Literature DB >> 20723925

Biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: multiplicative interaction between surgical margin status and pathological stage.

Lars Budäus1, Hendrik Isbarn, Christian Eichelberg, Giovanni Lughezzani, Maxine Sun, Paul Perrotte, Felix K H Chun, Georg Salomon, Thomas Steuber, Jens Köllermann, Guido Sauter, Sascha A Ahyai, Mario Zacharias, Margit Fisch, Thorsten Schlomm, Alexander Haese, Hans Heinzer, Hartwig Huland, Francesco Montorsi, Markus Graefen, Pierre I Karakiewicz.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: A positive surgical margin after radical prostatectomy is considered an adverse prognostic feature. However, few groups have explored the potential interaction between surgical margin status and other cancer characteristics, specifically pathological stage. We addressed the first degree of interaction between positive surgical margins and other established adverse predictors of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used univariate and multivariate analysis to test the effect of surgical margin status on biochemical recurrence in 4,490 patients treated at a single institution between 1992 and 2008. We systematically tested all first-degree interactions between surgical margin status, and pretreatment prostate specific antigen, pT and pN stage, and radical prostatectomy Gleason sum. If interactions were significant, we quantified the effect on the biochemical recurrence rate.
RESULTS: Overall 850 patients (18.9%) had positive surgical margins. In those with negative vs positive surgical margins the 5-year biochemical recurrence-free survival rate was 95% vs 83%, 74% vs 62% and 47% vs 29% for pT2, pT3a and pT3b disease, respectively. In multivariate models only the pT stage-surgical margin status interaction achieved independent predictor status (p = 0.003). Negative vs positive surgical margin multivariate HRs were 1 vs 2.9, 2.3 vs 4.3 and 4.1 vs 5.6 in pT2, pT3a and pT3b cases, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared to negative surgical margins, positive surgical margins increase the absolute biochemical recurrence 5-year rate by 12% to 18%. More importantly, positive surgical margins may substantially worsen the prognosis beyond that of the original pathological disease stage.
Copyright © 2010 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20723925     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.06.018

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


  19 in total

1.  Factors determining biochemical recurrence in low-risk prostate cancer patients who underwent radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Sıtkı Ün; Hakan Türk; Osman Koca; Rauf Taner Divrik; Ferruh Zorlu
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2015-06

2.  Impact of the extent of extraprostatic extension defined by Epstein's method in patients with negative surgical margins and negative lymph node invasion.

Authors:  T Maubon; N Branger; C Bastide; G Lonjon; K-A Harvey-Bryan; P Validire; S Giusiano; D Rossi; X Cathelineau; F Rozet
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2016-07-12       Impact factor: 5.554

3.  Safe-R: a novel score, accounting for oncological safe nerve-sparing at radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Andreas Becker; Carolina Coelius; Meike Adam; Pierre Tennstedt; Luis Kluth; Thomas Steuber; Hans Heinzer; Markus Graefen; Thorsten Schlomm; Uwe Michl
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-03-26       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  The significance of micro-lymphatic invasion and pathological Gleason score in prostate cancer patients with pathologically organ-confined disease and negative surgical margins after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Takeshi Hashimoto; Jun Nakashima; Rie Inoue; Osamu Komori; Yuri Yamaguchi; Takeshi Kashima; Naoya Satake; Yoshihiro Nakagami; Kazunori Namiki; Toshitaka Nagao; Yoshio Ohno
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2019-10-31       Impact factor: 3.402

5.  Oncologic outcomes after minimally invasive radical prostatectomy in patients with seminal vesicle invasion (pT3b) without adjuvant therapy.

Authors:  Aurélien Forgues; François Rozet; François Audenet; Adil Ouzzane; Rafaël Sanchez-Salas; Eric Barret; Marc Galiano; Dominique Prapotnich; Xavier Cathelineau
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2013-07-24       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 6.  Dormancy in solid tumors: implications for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Nazanin S Ruppender; Colm Morrissey; Paul H Lange; Robert L Vessella
Journal:  Cancer Metastasis Rev       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 9.264

7.  Impact of positive surgical margins and their locations after radical prostatectomy: comparison of biochemical recurrence according to risk stratification and surgical modality.

Authors:  Min Soo Choo; Sung Yong Cho; Kyungtae Ko; Chang Wook Jeong; Seung Bae Lee; Ja Hyeon Ku; Sung Kyu Hong; Seok-Soo Byun; Cheol Kwak; Hyeon Hoe Kim; Sang Eun Lee; Hyeon Jeong
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2013-12-21       Impact factor: 4.226

8.  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

9.  Prognostic relevance of number and bilaterality of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Diederik M Somford; Inge M van Oort; Jean-Pierre Cosyns; J Alfred Witjes; Lambertus A L M Kiemeney; Bertrand Tombal
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2011-01-15       Impact factor: 4.226

10.  Association of molecular biomarkers expression with biochemical recurrence in prostate cancer through tissue microarray immunostaining.

Authors:  Ding Ma; Zhe Zhou; Bing Yang; Qun He; Qian Zhang; Xiang-Hua Zhang
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2015-07-31       Impact factor: 2.967

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.