OBJECTIVE: To determine whether subclassification of positive surgical margins (PSMs) increases predictive ability for biochemical recurrence (BCR) and aids clinical decision-making in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We studied 2147 patients with pT2 and pT3a prostate cancer with detailed surgical margin parameters and BCR status. We compared a base model, a linear predictor calculated from the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center postoperative nomogram (prostate-specific antigen, pathological tumour grade and stage), with the addition of surgical margin status to five additional models (base model plus surgical margin subclassifications) to evaluate enhancement in predictive accuracy. Decision curve analysis (DCA) was performed to determine the clinical utility of parameters that enhanced predictive accuracy. RESULTS: Among 2147 men, 205 had PSMs, and 231 developed BCR. Discrimination for the base model with addition of surgical margin status was high (c-index = 0.801) and not meaningfully improved by adding surgical margin subclassification in the full cohort. In analyses considering only men with PSMs (N = 55 with BCR), adding surgical margin subclassification to the base model increased discrimination for total length of all PSMs - alone or with maximum Gleason grade at the margin (c-index improvement = 0.717 to 0.752 and 0.753, respectively). DCA demonstrated a modest benefit to clinical utility with the addition of these parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Specific subclassification parameters add predictive accuracy for BCR and may aid clinical utility in decision-making for patients with PSMs. These findings may be useful for patient counselling and future adjuvant therapy trial design.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether subclassification of positive surgical margins (PSMs) increases predictive ability for biochemical recurrence (BCR) and aids clinical decision-making in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We studied 2147 patients with pT2 and pT3a prostate cancer with detailed surgical margin parameters and BCR status. We compared a base model, a linear predictor calculated from the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center postoperative nomogram (prostate-specific antigen, pathological tumour grade and stage), with the addition of surgical margin status to five additional models (base model plus surgical margin subclassifications) to evaluate enhancement in predictive accuracy. Decision curve analysis (DCA) was performed to determine the clinical utility of parameters that enhanced predictive accuracy. RESULTS: Among 2147 men, 205 had PSMs, and 231 developed BCR. Discrimination for the base model with addition of surgical margin status was high (c-index = 0.801) and not meaningfully improved by adding surgical margin subclassification in the full cohort. In analyses considering only men with PSMs (N = 55 with BCR), adding surgical margin subclassification to the base model increased discrimination for total length of all PSMs - alone or with maximum Gleason grade at the margin (c-index improvement = 0.717 to 0.752 and 0.753, respectively). DCA demonstrated a modest benefit to clinical utility with the addition of these parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Specific subclassification parameters add predictive accuracy for BCR and may aid clinical utility in decision-making for patients with PSMs. These findings may be useful for patient counselling and future adjuvant therapy trial design.
Authors: Silke Gillessen; Gerhardt Attard; Tomasz M Beer; Himisha Beltran; Alberto Bossi; Rob Bristow; Brett Carver; Daniel Castellano; Byung Ha Chung; Noel Clarke; Gedske Daugaard; Ian D Davis; Johann de Bono; Rodolfo Borges Dos Reis; Charles G Drake; Ros Eeles; Eleni Efstathiou; Christopher P Evans; Stefano Fanti; Felix Feng; Karim Fizazi; Mark Frydenberg; Martin Gleave; Susan Halabi; Axel Heidenreich; Celestia S Higano; Nicolas James; Philip Kantoff; Pirkko-Liisa Kellokumpu-Lehtinen; Raja B Khauli; Gero Kramer; Chris Logothetis; Fernando Maluf; Alicia K Morgans; Michael J Morris; Nicolas Mottet; Vedang Murthy; William Oh; Piet Ost; Anwar R Padhani; Chris Parker; Colin C Pritchard; Mack Roach; Mark A Rubin; Charles Ryan; Fred Saad; Oliver Sartor; Howard Scher; Avishay Sella; Neal Shore; Matthew Smith; Howard Soule; Cora N Sternberg; Hiroyoshi Suzuki; Christopher Sweeney; Matthew R Sydes; Ian Tannock; Bertrand Tombal; Riccardo Valdagni; Thomas Wiegel; Aurelius Omlin Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2017-06-24 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Brian F Chapin; Jenny N Nguyen; Mary F Achim; Neema Navai; Stephen B Williams; Ina N Prokhorova; Xuemei Wang; Elsa M Li Ning Tapia; John W Davis; Patricia Troncoso Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2017-12-11 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Andrew J Stephenson; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham; Fernando J Bianco; Zohar A Dotan; Christopher J DiBlasio; Alwyn Reuther; Eric A Klein; Michael W Kattan Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-10-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Hikmat A Al-Ahmadie; Satish K Tickoo; Semra Olgac; Anuradha Gopalan; Peter T Scardino; Victor E Reuter; Samson W Fine Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Ofer Yossepowitch; Alberto Briganti; James A Eastham; Jonathan Epstein; Markus Graefen; Rodolfo Montironi; Karim Touijer Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-08-03 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Thomas M Pisansky; Ian M Thompson; Richard K Valicenti; Anthony V D'Amico; Shalini Selvarajah Journal: J Urol Date: 2019-08-08 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Claire L Vale; David Fisher; Andrew Kneebone; Christopher Parker; Maria Pearse; Pierre Richaud; Paul Sargos; Matthew R Sydes; Christopher Brawley; Meryem Brihoum; Chris Brown; Sylvie Chabaud; Adrian Cook; Silvia Forcat; Carol Fraser-Browne; Igor Latorzeff; Mahesh K B Parmar; Jayne F Tierney Journal: Lancet Date: 2020-09-28 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Enric Carbonell; Roger Matheu; Maria Muní; Joan Sureda; Mónica García-Sorroche; María José Ribal; Antonio Alcaraz; Antoni Vilaseca Journal: Biomedicines Date: 2022-08-07