Literature DB >> 24445447

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

Guillaume Ploussard1, Sarah J Drouin, Julie Rode, Yves Allory, Dimitri Vordos, Andras Hoznek, Claude-Clément Abbou, Alexandre de la Taille, Laurent Salomon.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To study the prognostic value of extent, number, and location of positive surgical margins (PSM).
METHODS: A total of 1,504 consecutive adjuvant treatment naive and node-negative radical prostatectomy men were included in a prospective database including extent, number, and location of PSM. Mean follow-up was 33 months. Endpoint was biochemical progression-free (bPFS) survival. The impact of margin status and characteristics was assessed in time-dependent analyses using Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier methods.
RESULTS: PSM was reported in 26.7 % of patients. The predominant PSM locations were apex and posterior locations. Median PSM length was 4.0 mm. The 2-year bPFS was 73.7 % in PSM patients as compared to 93.0 % in NSM patients (p < 0.001). The rate and extent of PSM increased significantly with pathologic stage (p < 0.001). The extent of PSM length was linearly correlated with bPFS (p = 0.017, coefficient: -0.122). In univariable analysis, extent and number of PSM were significantly linked to outcomes. None of PSM subclassifications significantly influenced the bPFS rates in the subgroup of pT2 disease patients. Conversely, stratification by PSM location (apex vs. other locations, p = 0.008), by PSM number (p = 0.006), and by PSM length (p < 0.001) showed significant differences in pT3-4 cancer patients. In that subgroup, PSM length also added to bPFS prediction using PSM status only in multivariable models (p = 0.005).
CONCLUSIONS: PSM subclassifications do not improve the biochemical recurrence prediction in organ-confined disease. In non-organ-confined disease, PSM length (≥3 mm), multifocality (≥3 sites), and apical location are significantly linked to poorer outcomes and could justify a more aggressive adjuvant treatment approach.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24445447     DOI: 10.1007/s00345-014-1243-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Urol        ISSN: 0724-4983            Impact factor:   4.226


  30 in total

1.  Prognostic impact of positive surgical margins in surgically treated prostate cancer: multi-institutional assessment of 5831 patients.

Authors:  Pierre I Karakiewicz; James A Eastham; Markus Graefen; Ilias Cagiannos; Phillip D Stricker; Eric Klein; Thomas Cangiano; Fritz H Schröder; Peter T Scardino; Michael W Kattan
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 2.  The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma.

Authors:  Jonathan I Epstein; William C Allsbrook; Mahul B Amin; Lars L Egevad
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 6.394

3.  Is biopsy Gleason score independently associated with biochemical progression following radical prostatectomy after adjusting for pathological Gleason score?

Authors:  Nicholas J Fitzsimons; Joseph C Presti; Christopher J Kane; Martha K Terris; William J Aronson; Christopher L Amling; Stephen J Freedland
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  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

5.  Positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy predict prostate cancer specific mortality.

Authors:  Jonathan L Wright; Bruce L Dalkin; Lawrence D True; William J Ellis; Janet L Stanford; Paul H Lange; Daniel W Lin
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Impact of positive surgical margins on prostate-specific antigen failure after radical prostatectomy in adjuvant treatment-naïve patients.

Authors:  Guillaume Ploussard; Mohammad Ali Agamy; Olivier Alenda; Yves Allory; Pascal Mouracade; Dimitri Vordos; Andras Hoznek; Claude-Clément Abbou; Alexandre de la Taille; Laurent Salomon
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2010-09-30       Impact factor: 5.588

7.  Time to prostate specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy and risk of prostate cancer specific mortality.

Authors:  Stephen J Freedland; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Leslie A Mangold; Mario Eisenberger; Alan W Partin
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Phase III postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy compared with radical prostatectomy alone in pT3 prostate cancer with postoperative undetectable prostate-specific antigen: ARO 96-02/AUO AP 09/95.

Authors:  Thomas Wiegel; Dirk Bottke; Ursula Steiner; Alessandra Siegmann; Reinhard Golz; Stephan Störkel; Norman Willich; Axel Semjonow; Rainer Souchon; Michael Stöckle; Christian Rübe; Lothar Weissbach; Peter Althaus; Udo Rebmann; Tilman Kälble; Horst Jürgen Feldmann; Manfred Wirth; Axel Hinke; Wolfgang Hinkelbein; Kurt Miller
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-05-11       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  A multivariate analysis of clinical and pathological factors that predict for prostate specific antigen failure after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  A V D'Amico; R Whittington; S B Malkowicz; D Schultz; M Schnall; J E Tomaszewski; A Wein
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Prognostic relevance of number and bilaterality of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Diederik M Somford; Inge M van Oort; Jean-Pierre Cosyns; J Alfred Witjes; Lambertus A L M Kiemeney; Bertrand Tombal
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2011-01-15       Impact factor: 4.226

View more
  3 in total

1.  Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: What should we care about?

Authors:  Caroline Pettenati; Yann Neuzillet; Camelia Radulescu; Jean-Marie Hervé; Vincent Molinié; Thierry Lebret
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2015-05-05       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.  The Effect of Adverse Surgical Margins on the Risk of Biochemical Recurrence after Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy.

Authors:  Enric Carbonell; Roger Matheu; Maria Muní; Joan Sureda; Mónica García-Sorroche; María José Ribal; Antonio Alcaraz; Antoni Vilaseca
Journal:  Biomedicines       Date:  2022-08-07
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.