Prostate Carcinoma Grade and Length But Not Cribriform Architecture at Positive Surgical Margins Are Predictive for Biochemical Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy

被引:28
作者
Hollemans, Eva [1 ]
Verhoef, Esther I. [1 ]
Bangma, Chris H. [2 ]
Rietbergen, John [3 ]
Helleman, Jozien [2 ]
Roobol, Monique J. [2 ]
van Leenders, Geert J. L. H. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Med Ctr, Erasmus MC, Dept Pathol, POB 2040, NL-3000 CA Rotterdam, Netherlands
[2] Univ Med Ctr, Erasmus MC, Dept Urol, Rotterdam, Netherlands
[3] Franciscus Gasthuis & Vlietland, Dept Urol, Rotterdam, Netherlands
关键词
prostate carcinoma; radical prostatectomy; positive surgical margin; cribriform; biochemical recurrence; GLEASON SCORE; RETROPUBIC PROSTATECTOMY; PROGNOSTIC-SIGNIFICANCE; CANCER; RISK; SURVIVAL; TUMOR; PATTERNS; IMPACT; RADIOTHERAPY;
D O I
10.1097/PAS.0000000000001384
中图分类号
R36 [病理学];
学科分类号
100104 ;
摘要
Postoperative biochemical recurrence occurs in up to 40% of prostate carcinoma patients treated with radical prostatectomy. Primary tumor grade and cribriform architecture are important parameters for clinical outcome; however, their relevance at positive surgical margins has not been completely elucidated yet. We reviewed 835 radical prostatectomy specimens and recorded pT-stage, surgical margin status, Grade Group, and cribriform architecture of the primary tumor and at positive surgical margins. Clinicopathologic parameters and biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS) were used as endpoints. Positive surgical margins were present in 284 (34%) patients, with a median cumulative length of 5.0 mm. In 46%, the Grade Group at the margin was equal to the primary tumor grade, while being lower in 42% and higher in 12%. In multivariable analysis, Grade Group at the margin outperformed the Grade Group of the primary tumor in predicting BCRFS. Among primary Grade Group 2 patients, 56% had Grade Group 1 disease at the margin. Multivariable analysis identified cumulative length, Grade Group at the margin, and lymph node metastasis as independent predictors for BCRFS, while percentage Gleason pattern 4, tertiary Gleason pattern 5 of the primary tumor, and cribriform architecture at the margin were not. In conclusion, the Grade Group at the positive surgical margin was dissimilar to the primary tumor grade in 54% and better predicted BCRFS than the primary tumor grade. Cumulative length and tumor grade at the margin were independent predictors for BCRFS, whereas cribriform architecture at the margin was not.
引用
收藏
页码:191 / 197
页数:7
相关论文
共 53 条
  • [1] Does nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy increase the risk of positive surgical margins and biochemical progression?
    Alkhateeb, Sultan Saud
    Alibhai, Shabbir M.
    Finelli, Antonio
    Fleshner, Neil E.
    Jewett, Michael A.
    Zlotta, Alexandre R.
    Trachtenberg, John
    [J]. UROLOGY ANNALS, 2010, 2 (02) : 58 - 62
  • [2] Long-term Follow-up of a Matched Cohort Study Evaluating the Role of Adjuvant Radiotherapy for Organ-confined Prostate Cancer With a Positive Surgical Margin
    Bhindi, Bimal
    Carlson, Rachel E.
    Mason, Ross J.
    Schulte, Phillip J.
    Gettman, Matthew T.
    Frank, Igor
    Tollefson, Matthew K.
    Thompson, R. Houston
    Boorjian, Stephen A.
    Leibovich, Bradley C.
    Karnes, R. Jeffrey
    [J]. UROLOGY, 2017, 109 : 145 - 151
  • [3] Quality of life after brachytherapy or bilateral nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a prospective cohort
    Blanchard, Pierre
    Davis, John W.
    Frank, Steven J.
    Kim, Jeri
    Pettaway, Curtis A.
    Pugh, Thomas J.
    Pisters, Louis L.
    Ward, John F.
    Choi, Seungtaek
    Chapin, Brian F.
    Hoffman, Karen
    Navai, Neema
    Achim, Mary
    McGuire, Sean E.
    Matin, Surena F.
    Quynh Nguyen
    Mahmood, Usama
    Graber, William J.
    Chen, Hsiang-Chun
    Wang, Xuemei
    Kuban, Deborah A.
    [J]. BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2018, 121 (04) : 540 - 548
  • [4] Tumor Grade at Margins of Resection in Radical Prostatectomy Specimens Is an Independent Predictor of Prognosis
    Brimo, Fadi
    Partin, Alan W.
    Epstein, Jonathan I.
    [J]. UROLOGY, 2010, 76 (05) : 1206 - 1209
  • [5] Prostate Cancer - Major Changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer Eighth Edition Cancer Staging Manual
    Buyyounouski, Mark K.
    Choyke, Peter L.
    McKenney, Jesse K.
    Sartor, Oliver
    Sandler, Howard M.
    Amin, Mahul B.
    Kattan, Michael W.
    Lin, Daniel W.
    [J]. CA-A CANCER JOURNAL FOR CLINICIANS, 2017, 67 (03) : 246 - 253
  • [6] Ability of Linear Length of Positive Margin in Radical Prostatectomy Specimens to Predict Biochemical Recurrence
    Cao, Dengfeng
    Humphrey, Peter A.
    Gao, Feng
    Tao, Yu
    Kibel, Adam S.
    [J]. UROLOGY, 2011, 77 (06) : 1409 - 1414
  • [7] The Gleason Score of Tumor at the Margin in Radical Prostatectomy is Predictive of Biochemical Recurrence
    Cao, Dengfeng
    Kibel, Adam S.
    Gao, Feng
    Tao, Yu
    Humphrey, Peter A.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL PATHOLOGY, 2010, 34 (07) : 994 - 1001
  • [8] Impact of surgical margin status on prostate-cancer-specific mortality
    Chalfin, Heather J.
    Dinizo, Michael
    Trock, Bruce J.
    Feng, Zhaoyong
    Partin, Alan W.
    Walsh, Patrick C.
    Humphreys, Elizabeth
    Han, Misop
    [J]. BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2012, 110 (11) : 1684 - 1689
  • [9] Positive margin length and highest Gleason grade of tumor at the margin predict for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy in patients with organ-confined prostate cancer
    Chapin, Brian F.
    Nguyen, Jenny N.
    Achim, Mary F.
    Navai, Neema
    Williams, Stephen B.
    Prokhorova, Ina N.
    Wang, Xuemei
    Tapia, Elsa M. Li Ning
    Davis, John W.
    Troncoso, Patricia
    [J]. PROSTATE CANCER AND PROSTATIC DISEASES, 2018, 21 (02) : 221 - 227
  • [10] Prognostic Significance of Percentage and Architectural Types of Contemporary Gleason Pattern 4 Prostate Cancer in Radical Prostatectomy
    Choy, Bonnie
    Pearce, Shane M.
    Anderson, Blake B.
    Shalhav, Arieh L.
    Zagaja, Gregory
    Eggener, Scott E.
    Paner, Gladell P.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL PATHOLOGY, 2016, 40 (10) : 1400 - 1406