PURPOSE: We investigated the influence of positive surgical margins (PSMs) and their locations on biochemical recurrence (BCR) according to risk stratification and surgical modality. METHODS: A total of 1,874 post-radical-prostatectomy (RP) patients of pT2-T3a between 2000 and 2010 at three tertiary centers, and who did not receive neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapy, were included in this study. Patients were stratified according to BCR risk: low risk (PSA <10, pT2a-b, and pGS ≤6), intermediate risk (PSA 10-20 and/or pT2c and/or pGS 7), and high risk (PSA >20 or pT3a or pGS 8-10). The median follow-up was 43 months. RESULTS: PSMs were a significant predictor of BCR in both the intermediate- and high-risk-disease groups (P = .001, HR 2.1, 95 % CI 1.3-3.4; P < .001, HR 2.8, 95 % CI 2.0-4.1). Positive apical margin was a significant risk factor for BCR in high-risk disease (P = .003, HR 2.0, 95 % CI 1.2-3.3), but not in intermediate-risk disease (P = .06, HR 1.7, 95 % CI 0.9-3.1). Positive bladder neck margin was a significant risk factor for BCR in both intermediate- and high-risk disease (P < .001, HR 5.4, 95 % CI 2.1-13.8; P = .001, HR 4.5, 95 % CI 1.8-11.4). In subgroup analyses, robotic RP provided comparable BCR-free survival regardless of risk stratification. Patients with PSMs showed similar BCR-free survival between open and robotic RP (log-rank, P = .897). CONCLUSIONS: Post-RP PSMs were a significantly independent predictor of disease progression in high-risk disease as well as intermediate-risk disease. Both positive apical and bladder neck margins are also significant risk factors of BCR in high-risk disease. Patients with PSMs showed similar BCR-free survival between open and robotic surgery.
PURPOSE: We investigated the influence of positive surgical margins (PSMs) and their locations on biochemical recurrence (BCR) according to risk stratification and surgical modality. METHODS: A total of 1,874 post-radical-prostatectomy (RP) patients of pT2-T3a between 2000 and 2010 at three tertiary centers, and who did not receive neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapy, were included in this study. Patients were stratified according to BCR risk: low risk (PSA <10, pT2a-b, and pGS ≤6), intermediate risk (PSA 10-20 and/or pT2c and/or pGS 7), and high risk (PSA >20 or pT3a or pGS 8-10). The median follow-up was 43 months. RESULTS: PSMs were a significant predictor of BCR in both the intermediate- and high-risk-disease groups (P = .001, HR 2.1, 95 % CI 1.3-3.4; P < .001, HR 2.8, 95 % CI 2.0-4.1). Positive apical margin was a significant risk factor for BCR in high-risk disease (P = .003, HR 2.0, 95 % CI 1.2-3.3), but not in intermediate-risk disease (P = .06, HR 1.7, 95 % CI 0.9-3.1). Positive bladder neck margin was a significant risk factor for BCR in both intermediate- and high-risk disease (P < .001, HR 5.4, 95 % CI 2.1-13.8; P = .001, HR 4.5, 95 % CI 1.8-11.4). In subgroup analyses, robotic RP provided comparable BCR-free survival regardless of risk stratification. Patients with PSMs showed similar BCR-free survival between open and robotic RP (log-rank, P = .897). CONCLUSIONS: Post-RP PSMs were a significantly independent predictor of disease progression in high-risk disease as well as intermediate-risk disease. Both positive apical and bladder neck margins are also significant risk factors of BCR in high-risk disease. Patients with PSMs showed similar BCR-free survival between open and robotic surgery.
Authors: Lars Budäus; Hendrik Isbarn; Christian Eichelberg; Giovanni Lughezzani; Maxine Sun; Paul Perrotte; Felix K H Chun; Georg Salomon; Thomas Steuber; Jens Köllermann; Guido Sauter; Sascha A Ahyai; Mario Zacharias; Margit Fisch; Thorsten Schlomm; Alexander Haese; Hans Heinzer; Hartwig Huland; Francesco Montorsi; Markus Graefen; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-08-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Ahmed Magheli; Mark L Gonzalgo; Li-Ming Su; Thomas J Guzzo; George Netto; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Misop Han; Alan W Partin; Christian P Pavlovich Journal: BJU Int Date: 2010-11-02 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Daniel A Barocas; Shady Salem; Yakup Kordan; S Duke Herrell; Sam S Chang; Peter E Clark; Rodney Davis; Roxelyn Baumgartner; Sharon Phillips; Michael S Cookson; Joseph A Smith Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-01-18 Impact factor: 7.450
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
Authors: Peter Swindle; James A Eastham; Makoto Ohori; Michael W Kattan; Thomas Wheeler; Norio Maru; Kevin Slawin; Peter T Scardino Journal: J Urol Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Joanne N Nyarangi-Dix; Jan Philipp Radtke; Boris Hadaschik; Sascha Pahernik; Markus Hohenfellner Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-09-24 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Richard Savdie; Lisa G Horvath; Ruth Pe Benito; Krishan K Rasiah; Anne-Maree Haynes; Mark Chatfield; Phillip D Stricker; Jennifer J Turner; Warwick Delprado; Susan M Henshall; Robert L Sutherland; James G Kench Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-10-12 Impact factor: 5.588
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
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
Authors: Hans Veerman; Thierry N Boellaard; Jari A van der Eijk; Judith H Sluijter; Ton A Roeleveld; Tim M van der Sluis; Jakko A Nieuwenhuijzen; Esther Wit; Maarten J A van Alphen; Robert L P van Veen; André N Vis; Henk G van der Poel; Pim J van Leeuwen Journal: J Robot Surg Date: 2022-07-12
Authors: Jung J Kang; Robert E Reiter; Nicolas Kummer; Jean DeKernion; Michael L Steinberg; Christopher R King Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 2.339