Literature DB >> 23063630

Prognostic impact of subclassification of radical prostatectomy positive margins by linear extent and Gleason grade.

Kazuma Udo1, Angel M Cronin, Lauren J Carlino, Caroline J Savage, Alexandra C Maschino, Hikmat A Al-Ahmadie, Anuradha Gopalan, Satish K Tickoo, Peter T Scardino, James A Eastham, Victor E Reuter, Samson W Fine.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We evaluated the relationship of progression to positive surgical margin linear length and Gleason grade at a positive surgical margin.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied 2,150 prostatectomies done for pT2 or pT3a disease to determine grade, stage and surgical margin status. In patients with positive surgical margins we recorded the location, number, positive margin linear length and highest Gleason grade at a positive margin. The Kaplan-Meier method and log rank test were used to determine differences in progression-free probability among positive margin features. The concordance index was used to discriminate the accuracy of grouping surgical margin status as negative/positive vs positive margin linear length/highest Gleason grade.
RESULTS: A total of 207 cases (10%) showed positive surgical margins, including 93 (45%) that were pT2+ and 114 (55%) that were pT3a. Patients with pT3a and positive margins had greater prostate specific antigen and tumor volume, and Gleason score 7 or greater than those with pT2+. A total of 45 patients with positive margins progressed. We then subcategorized positive margins. Of the patients 164 (79%) had 1 positive margin. Positive margin linear length was 1 mm or less, 1.1 to 3 and greater than 3 in 104 (50%), 55 (27%) and 48 cases (23%), respectively. Two-year progression-free probability was 95%, 91%, 83% and 47% in patients with negative margins and the 3 positive margin linear length groups, respectively (p <0.001). Gleason grade at a positive margin was 3 and 4/5 in 154 (74%) and 53 patients (26%), respectively. The latter group was significantly more likely to progress (p <0.001). The overall margin status concordance index was 0.636. It was not considerably enhanced by categorizing by positive surgical margin linear length/highest Gleason grade at positive margins.
CONCLUSIONS: The linear extent of and highest Gleason grade at a positive surgical margin are associated with progression. However, subcategorization does not importantly add to predictive models using margin status only. More robust markers are needed in patients with positive surgical margins to warrant routine reporting and identify those at risk for biochemical recurrence.
Copyright © 2013 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23063630     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.10.004

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


  13 in total

1.  Insignificant disease among men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Sung Kyu Hong; Emily Vertosick; Daniel D Sjoberg; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-09-27       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  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

3.  Location, extent, and multifocality of positive surgical margins for biochemical recurrence prediction after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Guillaume Ploussard; Sarah J Drouin; Julie Rode; Yves Allory; Dimitri Vordos; Andras Hoznek; Claude-Clément Abbou; Alexandre de la Taille; Laurent Salomon
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-01-21       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Impact of Gleason score on biochemical recurrence in patients with pT3aN0/Nx prostate cancer with positive surgical margins: a multicenter study from the Prostate Cancer Research Committee.

Authors:  Wan Song; Dong Hyeon Lee; Hwang Gyun Jeon; Byong Chang Jeong; Seong Il Seo; Hyun Moo Lee; Han Yong Choi; Jong Wook Kim; SangChul Lee; Seok-Soo Byun; Chang Wook Jeong; Cheol Kwak; Jin Seon Cho; Hanjong Ahn; Seong Soo Jeon
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2017-08-19       Impact factor: 4.553

5.  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

6.  Oncological outcomes following robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy in a multiracial Asian population.

Authors:  Low Wei Xiang Alvin; Sim Hong Gee; Huang Hong Hong; Cheng Wai Sam Christopher; Ho Sien Sun Henry; Lau Kam On Weber; Tan Puay Hoon; Lee Lui Shiong
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2015-07-07

7.  Comparison of transperineal mapping biopsy results with whole-mount radical prostatectomy pathology in patients with localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Darren J Katz; Rodrigo Pinochet; Kyle A Richards; Guilherme Godoy; Kazuma Udo; Lucas Nogueira; Angel M Cronin; Samson W Fine; Peter T Scardino; Jonathon A Coleman
Journal:  Prostate Cancer       Date:  2014-05-11

8.  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

9.  Ki-67 expression predicts biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy in the setting of positive surgical margins.

Authors:  Mohammed Shahait; Samer Nassif; Hani Tamim; Deborah Mukherji; Maya Hijazi; Marwan El Sabban; Raja Khauli; Muhammad Bulbul; Wassim Abou Kheir; Albert El Hajj
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2018-03-05       Impact factor: 2.264

10.  Clinical utility of subclassifying positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Shawn Dason; Emily A Vertosick; Kazuma Udo; Daniel D Sjoberg; Andrew J Vickers; Hikmat Al-Ahmadie; Ying-Bei Chen; Anuradha Gopalan; S Joseph Sirintrapun; Satish K Tickoo; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham; Victor E Reuter; Samson W Fine
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2021-07-11       Impact factor: 5.969

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.