Literature DB >> 33628724

Predictive Factors for Positive Surgical Margins in Patients With Prostate Cancer After Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Lijin Zhang1, Hu Zhao1, Bin Wu1, Zhenlei Zha1, Jun Yuan1, Yejun Feng1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Previous studies have demonstrated that positive surgical margins (PSMs) were independent predictive factors for biochemical and oncologic outcomes in patients with prostate cancer (PCa). This study aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to identify the predictive factors for PSMs after radical prostatectomy (RP).
METHODS: We selected eligible studies via the electronic databases, such as PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE, from inception to December 2020. The risk factors for PSMs following RP were identified. The pooled estimates of standardized mean differences (SMDs)/odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. A fixed effect or random effect was used to pool the estimates. Subgroup analyses were performed to explore the reasons for heterogeneity.
RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies including 50,014 patients with PCa were eligible for further analysis. The results showed that PSMs were significantly associated with preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) (pooled SMD = 0.37; 95% CI: 0.31-0.43; P < 0.001), biopsy Gleason Score (<6/≥7) (pooled OR = 1.53; 95% CI:1.31-1.79; P < 0.001), pathological Gleason Score (<6/≥7) (pooled OR = 2.49; 95% CI: 2.19-2.83; P < 0.001), pathological stage (<T2/≥T3) (pooled OR = 3.90; 95% CI: 3.18-4.79; P < 0.001), positive lymph node (PLN) (pooled OR = 3.12; 95% CI: 2.28-4.27; P < 0.001), extraprostatic extension (EPE) (pooled OR = 4.44; 95% CI: 3.25-6.09; P < 0.001), and seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) (pooled OR = 4.19; 95% CI: 2,87-6.13; P < 0.001). However, we found that age (pooled SMD = 0.01; 95% CI: -0.07-0.10; P = 0.735), body mass index (BMI) (pooled SMD = 0.12; 95% CI: -0.05-0.30; P = 0.162), prostate volume (pooled SMD = -0.28; 95% CI: -0.62-0.05; P = 0.097), and nerve sparing (pooled OR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.71-1.14; P = 0.388) had no effect on PSMs after RP. Besides, the findings in this study were found to be reliable by our sensitivity and subgroup analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative PSA, biopsy Gleason Score, pathological Gleason Score, pathological stage, positive lymph node, extraprostatic extension, and seminal vesicle invasion are independent predictors of PSMs after RP. These results may helpful for risk stratification and individualized therapy in PCa patients.
Copyright © 2021 Zhang, Zhao, Wu, Zha, Yuan and Feng.

Entities:  

Keywords:  meta-analysis; positive surgical margins; prostate cancer; radical prostatectomy; risk factors

Year:  2021        PMID: 33628724      PMCID: PMC7897672          DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.539592

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Front Oncol        ISSN: 2234-943X            Impact factor:   6.244


  44 in total

1.  Factors affecting surgical margin positivity in robotic assisted radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Mustafa Yuksel; Kaan Karamık; Hakan Anıl; Ekrem Islamoglu; Mutlu Ates; Murat Savas
Journal:  Arch Ital Urol Androl       Date:  2017-03-31

2.  Risk factors of positive surgical margins after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in high-volume center: results in 732 cases.

Authors:  Antonio Benito Porcaro; Marco Sebben; Paolo Corsi; Alessandro Tafuri; Tania Processali; Marco Pirozzi; Nelia Amigoni; Riccardo Rizzetto; Giovanni Cacciamani; Arianna Mariotto; Alberto Diminutto; Matteo Brunelli; Vincenzo De Marco; Salvatore Siracusano; Walter Artibani
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2019-04-05

3.  Defining Clinically Meaningful Positive Surgical Margins in Patients Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy for Localised Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Alberto Martini; Giorgio Gandaglia; Nicola Fossati; Simone Scuderi; Carlo Andrea Bravi; Elio Mazzone; Armando Stabile; Simone Scarcella; Daniele Robesti; Francesco Barletta; Vito Cucchiara; Vincenzo Mirone; Francesco Montorsi; Alberto Briganti
Journal:  Eur Urol Oncol       Date:  2019-04-04

4.  Positive surgical margins are a risk factor for significant biochemical recurrence only in intermediate-risk disease.

Authors:  Niall M Corcoran; Chris M Hovens; Charles Metcalfe; Matthew K H Hong; John Pedersen; Rowan G Casey; Justin Peters; Laurence Harewood; S Larry Goldenberg; Anthony J Costello; Martin E Gleave
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2012-01-18       Impact factor: 5.588

5.  Number of positive preoperative biopsy cores is a predictor of positive surgical margins (PSM) in small prostates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).

Authors:  Patrick H Tuliao; Kyo C Koo; Christos Komninos; Chien H Chang; Young D Choi; Byung H Chung; Sung J Hong; Koon H Rha
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2015-06-02       Impact factor: 5.588

6.  Close surgical margins after radical prostatectomy mimic biochemical recurrence rates of positive margins.

Authors:  Michael J Whalen; Edan Y Shapiro; Michael B Rothberg; Andrew T Turk; Solomon L Woldu; Arindam Roy Choudhury; Trushar Patel; Ketan K Badani
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2015-08-08       Impact factor: 3.498

7.  The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.

Authors:  Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2009-07-21       Impact factor: 11.069

8.  Impact of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy differs by disease risk group.

Authors:  Sultan Alkhateeb; Shabbir Alibhai; Neil Fleshner; Antonio Finelli; Michael Jewett; Alexandre Zlotta; Michael Nesbitt; Gina Lockwood; John Trachtenberg
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  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

10.  Surgical margin status and its impact on prostate cancer prognosis after radical prostatectomy: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Lijin Zhang; Bin Wu; Zhenlei Zha; Hu Zhao; Jun Yuan; Yuefang Jiang; Wei Yang
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-05-15       Impact factor: 4.226

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  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

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.