PURPOSE: Positive surgical margins (PSMs) may reflect incomplete surgical resection, while extraprostatic extension (EPE) could suggest that complete tumor resection is more difficult. This study evaluated cases with both EPE and PSMs in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) specimens to determine the respective locations of each. METHODS: A single institutional retrospective review of RARP performed between 2007 and 2009 was conducted to identify cases with both EPE and PSM. Prostates were entirely submitted and processed in whole mount format. All locations of EPE and PSM were recorded as was the size of the largest focus of EPE and PSM. RESULTS: About 8.5 % (112/1,315) of RARP had both EPE and PSM. Analysis of cases with concurrent EPE and PSM revealed that EPE occurred most commonly in the mid-gland, particularly in the posterolateral mid-prostate. In contrast, PSM was most frequent at the base (bladder neck), specifically the anterior base. 51.8 % of the cases had EPE and PSM in discordant locations, 19.6 % had EPE and PSM in the same location, and 28.6 % had areas of EPE and PSM both in the same location as well as in different locations. Cases with both concordant and discordant locations of EPE and PSM had significantly more high-risk features including higher tumor volume, more frequent positive nodes, and more frequent Gleason score ≥ 8 compared to concordant or discordant subgroups. CONCLUSION: PSMs frequently did not occur in the same location as EPE. A better understanding of where EPE and PSMs occur may help guide surgical technique to decrease residual tumor.
PURPOSE: Positive surgical margins (PSMs) may reflect incomplete surgical resection, while extraprostatic extension (EPE) could suggest that complete tumor resection is more difficult. This study evaluated cases with both EPE and PSMs in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) specimens to determine the respective locations of each. METHODS: A single institutional retrospective review of RARP performed between 2007 and 2009 was conducted to identify cases with both EPE and PSM. Prostates were entirely submitted and processed in whole mount format. All locations of EPE and PSM were recorded as was the size of the largest focus of EPE and PSM. RESULTS: About 8.5 % (112/1,315) of RARP had both EPE and PSM. Analysis of cases with concurrent EPE and PSM revealed that EPE occurred most commonly in the mid-gland, particularly in the posterolateral mid-prostate. In contrast, PSM was most frequent at the base (bladder neck), specifically the anterior base. 51.8 % of the cases had EPE and PSM in discordant locations, 19.6 % had EPE and PSM in the same location, and 28.6 % had areas of EPE and PSM both in the same location as well as in different locations. Cases with both concordant and discordant locations of EPE and PSM had significantly more high-risk features including higher tumor volume, more frequent positive nodes, and more frequent Gleason score ≥ 8 compared to concordant or discordant subgroups. CONCLUSION: PSMs frequently did not occur in the same location as EPE. A better understanding of where EPE and PSMs occur may help guide surgical technique to decrease residual tumor.
Authors: Vincenzo Ficarra; Giacomo Novara; Walter Artibani; Andrea Cestari; Antonio Galfano; Markus Graefen; Giorgio Guazzoni; Bertrand Guillonneau; Mani Menon; Francesco Montorsi; Vipul Patel; Jens Rassweiler; Hendrik Van Poppel Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2009-01-25 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Roula Albadine; Matthew E Hyndman; Alcides Chaux; J Y Jeong; Shahrazad Saab; Fabio Tavora; Jonathan I Epstein; Mark L Gonzalgo; Christian P Pavlovich; George J Netto Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2011-08-04 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: Gerald L Andriole; E David Crawford; Robert L Grubb; Saundra S Buys; David Chia; Timothy R Church; Mona N Fouad; Edward P Gelmann; Paul A Kvale; Douglas J Reding; Joel L Weissfeld; Lance A Yokochi; Barbara O'Brien; Jonathan D Clapp; Joshua M Rathmell; Thomas L Riley; Richard B Hayes; Barnett S Kramer; Grant Izmirlian; Anthony B Miller; Paul F Pinsky; Philip C Prorok; John K Gohagan; Christine D Berg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-03-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Peter Swindle; James A Eastham; Makoto Ohori; Michael W Kattan; Thomas Wheeler; Norio Maru; Kevin Slawin; Peter T Scardino Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Marc Bienz; Pierre-Alain Hueber; Vincent Trudeau; Abdullah M Alenizi; Roger Valdivieso; Modar Alom; Mevlana Derya Balbay; Abdullah Erdem Canda; Vladimir Mouraviev; David M Albala; Assaad El-Hakim; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Mathieu Latour; Fred Saad; Kevin C Zorn Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2015 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.862
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
Authors: Yong Jin Kang; Mark Joseph Abalajon; Won Sik Jang; Jong Kyou Kwon; Cheol Yong Yoon; Joo Yong Lee; Kang Su Cho; Won Sik Ham; Young Deuk Choi Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-07-08 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sasha C Druskin; Jen-Jane Liu; Allen Young; Zhaoyong Feng; Seyed S Dianat; Wesley W Ludwig; Bruce J Trock; Katarzyna J Macura; Christian P Pavlovich Journal: Res Rep Urol Date: 2017-04-18
Authors: Mieszko Kozikowski; Jan Powroźnik; Wojciech Malewski; Szymon Kawecki; Sebastian Piotrowicz; Wojciech Michalak; Łukasz Nyk; Magdalena Gola; Jakub Dobruch Journal: Arch Med Sci Date: 2018-07-17 Impact factor: 3.318