Literature DB >> 27130538

Prognostic Value of Focal Positive Surgical Margins After Radical Prostatectomy.

Sangchul Lee1, Ki Bom Kim1, Jung Ki Jo2, Jin-Nyoung Ho1, Jong Jin Oh1, Seong Jin Jeong1, Sung Kyu Hong1, Seok-Soo Byun1, Gheeyoung Choe3, Sang Eun Lee1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The significance of focal positive margins (FPMs) after radical prostatectomy (RP) is unclear. Our objective was to investigate the prognostic value of FPMs in patients undergoing RP.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The data were analyzed retrospectively for 1733 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer who had undergone RP at our institution from December 2003 to March 2014 without neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy. Positive surgical margins were characterized as FPMs (≤ 3 mm long) or non-FPMs (> 3 mm long). Multivariate analysis of the clinicopathologic factors, including FPMs, was performed with respect to biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival.
RESULTS: Of the 1733 patients, 1260 (72.7%) had negative margins, 114 (6.6%) had a FPM, 218 (12.6%) had a nonfocal single positive margin (NFSPM), and 141 (8.1%) had nonfocal multiple positive margins (NFMPMs). Of the patients with pathologic T2 prostate cancer, 1065 (84.3%) had negative margins, 62 (4.9%) had 1 FPM, 104 (8.2%) had 1 NFSPM, and 33 (2.6%) had NFMPMs. The 5-year BCR-free survival for patients with negative margins and FPMs was 90% and 83.4%, respectively. On multivariate analysis, the presence of a FPM was not a significant prognostic factor for BCR-free survival in all the patients or in the patients with pathologic T2 disease (P = .458 and P = .512, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: FPMs after RP do not significantly affect BCR-free survival in patients with prostate cancer.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biochemical recurrence; Focal; Positive margin; Prognosis; Prostate

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 27130538     DOI: 10.1016/j.clgc.2015.12.013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Genitourin Cancer        ISSN: 1558-7673            Impact factor:   2.872


  8 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.  Comparison of Retzius-sparing and conventional robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy regarding continence and sexual function: an updated meta-analysis.

Authors:  Junyan Liu; Jindong Zhang; Zongke Yang; Qingyuan Liu; Weiyang Zhang; Zizhen Qing; Delin Wang
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2021-10-25       Impact factor: 5.554

3.  The impact of 3D models on positive surgical margins after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Cristian Fiori; Francesco Porpiglia; Enrico Checcucci; Angela Pecoraro; Daniele Amparore; Sabrina De Cillis; Stefano Granato; Gabriele Volpi; Michele Sica; Paolo Verri; Alberto Piana; Pietro Piazzolla; Matteo Manfredi; Enrico Vezzetti; Michele Di Dio
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2022-07-05       Impact factor: 3.661

4.  Increased nuclear factor I/B expression in prostate cancer correlates with AR expression.

Authors:  Jagpreet S Nanda; Wisam N Awadallah; Sarah E Kohrt; Petra Popovics; Justin M M Cates; Janni Mirosevich; Peter E Clark; Giovanna A Giannico; Magdalena M Grabowska
Journal:  Prostate       Date:  2020-07-21       Impact factor: 4.104

5.  Surgeon volume and body mass index influence positive surgical margin risk after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Results in 732 cases.

Authors:  Antonio B Porcaro; Alessandro Tafuri; Marco Sebben; Paolo Corsi; Tania Processali; Marco Pirozzi; Nelia Amigoni; Riccardo Rizzetto; Aliasger Shakir; Giovanni Cacciamani; Arianna Mariotto; Matteo Brunelli; Riccardo Bernasconi; Giovanni Novella; Vincenzo De Marco; Walter Artibani
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2019-05-30

Review 6.  Radical or Not-So-Radical Prostatectomy: Do Surgical Margins Matter?

Authors:  Ioanna Maria Grypari; Vasiliki Zolota; Vasiliki Tzelepi
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2021-12-21       Impact factor: 6.639

7.  Diagnostic and prognostic factors in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review.

Authors:  Katharina Beyer; Lisa Moris; Michael Lardas; Anna Haire; Francesco Barletta; Simone Scuderi; Megan Molnar; Ronald Herrera; Abdul Rauf; Riccardo Campi; Isabella Greco; Kirill Shiranov; Saeed Dabestani; Thomas van den Broeck; Sujenthiran Arun; Mauro Gacci; Giorgio Gandaglia; Muhammad Imran Omar; Steven MacLennan; Monique J Roobol; Bahman Farahmand; Eleni Vradi; Zsuzsanna Devecseri; Alex Asiimwe; Jihong Zong; Sara J Maclennan; Laurence Collette; James NDow; Alberto Briganti; Anders Bjartell; Mieke Van Hemelrijck
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-04-04       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  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

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.