Luke T Lavallée1, Andrew Stokl2, Sonya Cnossen2, Ranjeeta Mallick2, Chris Morash3, Ilias Cagiannos3, Rodney H Breau1. 1. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada;; University of Ottawa, ON, Canada;; Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 2. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 3. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada;; University of Ottawa, ON, Canada;
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The impact of nerve-sparing on positive surgical margins during radical prostatectomy (RP) remains unclear. The objective of this study was to determine the incidence of positive surgical margins with a wide resection compared to a nerve-sparing technique. METHODS: A consecutive, single-surgeon patient cohort treated between August 2010 and November 2014 was reviewed. A standardized surgical approach of lobe-specific nerve-spare or wide resection was performed. Lobe-specific margin status and tumour stage were obtained from pathology reports. Univariable and multivariable associations between nerve management technique and lobe-specific positive surgical margin were determined. RESULTS: Of 388 prostate lobes, wide resection was performed in 105 (27%) and nerve-sparing in 283 (73%). In 273 lobes without extra-prostatic extension (EPE), 0 of 52 (0%) had a positive margin when wide resection was performed compared to 20 of 221 (9%) if nerve-sparing was performed (p=0.02). In 115 lobes with EPE, 11 of 53 (21%) had a positive margin if wide resection was performed compared to 28 of 62 (45%) if nerve-sparing was performed (p=0.006). In multivariable analysis, the risk of a positive margin was decreased among patients who received wide resection as compared to nerve-spare (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.26-0.71; p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical techniques to reduce positive surgical margins have become increasingly important as more patients with high-risk cancer are selecting surgery. The risk of a positive margin was greatly reduced using a standardized wide resection technique compared to nerve-sparing.
INTRODUCTION: The impact of nerve-sparing on positive surgical margins during radical prostatectomy (RP) remains unclear. The objective of this study was to determine the incidence of positive surgical margins with a wide resection compared to a nerve-sparing technique. METHODS: A consecutive, single-surgeon patient cohort treated between August 2010 and November 2014 was reviewed. A standardized surgical approach of lobe-specific nerve-spare or wide resection was performed. Lobe-specific margin status and tumour stage were obtained from pathology reports. Univariable and multivariable associations between nerve management technique and lobe-specific positive surgical margin were determined. RESULTS: Of 388 prostate lobes, wide resection was performed in 105 (27%) and nerve-sparing in 283 (73%). In 273 lobes without extra-prostatic extension (EPE), 0 of 52 (0%) had a positive margin when wide resection was performed compared to 20 of 221 (9%) if nerve-sparing was performed (p=0.02). In 115 lobes with EPE, 11 of 53 (21%) had a positive margin if wide resection was performed compared to 28 of 62 (45%) if nerve-sparing was performed (p=0.006). In multivariable analysis, the risk of a positive margin was decreased among patients who received wide resection as compared to nerve-spare (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.26-0.71; p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical techniques to reduce positive surgical margins have become increasingly important as more patients with high-risk cancer are selecting surgery. The risk of a positive margin was greatly reduced using a standardized wide resection technique compared to nerve-sparing.
Authors: Giacomo Novara; Vincenzo Ficarra; Simone Mocellin; Thomas E Ahlering; Peter R Carroll; Markus Graefen; Giorgio Guazzoni; Mani Menon; Vipul R Patel; Shahrokh F Shariat; Ashutosh K Tewari; Hendrik Van Poppel; Filiberto Zattoni; Francesco Montorsi; Alexandre Mottrie; Raymond C Rosen; Timothy G Wilson Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-06-02 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Fernando P Secin; Angel Serio; Fernando J Bianco; Nicholas T Karanikolas; Kentaro Kuroiwa; Andrew Vickers; Karim Touijer; Bertrand Guillonneau Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2006-11-03 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Carol M Moinpour; Katherine A Hayden; Joseph M Unger; Ian M Thompson; Mary W Redman; Edith D Canby-Hagino; Betsy A Higgins; Jerry W Sullivan; Dianne Lemmon; Sheila Breslin; E David Crawford Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-01-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Stephen A Boorjian; R Jeffrey Karnes; Paul L Crispen; Rachel E Carlson; Laureano J Rangel; Eric J Bergstralh; Michael L Blute Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-01-21 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: John F Ward; Horst Zincke; Erik J Bergstralh; Jeffrey M Slezak; Robert P Myers; Michael L Blute Journal: J Urol Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Hamid Abboudi; Mohammed Shamim Khan; Khurshid A Guru; Saied Froghi; Gunter de Win; Hendrik Van Poppel; Prokar Dasgupta; Kamran Ahmed Journal: BJU Int Date: 2013-10-24 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Simone Albisinni; Fouad Aoun; Thierry Quackels; Grégoire Assenmacher; Alexandre Peltier; Roland van Velthoven; Thierry Roumeguère Journal: Am J Mens Health Date: 2019 May-Jun
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