Literature DB >> 28302349

Influence of pathologist experience on positive surgical margins following radical prostatectomy.

Jacob E Tallman1, Vignesh T Packiam2, Kristen E Wroblewski3, Gladell P Paner4, Scott E Eggener2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A positive surgical margin (PSM) following radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer is associated with increased risk of biochemical recurrence. We sought to examine whether the pathologist is an independent predictor of PSMs.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 3,557 men who underwent RP for localized prostate cancer at our institution from 2003 to 2015. We evaluated 29 separate pathologists. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression were used to test variables previously shown to influence PSM rates.
RESULTS: Overall rate of PSM was 18.9%. Compared with patients without PSM, patients with PSM had higher body mass index (mean: 28.8 vs. 28.3), Gleason score≥7 (84% vs. 66%), extracapsular extension (51% vs. 20%), and median prostate-specific antigen (5.9 vs. 5.1ng/ml) (all P<0.05). Univariate logistic regression showed that surgeon experience, pathologist experience, and pathologist genitourinary fellowship training were all predictors of PSMs (all P<0.05). Multivariable regression analysis confirmed that decreased surgeon experience, increased pathologist experience, higher pathologic Gleason score, higher pathologic stage, and higher prostate-specific antigen were significant predictors of PSMs. Increasing surgeon experience was associated with decreased odds of PSM (odds ratio = 0.79 per 1 standard deviation increase, 95% CI [0.70-0.89]). In contrast, increasing pathologist experience was associated with increased odds of PSM (odds ratio = 1.11 per 1 standard deviation increase, 95% CI [1.03-1.19]). The relationship between pathologist experience and PSM appeared to be nonlinear (Fig. 2).
CONCLUSIONS: Greater pathologist experience appears to be associated with greater odds of PSMs following radical prostatectomy, even after controlling for case mix, pathologist fellowship training, and surgeon experience. Based on these findings, pathologists with less experience reviewing RP specimens may consider requesting rereview by a dedicated genitourinary pathologist.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Interobserver variability; Pathology; Prostate cancer; Urology

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28302349      PMCID: PMC5476525          DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2017.02.007

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


  32 in total

1.  Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.

Authors:  Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2008-09-30       Impact factor: 6.317

2.  Discrepancy between local and central pathological review of radical prostatectomy specimens.

Authors:  Kentaro Kuroiwa; Taizo Shiraishi; Osamu Ogawa; Michiyuki Usami; Yoshihiko Hirao; Seiji Naito
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2010-01-18       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  UK radical prostatectomy outcomes and surgeon case volume: based on an analysis of the British Association of Urological Surgeons Complex Operations Database.

Authors:  Sean G Vesey; John E McCabe; Luke Hounsome; Sarah Fowler
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2011-07-19       Impact factor: 5.588

4.  Preoperative and intraoperative risk factors for side-specific positive surgical margins in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer.

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

5.  The role of the pathologist in the evaluation of radical prostatectomy specimens.

Authors:  Sinan Ekici; Ayse Ayhan; Ilhan Erkan; Mehmet Bakkaloğlu; Haluk Ozen
Journal:  Scand J Urol Nephrol       Date:  2003

6.  Impact of radical prostatectomy positive surgical margins on fear of cancer recurrence: results from CaPSURE.

Authors:  Y Mark Hong; Jim C Hu; Alan T Paciorek; Sara J Knight; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2008-10-10       Impact factor: 3.498

7.  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

8.  Predictive factors for positive surgical margins and their locations after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Rafael F Coelho; Sanket Chauhan; Marcelo A Orvieto; Kenneth J Palmer; Bernardo Rocco; Vipul R Patel
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2010-02-16       Impact factor: 20.096

9.  Significance and management of positive surgical margins at the time of radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Jonathan L Silberstein; James A Eastham
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2014-10

10.  Determinants and effects of positive surgical margins after prostatectomy on prostate cancer mortality: a population-based study.

Authors:  Valesca P Retèl; Christine Bouchardy; Massimo Usel; Isabelle Neyroud-Caspar; Franz Schmidlin; Gregory Wirth; Christophe Iselin; Raymond Miralbell; Elisabetta Rapiti
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2014-11-05       Impact factor: 2.264

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.