Literature DB >> 21680001

Positive surgical margins after robotic assisted radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional study.

Vipul R Patel1, Rafael F Coelho, Bernardo Rocco, Marcelo Orvieto, Ananthakrishnan Sivaraman, Kenneth J Palmer, Darien Kameh, Luigi Santoro, Geoff D Coughlin, Michael Liss, Wooju Jeong, John Malcolm, Joshua M Stern, Saurabh Sharma, Kevin C Zorn, Sergey Shikanov, Arieh L Shalhav, Gregory P Zagaja, Thomas E Ahlering, Koon H Rha, David M Albala, Michael D Fabrizio, David I Lee, Sanket Chauhan.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Positive surgical margins are an independent predictive factor for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. We analyzed the incidence of and associative factors for positive surgical margins in a multi-institutional series of 8,418 robotic assisted radical prostatectomies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed the records of 8,418 patients who underwent robotic assisted radical prostatectomy at 7 institutions. Of the patients 323 had missing data on margin status. Positive surgical margins were categorized into 4 groups, including apex, bladder neck, posterolateral and multifocal. The records of 6,169 patients were available for multivariate analysis. The variables entered into the logistic regression models were age, body mass index, preoperative prostate specific antigen, biopsy Gleason score, prostate weight and pathological stage. A second model was built to identify predictive factors for positive surgical margins in the subset of patients with organ confined disease (pT2).
RESULTS: The overall positive surgical margin rate was 15.7% (1,272 of 8,095 patients). The positive surgical margin rate for pT2 and pT3 disease was 9.45% and 37.2%, respectively. On multivariate analysis pathological stage (pT2 vs pT3 OR 4.588, p<0.001) and preoperative prostate specific antigen (4 or less vs greater than 10 ng/ml OR 2.918, p<0.001) were the most important independent predictive factors for positive surgical margins after robotic assisted radical prostatectomy. Increasing prostate weight was associated with a lower risk of positive surgical margins after robotic assisted radical prostatectomy (OR 0.984, p<0.001) and a higher body mass index was associated with a higher risk of positive surgical margins (OR 1.032, p<0.001). For organ confined disease preoperative prostate specific antigen was the most important factor that independently correlated with positive surgical margins (4 or less vs greater than 10 ng/ml OR 3.8, p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The prostatic apex followed by a posterolateral site was the most common location of positive surgical margins after robotic assisted radical prostatectomy. Factors that correlated with cancer aggressiveness, such as pathological stage and preoperative prostate specific antigen, were the most important factors independently associated with an increased risk of positive surgical margins after robotic assisted radical prostatectomy.
Copyright © 2011 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21680001     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.03.112

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


  36 in total

1.  [Radical prostatectomy - pro laparoscopic].

Authors:  H M Do; S Holze; H Qazi; A Dietel; T Häfner; E Liatsikos; J-U Stolzenburg
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 0.639

2.  Impact of positive surgical margins on oncological outcome following laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP): long-term results.

Authors:  Jonas Busch; Carsten Stephan; Annett Klutzny; Stefan Hinz; Carsten Kempkensteffen; Ergin Kilic; Michael Lein; Steffen Weikert; Kurt Miller; Ahmed Magheli
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2012-05-11       Impact factor: 4.226

3.  Do robotic prostatectomy positive surgical margins occur in the same location as extraprostatic extension?

Authors:  Matthew T Johnson; Mitchell L Ramsey; Joshua J Ebel; Ronney Abaza; Debra L Zynger
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2013-10-06       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Comparison of oncological outcomes between retropubic radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: an analysis stratified by surgical experience.

Authors:  Jinsung Park; Dae-Seon Yoo; Cheryn Song; Sahyun Park; Sejun Park; Seong Cheol Kim; Yongmee Cho; Hanjong Ahn
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2013-09-24       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  Capsular incision in normal prostatic tissue during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a new concept or a waste of time?

Authors:  Nicolas Koutlidis; Céline Duperron; Mathilde Funes de la Vega; Eric Mourey; Frédéric Michel; Luc Cormier
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2013-10-29       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  Risk factors of positive surgical margins after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in high-volume center: results in 732 cases.

Authors:  Antonio Benito Porcaro; Marco Sebben; Paolo Corsi; Alessandro Tafuri; Tania Processali; Marco Pirozzi; Nelia Amigoni; Riccardo Rizzetto; Giovanni Cacciamani; Arianna Mariotto; Alberto Diminutto; Matteo Brunelli; Vincenzo De Marco; Salvatore Siracusano; Walter Artibani
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2019-04-05

7.  Preoperative characteristics of the P.R.O.S.T.A.T.E. scores: a novel predictive tool for the risk of positive surgical margin after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Ben Xu; Cheng Luo; Qian Zhang; Jie Jin
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-12-05       Impact factor: 4.553

8.  Positive surgical margin rates during the robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy learning curve of an experienced laparoscopic surgeon.

Authors:  Anthony F Adili; Julia Di Giovanni; Emma Kolesar; Nathan C Wong; Jen Hoogenes; Shawn Dason; Bobby Shayegan
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 1.862

9.  Preoperative prognostic factors for biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in Japan.

Authors:  Takeshi Hashimoto; Kunihiko Yoshioka; Tatsuo Gondo; Choichiro Ozu; Yutaka Horiguchi; Kazunori Namiki; Yoshio Ohno; Makoto Ohori; Jun Nakashima; Masaaki Tachibana
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-09-19       Impact factor: 3.402

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.