and higher grade tumors (28% vs 18%, p <0.001). The 7-year disease specific survival rates for those at highest risk for prostate cancer specific mortality (higher grade pT3a) were 97.6% for cases with negative surgical margins and 92.4% for those with positive surgical margins. Positive surgical margins were associated with a 2.6-fold increased unadjusted risk of prostate cancer specific mortality (HR 2.55, 95% CI 2.02-3.21). Positive surgical margins remained an independent predictor of prostate cancer specific mortality on multivariate analysis (HR 1.70, 95% CI 1.32-2.18). CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate the independent role of positive surgical margins in prostate cancer specific mortality. These findings support the importance of optimizing surgical techniques to achieve a sound oncological surgical outcome with negative surgical margins when possible. Copyright 2010 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PURPOSE: Positive surgical margins in men undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer are associated with an increased risk of biochemical recurrence. Few data are available on the role of positive surgical margins in prostate cancer specific mortality. Using a large, population based national cancer registry we evaluated the risk of prostate cancer specific mortality associated with margin status. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The SEER cancer registry data for patients diagnosed between 1998 and 2006 were used to identify men undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Margin status, pathological stage, Gleason grade and postoperative radiation therapy were recorded along with demographic data. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to estimate the risk of prostate cancer specific mortality associated with positive surgical margins. RESULTS: A total of 65,633 patients comprised the cohort in which 291 (0.44%) prostate cancer specific deaths occurred during an average followup of 50 months. Positive surgical margins were reported in 21.2% of cases and were more common in pT3a than pT2 tumors (44% vs 18%, p <0.001) and higher grade tumors (28% vs 18%, p <0.001). The 7-year disease specific survival rates for those at highest risk for prostate cancer specific mortality (higher grade pT3a) were 97.6% for cases with negative surgical margins and 92.4% for those with positive surgical margins. Positive surgical margins were associated with a 2.6-fold increased unadjusted risk of prostate cancer specific mortality (HR 2.55, 95% CI 2.02-3.21). Positive surgical margins remained an independent predictor of prostate cancer specific mortality on multivariate analysis (HR 1.70, 95% CI 1.32-2.18). CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate the independent role of positive surgical margins in prostate cancer specific mortality. These findings support the importance of optimizing surgical techniques to achieve a sound oncological surgical outcome with negative surgical margins when possible. Copyright 2010 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Anna Bill-Axelson; Lars Holmberg; Mirja Ruutu; Michael Häggman; Swen-Olof Andersson; Stefan Bratell; Anders Spångberg; Christer Busch; Stig Nordling; Hans Garmo; Juni Palmgren; Hans-Olov Adami; Bo Johan Norlén; Jan-Erik Johansson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-05-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Stephen J Freedland; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Leslie A Mangold; Mario Eisenberger; Frederick J Dorey; Patrick C Walsh; Alan W Partin Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-07-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Stephen J Freedland; Christopher L Amling; Frederick Dorey; Christopher J Kane; Joseph C Presti; Martha K Terris; William J Aronson Journal: Urology Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Matthew R Cooperberg; David J Pasta; Eric P Elkin; Mark S Litwin; David M Latini; Janeen Du Chane; Peter R Carroll Journal: J Urol Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Makoto Ohori; Michael W Kattan; Hideshige Koh; Norio Maru; Kevin M Slawin; Shahrokh Shariat; Masatoshi Muramoto; Victor E Reuter; Thomas M Wheeler; Peter T Scardino Journal: J Urol Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Joseph A Pettus; Christopher J Weight; Clinton J Thompson; Richard G Middleton; Robert A Stephenson Journal: J Urol Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: John F Ward; Horst Zincke; Erik J Bergstralh; Jeffrey M Slezak; Robert P Myers; Michael L Blute Journal: J Urol Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 7.450
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: Xinning Wang; Steve S Huang; Warren D W Heston; Hong Guo; Bing-Cheng Wang; James P Basilion Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2014-09-19 Impact factor: 6.261
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: Christopher Darr; Nina N Harke; Jan Philipp Radtke; Leubet Yirga; Claudia Kesch; Maarten R Grootendorst; Wolfgang P Fendler; Pedro Fragoso Costa; Christoph Rischpler; Christine Praus; Johannes Haubold; Henning Reis; Thomas Hager; Ken Herrmann; Ina Binse; Boris Hadaschik Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2020-02-14 Impact factor: 10.057
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