Literature DB >> 22788795

Impact of surgical margin status on prostate-cancer-specific mortality.

Heather J Chalfin1, Michael Dinizo, Bruce J Trock, Zhaoyong Feng, Alan W Partin, Patrick C Walsh, Elizabeth Humphreys, Misop Han.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Study Type--Diagnostic (exploratory cohort) Level of Evidence 2b. What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Surgical margin status at radical prostatectomy (RP) has been shown to be a predictor of disease progression and the strongest predictor of benefit from adjuvant therapy, but the impact of a positive surgical margin (PSM) on long-term prostate-cancer-specific survival is unknown. The PSM rate is dependent on the pathological stage of the cancer. In a recent multicentre nomogram for 15-year prostate-cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) after RP, PSM was not significantly associated with PCSM, while Gleason score and pathological stage were the only significant predictors. This has not been validated in a single centre, and PSM has been shown to vary greatly with surgical technique. This is the first study on the impact of PSM on PCSM in a single surgeon's cohort. In other centres, the decision to administer adjuvant therapy may be influenced by surgical margin status. In this cohort, men routinely did not receive adjuvant therapy, affording the unique opportunity to study the long-term implications of a PSM.
OBJECTIVE: • To examine the relative impact of a positive surgical margin (PSM) and other clinicopathological variables on prostate-cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) in a large retrospective cohort of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: • Between 1982 and 2011, 4569 men underwent RP performed by a single surgeon. • Of the patient population, 4461 (97.6%) met all the inclusion criteria. • The median (range) age was 58 (33-75) years and the median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was 5.4 ng/mL; RP Gleason score was ≤ 6 in 2834 (63.7%), 7 in 1351 (30.3%), and 8-10 in 260 (6.0%) patients; PSMs were found in 462 (10.4%) patients. • Cox proportional hazards models were used to determine the impact of a PSM on PCSM.
RESULTS: • At a median (range) follow-up of 10 years (1-29), 187 men (4.3%) had died from prostate cancer. • The 20-year prostate-cancer-specific survival rate was 75% for those with a PSM and 93% for those without. • Compared with those with a negative surgical margin, men with a PSM were more likely to be older (median age 60 vs 58 years) and to have undergone RP in the pre-PSA era (36.6% vs 11.8%). Additionally, they were more likely to have a higher PSA level (median 7.6 vs 5.2 ng/mL), a Gleason score of ≥ 7 (58.7% vs 33.7%), and a non-organ-confined tumour (90.9% vs 30.6% [P < 0.001 for all]). • In a univariate model for PCSM, PSM was highly significant (hazard ratio [HR] 5.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.7-6.7, P < 0.001). • In a multivariable model, adjusting for pathological variables and RP year, PSM remained an independent predictor of PCSM (HR 1.4, 95% CI 1.0-1.9, P = 0.036) with a modest effect relative to RP Gleason score (HR 5.7-12.6) and pathological stage (HR 2.2-11.0 [P < 0.001]).
CONCLUSION: • Although a PSM has a statistically significant adverse effect on prostate-cancer-specific survival in multivariable analysis, Gleason grade and pathological stage were stronger predictors.
© 2012 THE AUTHORS. BJU INTERNATIONAL © 2012 BJU INTERNATIONAL.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22788795      PMCID: PMC3876479          DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11371.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  27 in total

Review 1.  Incidence and significance of positive margins in radical prostatectomy specimens.

Authors:  J I Epstein
Journal:  Urol Clin North Am       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 2.241

2.  Risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality following biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

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

3.  Anatomic site-specific positive margins in organ-confined prostate cancer and its impact on outcome after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  M L Blute; D G Bostwick; E J Bergstralh; J M Slezak; S K Martin; C L Amling; H Zincke
Journal:  Urology       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 2.649

4.  Positive surgical margins after radical retropubic prostatectomy: the influence of site and number on progression.

Authors:  Mario Sofer; Kara L Hamilton-Nelson; Francisco Civantos; Mark S Soloway
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Natural history of progression after PSA elevation following radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  C R Pound; A W Partin; M A Eisenberger; D W Chan; J D Pearson; P C Walsh
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-05-05       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Biochemical failure does not predict overall survival after radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer: 10-year results.

Authors:  F M Jhaveri; C D Zippe; E A Klein; P A Kupelian
Journal:  Urology       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 2.649

7.  Bladder neck-sparing modification of radical prostatectomy adversely affects surgical margins in pathologic T3a prostate cancer.

Authors:  R Marcovich; K J Wojno; J T Wei; M A Rubin; J E Montie; M G Sanda
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 2.649

8.  Comparative analysis of sampling methods for grossing radical prostatectomy specimens performed for nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostatic adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  A E Sehdev; C C Pan; J I Epstein
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 3.466

9.  Biochemical failure in men following radical retropubic prostatectomy: impact of surgical margin status and location.

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

10.  Probability of biochemical recurrence by analysis of pathologic stage, Gleason score, and margin status for localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Masood A Khan; Alan W Partin; Leslie A Mangold; Jonathan I Epstein; Patrick C Walsh
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 2.649

View more
  27 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

2.  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

3.  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

4.  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

5.  Index tumor volume on MRI as a predictor of clinical and pathologic outcomes following radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Dordaneh Sugano; Abhinav Sidana; Amit L Jain; Brian Calio; Sonia Gaur; Mahir Maruf; Maria Merino; Peter Choyke; Baris Turkbey; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2019-05-16       Impact factor: 2.370

6.  Real-time, near-infrared fluorescence imaging with an optimized dye/light source/camera combination for surgical guidance of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Brian P Neuman; John B Eifler; Mark Castanares; Wasim H Chowdhury; Ying Chen; Ronnie C Mease; Rong Ma; Amarnath Mukherjee; Shawn E Lupold; Martin G Pomper; Ronald Rodriguez
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2014-12-12       Impact factor: 12.531

7.  Fluorescent Image-Guided Surgery with an Anti-Prostate Stem Cell Antigen (PSCA) Diabody Enables Targeted Resection of Mouse Prostate Cancer Xenografts in Real Time.

Authors:  Geoffrey A Sonn; Andrew S Behesnilian; Ziyue Karen Jiang; Kirstin A Zettlitz; Eric J Lepin; Laurent A Bentolila; Scott M Knowles; Daniel Lawrence; Anna M Wu; Robert E Reiter
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2015-10-21       Impact factor: 12.531

8.  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

9.  Increased nuclear factor I/B expression in prostate cancer correlates with AR expression.

Authors:  Jagpreet S Nanda; Wisam N Awadallah; Sarah E Kohrt; Petra Popovics; Justin M M Cates; Janni Mirosevich; Peter E Clark; Giovanna A Giannico; Magdalena M Grabowska
Journal:  Prostate       Date:  2020-07-21       Impact factor: 4.104

Review 10.  Fluorescence-guided surgery with live molecular navigation--a new cutting edge.

Authors:  Quyen T Nguyen; Roger Y Tsien
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2013-08-08       Impact factor: 60.716

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.