Literature DB >> 21195540

The prognostic significance of capsular incision into tumor during radical prostatectomy.

Mark A Preston1, Mathieu Carrière, Gaayana Raju, Christopher Morash, Steve Doucette, Ronald G Gerridzen, Anthony J Bella, James A Eastham, Peter T Scardino, Ilias Cagiannos.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The prognostic significance of capsular incision (CapI) into tumor during radical prostatectomy (RP) with otherwise organ-confined disease remains uncertain.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of CapI into tumor on oncologic outcome. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective review of 8110 consecutive patients with prostate cancer treated at Ottawa Hospital and at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, both tertiary academic centers, between 1985 and 2008. INTERVENTION: All patients underwent an open, laparoscopic or robotic RP. MEASUREMENTS: Patients were divided into four pathologic categories: group 1 (CapI group), positive surgical margins (PSMs) without extraprostatic extension (EPE); group 2, negative surgical margins (NSMs) without EPE; group 3, NSM with EPE; group 4, PSMs with EPE. Estimates of recurrence-free survival were generated with the Kaplan-Meier method. Recurrence was defined as a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) >0.2 ng/ml and rising. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) for recurrence controlling for pretreatment PSA, RP date, RP Gleason sum, seminal vesicle invasion, and lymph node involvement. Pathologic categories were defined in the model by including the variables EPE and surgical margins (SMs) as well as their interaction. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Median follow-up was 37.3 mo. The 5-yr recurrence-free probability after RP for the CapI group was 77% (95% confidence interval [CI], 72-83). This was not only inferior to patients with NSMs and no EPE (log rank p<0.0001) but also to those with NSMs and EPE (log rank p=0.0002). In multivariate analysis the interaction between EPE and SM was not significant (p=0.26). In the adjusted model excluding the interaction term, patients with EPE had an increased risk for recurrence (HR: 1.80; 95% CI, 1.49-2.17; p<0.0001) as did those with positive margins (HR: 1.81; 95% CI, 1.51-2.15; p<0.0001). This was a retrospective study.
CONCLUSIONS: CapI into tumor has a significant impact on patient outcome following RP. Patients, who otherwise would have organ-confined disease, will now have a higher probability of recurrence than those with completely resected extraprostatic disease.
Copyright © 2010 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21195540     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.12.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  10 in total

1.  Prostate cancer: Does capsular incision have a negative impact on disease recurrence in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy?

Authors:  Nick Warde
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 14.432

2.  Impact of surgeon-defined capsular incision during radical prostatectomy on biochemical recurrence rates.

Authors:  Philipp Mandel; Su J Oh; Christoph Hagner; Pierre Tennstedt; Maximilian C Kriegmair; Hartwig Huland; Markus Graefen; Derya Tilki
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-03-22       Impact factor: 4.226

3.  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

4.  Significance and management of positive surgical margins at the time of radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Jonathan L Silberstein; James A Eastham
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2014-10

5.  Impact of Gleason score of the tumor at the positive surgical margin as a prognostic factor.

Authors:  Hirofumi Kurose; Kosuke Ueda; Naoyuki Ogasawara; Katsuaki Chikui; Makoto Nakiri; Kiyoaki Nishihara; Mitsunori Matsuo; Shigetaka Suekane; Hironori Kusano; Jun Akiba; Hirohisa Yano; Tsukasa Igawa
Journal:  Mol Clin Oncol       Date:  2022-02-10

6.  Improvement of the surgical curability of locally confined prostate cancer including non-organ-confined high-risk disease through retropubic radical prostatectomy with intentional wide resection.

Authors:  Eijiro Okajima; Motokiyo Yoshikawa; Yasumasa Masuda; Kazuhiro Shimizu; Nobumichi Tanaka; Akihide Hirayama; Keiji Shimada; Kiyohide Fujimoto; Yoshihiko Hirao
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2012-11-16       Impact factor: 2.754

7.  Indications for postoperative radiotherapy in patients with prostate cancer after surgery with positive surgical margins.

Authors:  Krzysztof Kamecki; Marta Biedka; Roman Makarewicz; Jerzy Siekiera
Journal:  Contemp Oncol (Pozn)       Date:  2013-10-07

8.  Are you now a good surgeon? T2 positive margin status as a quality outcome measure following radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Arees Damani; Mieke Van Hemelrijck; Wahyu Wulaningsih; Danielle Crawley; Declan Cahill
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-04-25       Impact factor: 4.226

9.  Prognostic significance of six clinicopathological features for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Haoran Liu; Hui Zhou; Libin Yan; Tao Ye; Hongyan Lu; Xifeng Sun; Zhangqun Ye; Hua Xu
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-11-06

10.  The effect of surgery report cards on improving radical prostatectomy quality: the SuRep study protocol.

Authors:  R H Breau; R M Kumar; L T Lavallee; I Cagiannos; C Morash; M Horrigan; S Cnossen; R Mallick; D Stacey; M Fung-Kee-Fung; R Morash; J Smylie; K Witiuk; D A Fergusson
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2018-10-19       Impact factor: 2.264

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.