Literature DB >> 25512161

Surgical margin length and location affect recurrence rates after robotic prostatectomy.

Harveer S Dev1, Peter Wiklund2, Vipul Patel3, Deepak Parashar4, Kenneth Palmer3, Tommy Nyberg2, Doug Skarecky5, David E Neal1, Tom Ahlering5, Prasanna Sooriakumaran6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is a current standard treatment for localized prostate cancer, with treatment failure defined by biochemical recurrence (BCR). Open radical prostatectomy series have identified the presence of a positive surgical margin (PSM) as a predictor of long-term recurrence, a measure that is affected by the surgeon׳s skill. We evaluate the effect of PSM parameters on BCR rates from robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, across 3 high-volume institutions.
METHODS: De-identifiable clinicopathological and histopathological data were prospectively collected for 4,001 patients with at least 3 years of follow-up. Kaplan-Meier plots and 3 statistical models were used to evaluate the effect of margin parameters on BCR, via crude rates, traditional multivariable Cox regression, and a propensity-adjusted Cox regression model.
RESULTS: Overall, 37% of men with a PSM developed BCR compared with 10% of men with negative margins (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.81, 95% CI: 1.47-2.22). Length ≥3 mm or a multifocal positive margin was associated with a higher risk of BCR compared with negative margin cases. On multivariable Cox regression analysis of the positive margin cohort, only apical margins significantly predicted BCR relative to basal margins (HR = 2.03, 95% CI: 1.01-4.09), whereas there was no significant difference in BCR rates for posterolateral margins relative to basal margins (HR = 1.62, 95% CI: 0.84-3.11). Propensity-adjusted modeling confirmed a greater effect of apical compared with posterolateral PSM.
CONCLUSIONS: A PSM length ≥3 mm is predictive of BCR, as is to a lesser extent multiple positive margins. In contrast to open prostatectomy series, posterolateral margins carry a smaller risk of BCR compared with apical margins.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biochemical recurrence; Length; Location; Positive surgical margin; Robotic-assisted prostatectomy

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25512161     DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.11.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urol Oncol        ISSN: 1078-1439            Impact factor:   3.498


  12 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

Review 2.  Long-term cancer control outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer treatment: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Lei Wang; Baojun Wang; Qing Ai; Yu Zhang; Xiangjun Lv; Hongzhao Li; Xin Ma; Xu Zhang
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2017-02-25       Impact factor: 2.370

3.  [Gap between postulated and real outcome quality of radical prostatectomy].

Authors:  C Hampel; F Roos; J W Thüroff; A Neisius
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 0.639

4.  Multiparametric MRI reporting using Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.0 (PI-RADSv2) retains clinical efficacy in a predominantly post-biopsy patient population.

Authors:  Edwin Jonathan Aslim; Yan Mee Law; Puay Hoon Tan; John Carson Allen; Lionel Tim-Ee Cheng; Viswanath Anand Chidambaram; Li Yan Khor; Benjamin Yongcheng Tan; Ernest Wencong Eu; Christopher Wai Sam Cheng; John Shyi Peng Yuen; Henry Sun Sien Ho; Lui Shiong Lee
Journal:  Asian J Urol       Date:  2018-06-01

5.  Intraoperative assessment and reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens to guide nerve-sparing surgery in prostate cancer patients (NeuroSAFE).

Authors:  Margaretha A van der Slot; Michael A den Bakker; Sjoerd Klaver; Mike Kliffen; Martijn B Busstra; John B W Rietbergen; Melanie Gan; Karen E Hamoen; Leo M Budel; Natascha N T Goemaere; Chris H Bangma; Jozien Helleman; Monique J Roobol; Geert J L H van Leenders
Journal:  Histopathology       Date:  2020-09-03       Impact factor: 5.087

6.  Prediction of surgical margin status and location after radical prostatectomy using positive biopsy sites on 12-core standard prostate biopsy.

Authors:  Hyeon Jeong; Min Soo Choo; Min Chul Cho; Hwancheol Son; Sangjun Yoo
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-03-08       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Positive surgical margins and biochemical recurrence following minimally-invasive radical prostatectomy - An analysis of outcomes from a UK tertiary referral centre.

Authors:  Ashwin Sachdeva; Rajan Veeratterapillay; Antonia Voysey; Katherine Kelly; Mark I Johnson; Jonathan Aning; Naeem A Soomro
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2017-10-02       Impact factor: 2.264

8.  Robotic-assisted vs. open radical prostatectomy: an update to the never-ending debate.

Authors:  Thenappan Chandrasekar; Derya Tilki
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2018-03

9.  Impact of positive surgical margin location and perineural invasion on biochemical recurrence in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Zhenpeng Lian; Hongtuan Zhang; Zhaowei He; Shenfei Ma; Xiaoming Wang; Ranlu Liu
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2020-08-13       Impact factor: 2.754

10.  Practice Patterns of Korean Urologists Regarding Positive Surgical Margins after Radical Prostatectomy: a Survey and Narrative Review.

Authors:  Jae Hyun Ryu; Yun Beom Kim; Tae Young Jung; Woo Jin Ko; Sun Il Kim; Dongdeuk Kwon; Duk Yoon Kim; Tae Hee Oh; Tag Keun Yoo
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2021-10-25       Impact factor: 2.153

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.