Literature DB >> 30504811

Preoperative staging using magnetic resonance imaging and risk of positive surgical margins after prostate-cancer surgery.

Fredrik Jäderling1,2, Olof Akre3,4, Markus Aly3,4,5, Johan Björklund3,4, Mats Olsson4, Christofer Adding3,4, Michael Öberg6, Lennart Blomqvist3,4,7, Tommy Nyberg8,9, Peter Wiklund3,4, Stefan Carlsson3,4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether preoperative staging using Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) reduces the risk of positive margins in prostate cancer. We aimed to assess the effect on surgical margins and degree of nerve sparing of a pelvic MRI presented at a preoperative MRI conference.
METHODS: Single institution, observational cohort study including 1037 men that underwent robot assisted radical prostatectomy between October 2013 and June 2015. Of these, 557 underwent a preoperative MRI combined with a preoperative MRI conference and 410 did not. With whole-mount prostate specimen histopathology as gold standard we assessed the ability of MRI in finding the index tumor and the sensitivity and specificity for extra prostatic extension. We calculated relative risks for positive surgical margins and non-nerve sparing procedure, adjusting for preoperative risk factors using stabilized inverse-probability weighting.
RESULTS: MRI detected the index tumor in 80% of the cases. Non-organ confined disease (pT3) at histology was present in the MRI and the non-MRI group in 42% and 24%, respectively. Rate of positive surgical margins comparing the MRI and non-MRI groups was 26.7% and 33.7%, respectively, relative risk 0.79 [95% CI 0.65-0.96], weighted relative risk (wRR) 0.69 [95% CI 0.55-0.86]. The wRR of extensive positive surgical margins was 0.45 [95% CI 0.31-0.67]. Undergoing MRI was also associated with an increased risk of being operated with a non-nerve sparing technique (wRR, 1.84 [95% CI 1.11-3.03]).
CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that preoperative prostate MRI in combination with a preoperative MRI conference affects the degree of nerve-sparing surgery and reduces positive surgical margins.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30504811     DOI: 10.1038/s41391-018-0116-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis        ISSN: 1365-7852            Impact factor:   5.554


  9 in total

1.  Recommendations on robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: a Brazilian experts' consensus.

Authors:  Eliney Ferreira Faria; Carlos Vaz Melo Maciel; André Berger; Anuar Mitre; Breno Dauster; Celso Heitor Freitas; Clovis Fraga; Daher Chade; Marcos Dall'Oglio; Francisco Carvalho; Franz Campos; Gustavo Franco Carvalhal; Gustavo Caserta Lemos; Gustavo Guimarães; Hamilton Zampolli; Joao Ricardo Alves; Joao Pádua Manzano; Marco Antônio Fortes; Marcos Flavio Holanda Rocha; Mauricio Rubinstein; Murilo Luz; Pedro Romanelli; Rafael Coelho; Raphael Rocha; Roberto Dias Machado; Rodolfo Borges Dos Reis; Stenio Zequi; Romulo Guida; Valdair Muglia; Marcos Tobias-Machado
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2021-01-11

Review 2.  Selection of patients for nerve sparing surgery in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  André N Vis; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Henk G van der Poel; Alexander Mottrie; Philip D Stricker; Marcus Graefen; Vipul Patel; Bernardo Rocco; Birgit Lissenberg-Witte; Pim J van Leeuwen
Journal:  BJUI Compass       Date:  2021-11-09

Review 3.  Current Opinion on the Use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Staging Prostate Cancer: A Narrative Review.

Authors:  Jamie Michael; Kevin Neuzil; Ersan Altun; Marc A Bjurlin
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2022-03-01       Impact factor: 3.989

4.  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

5.  Concordance between Preoperative mpMRI and Pathological Stage and Its Influence on Nerve-Sparing Surgery in Patients with High-Risk Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Clara Humke; Benedikt Hoeh; Felix Preisser; Mike Wenzel; Maria N Welte; Lena Theissen; Boris Bodelle; Jens Koellermann; Thomas Steuber; Alexander Haese; Frederik Roos; Luis Alex Kluth; Andreas Becker; Felix K H Chun; Philipp Mandel
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2022-03-28       Impact factor: 3.109

6.  Effect of digital-enabled multidisciplinary therapy conferences on efficiency and quality of the decision making in prostate cancer care.

Authors:  Erik Ronmark; Ralf Hoffmann; Viktor Skokic; Maud de Klerk-Starmans; Fredrik Jaderling; Pieter Vos; Maudy C W Gayet; Hans Hofstraat; Marco Janssen; Olof Akre; Per Henrik Vincent
Journal:  BMJ Health Care Inform       Date:  2022-08

7.  Multiparametric MRI-based nomograms in predicting positive surgical margins of prostate cancer after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Shuang Meng; Lihua Chen; Qinhe Zhang; Nan Wang; Ailian Liu
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-09-12       Impact factor: 5.738

8.  Histological findings of totally embedded robot assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) specimens in 1197 men with a negative (low risk) preoperative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) prostate lobe and clinical implications.

Authors:  William John Yaxley; François-Xavier Nouhaud; Sheliyan Raveenthiran; Anthony Franklin; Peter Donato; Geoff Coughlin; Boon Kua; Troy Gianduzzo; David Wong; Robert Parkinson; Nicholas Brown; Hemamali Samaratunga; Brett Delahunt; Lars Egevad; Matthew Roberts; John William Yaxley
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2020-09-30       Impact factor: 5.554

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

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.