Literature DB >> 9372884

Anatomic site-specific positive margins in organ-confined prostate cancer and its impact on outcome after radical prostatectomy.

M L Blute1, D G Bostwick, E J Bergstralh, J M Slezak, S K Martin, C L Amling, H Zincke.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The impact of a positive surgical margin in otherwise confined prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy remains unclear. We analyzed the outcome of a large number of patients with organ-confined prostate cancer according to the presence and anatomic site of margin positivity.
METHODS: We evaluated 2712 prostatectomy patients with Stage pT2N0 cancer (ie, no evidence of extra-prostatic disease, seminal vesicle or regional node involvement) and no prior therapy who were treated by radical prostatectomy between 1987 and 1995 at Mayo Clinic. A total of 697 patients (26%) had positive margins. To assess the effect of margin status in the absence of treatment, 378 patients with postoperative adjuvant therapy were not considered for the study group: the final group consisted of 2334 patients.
RESULTS: Overall, 253 (58%) tumors were positive at the apex and/or urethra, 85 (19%) at the prostate base, 11 (2.5%) at the anterior prostate, and 174 (40%) at the posterior prostate; 89 (20%) had at least two margins involved and 21 (8.3%) had more than two involved. The apex/urethra was the only positive anatomic site in 183 (42%). Five-year survival free of clinical recurrence or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) biochemical failure (postoperative serum PSA of 0.2 ng/mL or more) for patients with a single positive margin was 79% for apex or urethra, 78% for anterior/posterior, and 56% for prostate base. Five-year survival free of clinical recurrence or PSA (biochemical) failure was slightly higher for those with one versus two margin-positive regions (77% versus 68%, respectively). Multivariate analysis revealed that positive surgical margins were a significant predictor of clinical recurrence and PSA (biochemical) failure (relative risk [95% confidence interval]: 1.65 [1.24, 2.18]) after controlling for Gleason grade, preoperative PSA, and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) ploidy. The effect of margin positivity on recurrence at a specific anatomic site (versus negative margins or positive at a different anatomic site) revealed the prostate base to be the only significant anatomic site when adjusted for grade, PSA, and ploidy. Five-year survival free of the combined clinical or PSA failure end point for those with versus those without positive margins at the prostate base was 56% versus 85%, respectively (P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: Positive surgical margins are a significant predictor of recurrence in Stage pT2N0 cancer, which is independent of grade, PSA, and DNA ploidy. The impact of positive margin status on recurrence-free survival appears to be anatomic and site-specific, with prostate base positivity significantly associated with poor outcome. The benefit of adjuvant therapy based on anatomic site-specific margin positivity remains to be tested in order to optimize recurrence-free survival.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9372884     DOI: 10.1016/S0090-4295(97)00450-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  46 in total

Review 1.  Three-dimensional magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging of brain and prostate cancer.

Authors:  J Kurhanewicz; D B Vigneron; S J Nelson
Journal:  Neoplasia       Date:  2000 Jan-Apr       Impact factor: 5.715

Review 2.  Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: published series.

Authors:  András Hoznek; David B Samadi; Laurent Salomon; Alexandre De La Taille; Leif E Olsson; Clément-Claude Abbou
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 3.092

3.  Impact of pathology review of stage and margin status of radical prostatectomy specimens (EORTC trial 22911).

Authors:  Theodorus H van der Kwast; Laurence Collette; Hein Van Poppel; Paul Van Cangh; Kris Vekemans; Luigi DaPozzo; Jean-François Bosset; Karl H Kurth; Fritz H Schröder; Michel Bolla
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2006-08-29       Impact factor: 4.064

4.  Radical laparoscopic prostatectomy: should we do bladder neck preservation or a reconstruction?

Authors:  Lieven Goeman; Laurent Salomon; András Hoznek; Alexandre De La Taille; D Vordos; René Yiou; Clément-Claude Abbou
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 3.092

5.  Do robotic prostatectomy positive surgical margins occur in the same location as extraprostatic extension?

Authors:  Matthew T Johnson; Mitchell L Ramsey; Joshua J Ebel; Ronney Abaza; Debra L Zynger
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2013-10-06       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  The pattern of prostate cancer local recurrence after radiation and salvage cryoablation.

Authors:  Chee Kwan Ng; Naji J Touma; Venu Chalasani; Madeleine Moussa; Donal B Downey; Joseph L Chin
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2011-01-13       Impact factor: 1.862

7.  Long-term oncological outcomes of apical positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy in the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital cohort.

Authors:  H Wadhwa; M K Terris; W J Aronson; C J Kane; C L Amling; M R Cooperberg; S J Freedland; M R Abern
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2016-10-04       Impact factor: 5.554

8.  National practice patterns and time trends in androgen ablation for localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Matthew R Cooperberg; Gary D Grossfeld; Deborah P Lubeck; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2003-07-02       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Assessment of low prostate weight as a determinant of a higher positive margin rate after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective pathologic study of 1,500 cases.

Authors:  Peiguo G Chu; Sean K Lau; Lawrence M Weiss; Mark Kawachi; Jeffrey Yoshida; Christopher Ruel; Rebecca Nelson; Laura Crocitto; Timothy Wilson
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2008-09-24       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  The significance of microscopic bladder neck invasion in radical prostatectomies: pT4 disease?

Authors:  Thais Ruano; Luciana Meirelles; Leandro L Freitas; Luis A Magna; Ubirajara Ferreira; Athanase Billis
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2008-06-19       Impact factor: 2.370

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.