Literature DB >> 34253832

Prediction of a positive surgical margin and biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Ching-Wei Yang1,2,3, Hsiao-Hsien Wang1, Mohamed Fayez Hassouna3,4, Manish Chand3,5, William J S Huang2,6, Hsiao-Jen Chung7,8.   

Abstract

The positive surgical margin (PSM) and biochemical recurrence (BCR) are two main factors associated with poor oncotherapeutic outcomes after prostatectomy. This is an Asian population study based on a single-surgeon experience to deeply investigate the predictors for PSM and BCR. We retrospectively included 419 robot-assisted radical prostatectomy cases. The number of PSM cases was 126 (30.1%), stratified as 22 (12.2%) in stage T2 and 103 (43.6%) in stage T3. Preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) > 10 ng/mL (p = 0.047; odds ratio [OR] 1.712), intraoperative blood loss > 200 mL (p = 0.006; OR 4.01), and postoperative pT3 stage (p < 0.001; OR 6.901) were three independent predictors for PSM while PSA > 10 ng/mL (p < 0.015; hazard ratio [HR] 1.8), pT3 stage (p = 0.012; HR 2.264), International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade > 3 (p = 0.02; HR 1.964), and PSM (p = 0.027; HR 1.725) were four significant predictors for BCR in multivariable analysis. PSMs occurred mostly in the posterolateral regions (73.8%) which were associated with nerve-sparing procedures (p = 0.012) while apical PSMs were correlated intraoperative bleeding (p < 0.001). A high ratio of pT3 stage after RARP in our Asian population-based might surpass the influence of PSM on BCR. PSM was less significant than PSA and ISUP grade for predicting PSA recurrence in pT3 disease. Among PSM cases, unifocal and multifocal positive margins had a similar ratio of the BCR rate (p = 0.172) but ISUP grade > 3 (p = 0.002; HR 2.689) was a significant BCR predictor. These results indicate that PSA and pathological status are key factors influencing PSM and BCR.
© 2021. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 34253832     DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-93860-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Rep        ISSN: 2045-2322            Impact factor:   4.379


  49 in total

1.  Comparison of outcomes between pure laparoscopic vs robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a study of comparative effectiveness based upon validated quality of life outcomes.

Authors:  Daniel L Willis; Mark L Gonzalgo; Michelle Brotzman; Zhaoyong Feng; Bruce Trock; Li-Ming Su
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2011-09-20       Impact factor: 5.588

Review 2.  Evidence from robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review.

Authors:  Vincenzo Ficarra; Stefano Cavalleri; Giacomo Novara; Maurizio Aragona; Walter Artibani
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2006-06-30       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 3.  [Risk factors for positive surgical margins following radical prostatectomy: review].

Authors:  A Descazeaud; M Zerbib; M Peyromaure
Journal:  Ann Urol (Paris)       Date:  2006-12

4.  Pentafecta: a new concept for reporting outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Vipul R Patel; Ananthakrishnan Sivaraman; Rafael F Coelho; Sanket Chauhan; Kenneth J Palmer; Marcelo A Orvieto; Ignacio Camacho; Geoff Coughlin; Bernardo Rocco
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2011-01-25       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 5.  Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a critical review of outcomes reported by high-volume centers.

Authors:  Rafael F Coelho; Bernardo Rocco; Manoj B Patel; Marcelo A Orvieto; Sanket Chauhan; Vincenzo Ficarra; Sara Melegari; Kenneth J Palmer; Vipul R Patel
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2010-10-13       Impact factor: 2.942

6.  Variations among individual surgeons in the rate of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens.

Authors:  James A Eastham; Michael W Kattan; Elyn Riedel; Colin B Begg; Thomas M Wheeler; Claudia Gerigk; Mithat Gonen; Victor Reuter; Peter T Scardino
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 7.  Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and contemporary update.

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

Review 8.  Positive surgical margin is associated with biochemical recurrence risk following radical prostatectomy: a meta-analysis from high-quality retrospective cohort studies.

Authors:  Lijin Zhang; Bin Wu; Zhenlei Zha; Hu Zhao; Yuefang Jiang; Jun Yuan
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2018-07-03       Impact factor: 2.754

Review 9.  Systematic Review of Studies Reporting Positive Surgical Margins After Bladder Neck Sparing Radical Prostatectomy.

Authors:  Mariangela Bellangino; Clare Verrill; Tom Leslie; Richard W Bell; Freddie C Hamdy; Alastair D Lamb
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-11-07       Impact factor: 3.092

10.  Effect of prostate gland weight on the surgical and oncological outcomes of extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Min Seok Kim; Won Sik Jang; Doo Yong Chung; Dong Hoon Koh; Jong Soo Lee; Hyeok Jun Goh; Young Deuk Choi
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2019-01-03       Impact factor: 2.264

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.