| Literature DB >> 33924669 |
Shuo Wang1, Peng Du1, Yudong Cao1, Xiao Yang1, Yong Yang1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We assessed clinical and tumor biological features and evaluated their association with positive surgical margins (PSMs) and positive apical margins (PAMs) variability after radical prostatectomy (RP) in men with non-metastasis prostate cancer (nmPCa) in our institute. PATIENTS AND METHODS: During the period from January 2013 to December 2017, clinical and pathological data were collected in 200 patients with nmPCa undergoing RP in the Urological department of Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute. Surgical and apical margins were stated negative and positive, separately. A dichotomous logistic regression model was used to assess clinical and tumor biological features including age, total prostate volume (TPV), biopsy positive cores (BPC), D'Amico risk grade, tumor clinical stage, International Society of Urologic Pathology (ISUP) grade, tPSA, f/t and pelvic lymph nodes (PLN) invasion, and their association with PSMs and PAMs was evaluated.Entities:
Keywords: pelvic lymph nodes invasion; positive apical margins; positive surgical margins; prostate cancer; radical prostatectomy
Year: 2021 PMID: 33924669 PMCID: PMC8167593 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol28020144
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Curr Oncol ISSN: 1198-0052 Impact factor: 3.677
Distribution of clinical and pathological factors in the population and subgroups of patients according to surgical margins status.
| Variables | Population ( | Surgical Margin | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NSMs | PSMs | |||
| Age, years, median (IQR) | 65.69 ± 5.96 | 65.88 ± 6.22 | 65.53 ± 5.75 | 0.693 |
| TPV, mL, median (IQR) | 39.88 ± 27.96 | 44.14 ± 35.28 | 36.2 ± 19.04 | 0.059 |
| BPC (proportion), median (IQR) | 43.83 ± 26.21 | 40.43 ± 25.03 | 46.9 ± 27.04 | 0.153 |
| Class risk, | ||||
| Low | 11 (5.6) | 10 (10.6) | 1 (0.9) | |
| Intermediate | 10 (5) | 9 (9.6) | 1 (0.9) | |
| High | 179(89.4) | 75 (79.8) | 104 (98.1) | |
| Clinical stage (cT), | ||||
| cT1 | 4 (2) | 5 (5.3) | 0 (0) | |
| cT2 | 84 (42) | 60 (63.8) | 25 (23.6) | |
| cT3a | 58 (29) | 22 (23.4) | 36 (34) | |
| cT3b | 49 (24.5) | 7 (7.4) | 40 (37.7) | |
| cT4 | 5 (2.5) | 0 (0) | 5 (4.7) | |
| ISUP grade group, | ||||
| Grade 1 | 25 (12.5) | 21 (22.3) | 6 (5.7) | |
| Grade 2 | 58 (29) | 37 (39.4) | 23 (21.7) | |
| Grade 3 | 41 (20.5) | 20 (21.3) | 19 (17.9) | |
| Grade 4 | 24 (12) | 8 (8.5) | 16 (15.1) | |
| Grade 5 | 52 (26) | 8 (8.5) | 42 (39.6) | |
| PSA level, ng/mL, median (IQR) | 30.6 ± 51.16 | 22.77 ± 56.84 | 37.27 ± 45.02 | 0.062 |
| f/t, median (IQR) | 0.14 ± 0.27 | 0.18 ± 0.4 | 0.1 ± 0.07 | 0.133 |
| PLN invasion, | 0.01 | |||
| No | 179(89.5) | 92 (97.9) | 90 (84.9) | |
| Yes | 21(10.5) | 2 (2.1) | 16 (15.1) | |
PSMs: positive surgical margins; NSMs: negative surgical margins; BPC: biopsy positive cores; TPV: total prostate volume; PLN: pelvic lymph nodes; ISUP: international of society of urologic pathology.
Clinical and pathological factors associated with risk of positive surgical margins by the binary logistic regression model.
| Variables | Univariable Analysis | Multivariable Analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | |||
| Class risk | ||||||
| Low | 1(Ref) | 1(Ref) | 1(Ref) | 1(Ref) | ||
| Intermediate | 0.125 | 0.016–0.99 | 0.06 | 0.788 | 0.059–10.611 | 0.857 |
| High | 1.439 | 1.051–1.971 | 0.023 | 6 | 1.343–26.808 | 0.019 |
| Clinical stage | ||||||
| cT1 | 1(Ref) | 1(Ref) | 1(Ref) | 1(Ref) | ||
| cT2 | 0.442 | 0.271–0.723 | 0.001 | 1.515 | 0.287–8.004 | 0.625 |
| cT3a | 1.737 | 0.988–3.054 | 0.045 | 5.116 | 1.014–25.802 | 0.048 |
| cT3b | 5.286 | 2.356–11.856 | <0.001 | 9.194 | 1.798–47.017 | 0.008 |
| cT4 | 6.12 | 3.55–12.85 | <0.001 | 4.58 | 2.125–10.45 | 0.01 |
| ISUP grade group | ||||||
| Grade 1 | 1(Ref) | 1(Ref) | 1(Ref) | 1(Ref) | ||
| Grade 2 | 0.625 | 0.357–1.093 | 0.099 | 2.388 | 0.457–12.469 | 0.419 |
| Grade 3 | 0.944 | 0.487–1.833 | 0.866 | 3.888 | 0.757–19.976 | 0.104 |
| Grade 4 | 2 | 1.207–4.955 | 0.034 | 7.04 | 1.142–12.379 | 0.035 |
| Grade 5 | 6.167 | 2.603–14.611 | <0.001 | 16.514 | 2.887–29.459 | 0.002 |
| PLN invasion, | ||||||
| No | 1(Ref) | 1(Ref) | 1(Ref) | 1(Ref) | ||
| Yes | 6 | 1.343–26.808 | 0.019 | 5.516 | 1.183–25.719 | 0.03 |
Ref: reference group, negative surgical margins; ISUP: International Society of Urologic Pathology; PLN: pelvic lymph nodes.
Distribution of clinical and pathological factors in the subgroups of patients according to apical margins status.
| Variables | Apical Margin | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| NAMs ( | PAMs ( | ||
| Age, years, median (IQR) | 65.4 ± 6.27 | 66.06 ± 5.55 | 0.462 |
| Prostate volume, mL, median (IQR) | 41.96 ± 32.5 | 37.12 ± 20.34 | 0.255 |
| BPC (proportion), median (IQR) | 39.71 ± 24.45 | 50.1 ± 27.74 | 0.025 |
| Class risk, | 0.005 | ||
| Low | 9 (8) | 1 (1) | |
| Intermediate | 9 (8) | 1 (1) | |
| High | 94(84) | 86(98) | |
| Clinical stage (cT), | 112 | 88 | <0.001 |
| cT1 | 4 (3.6) | 0 (0) | |
| cT2 | 63 (56.3) | 21 (23.9) | |
| cT3a | 31 (27.7) | 27 (30.7) | |
| cT3b | 13 (11.6) | 36 (40.9) | |
| cT4 | 1 (0.9) | 4 (4.5) | |
| ISUP grade group, | 112 | 88 | 0.001 |
| Grade 1 | 19 (17) | 6 (6.8) | |
| Grade 2 | 41 (36.6) | 17 (19.3) | |
| Grade 3 | 23 (20.5) | 18 (20.5) | |
| Grade 4 | 11 (9.8) | 13 (14.8) | |
| Grade 5 | 18 (16.1) | 34 (38.6) | |
| PSA level, ng/mL, median (IQR) | 24.36 ± 52.43 | 38.65 ± 48.64 | 0.067 |
| f/t, median (IQR) | 0.16 ± 0.37 | 0.11 ± 0.08 | 0.24 |
| PLN invasion, | 112 | 88 | 0.007 |
| No | 106(96.4) | 73(83) | |
| Yes | 6(5.4) | 15(17) | |
PAMs: positive apical margins; NAMs: negative apical margins; BPC: biopsy positive cores; TPV: total prostate volume; PLN: pelvic lymph nodes; ISUP: International of Society of Urologic Pathology.
Clinical and pathological factors associated with risk of positive apical margins by the binary logistic regression model.
| Variables | Univariable Analysis | Multivariable Analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | |||
| Class risk | ||||||
| Low | 1(Ref) | 1(Ref) | 1(Ref) | 1(Ref) | ||
| Intermediate | 0.125 | 0.016–0.999 | 0.05 | 0.247 | 0.026–2.317 | 0.221 |
| High | 0.894 | 0.656–1.218 | 0.478 | 1.2 | 0.605–2.381 | 0.602 |
| Clinical stage | ||||||
| cT1 | 1(Ref) | 1(Ref) | 1(Ref) | 1(Ref) | ||
| cT2 | 0.339 | 0.202–0.571 | <0.001 | 0.129 | 0.013–1.325 | 0.085 |
| cT3a | 0.857 | 0.497–1.479 | 0.579 | 0.286 | 0.028–2.93 | 0.292 |
| cT3b | 2.667 | 1.374–5.177 | 0.004 | 3.899 | 1.084–9.399 | 0.02 |
| cT4 | 3 | 1.312–18.84 | 0.034 | 2.8 | 1.82–19.85 | 0.041 |
| BPC | 4.594 | 1.188–17.77 | 0.027 | 5.247 | 0.998–27.576 | 0.04 |
| ISUP grade | ||||||
| Grade 1 | 1(Ref) | 1(Ref) | 1(Ref) | 1(Ref) | ||
| Grade 2 | 0.5 | 0.288–0.867 | 0.014 | 0.469 | 0.193–1.142 | 0.096 |
| Grade 3 | 0.45 | 0.205–0.988 | 0.047 | 0.404 | 0.141–1.155 | 0.091 |
| Grade 4 | 1.8 | 0.831–3.899 | 0.136 | 1.5 | 0.534–4.214 | 0.442 |
| Grade 5 | 1.2 | 0.605–2.381 | 0.602 | 1.6 | 0.782–3.38 | 0.782 |
| PLN invasion | ||||||
| No | 1(Ref) | 1(Ref) | 1(Ref) | 1(Ref) | ||
| Yes | 2 | 0.684–5.851 | 0.206 | 1.665 | 0.491–5.639 | 0.413 |
Ref: reference group, negative apical margins; ISUP: International Society of Urologic Pathology; PLN: pelvic lymph nodes; BPC: biopsy positive cores.