Close surgical margins after radical prostatectomy mimic biochemical recurrence rates of positive margins

被引:6
作者
Whalen, Michael J. [1 ]
Shapiro, Edan Y. [2 ]
Rothberg, Michael B. [2 ]
Turk, Andrew T. [3 ]
Woldu, Solomon L. [2 ]
Choudhury, Arindam Roy [4 ]
Patel, Trushar [5 ]
Badani, Ketan K. [1 ]
机构
[1] Mt Sinai Hosp, Icahn Sch Med, Dept Urol, New York, NY 10029 USA
[2] Columbia Univ Coll Phys & Surg, Dept Urol, New York, NY 10032 USA
[3] Columbia Univ Coll Phys & Surg, Dept Pathol, New York, NY 10032 USA
[4] Columbia Univ, Mailman Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Biostat, New York, NY USA
[5] Univ S Florida, Morsani Coll Med, Dept Urol, Tampa, FL USA
关键词
Biochemical recurrence; Close margins; Outcomes; Radical prostatectomy; Surgical margins; CANCER-SPECIFIC MORTALITY; PROGNOSTIC-SIGNIFICANCE; SPECIMENS; PROGRESSION; PREDICTOR; RESECTION; FAILURE; IMPACT; RISK; MEN;
D O I
10.1016/j.urolonc.2015.07.005
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
INTRODUCTION: The significance of a "close" but negative surgical margin after radical prostatectomy (RP) is controversial. We evaluated the effect of a close surgical margin (CSM) on biochemical recurrence (BCR) compared to a negative margin after RP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pathologic records of men who underwent RP from 2005-2011 were retrospectively reviewed. Margin status was classified as "positive" (PSM), "negative" (NSM), or "close" (<1mm from margin). BCR was defined as 2 consecutive postoperative prostate specific antigen measurements >0.2ng/ml. Probability of BCR was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and stratified by margin status. Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to determine whether close margin status was associated with an increased rate of BCR. RESULTS: A total of 609 consecutive patients underwent RP (93% robotic) and had complete pathologic data. A total of 126 (20.7%) had PSM, 453 (74.4%) had NSM, and 30 (4.9%) had CSM (mean<0.44mm). The 3-year BCR-free survival for patients with CSM was similar to those with PSM (70.4% vs. 74.5%, log rank P = 0.66) and significantly worse than those with NSM (90%, log rank P<0.001). On multivariable regression, positive margin status (HR = 3.26, P<0.001) was significantly associated with a higher risk of BCR, along with close margins (HR = 2.7, P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: BCR for patients with CSM at RP is tantamount to PSM patients. CSM <1mm should be explicitly noted on pathology reports. Patients with this finding should be followed up closely and offered adjuvant therapy. Copyright (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:494.e9 / 494.e14
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Patterns of positive surgical margins after open radical prostatectomy and their association with clinical recurrence
    Bianchi, Lorenzo
    Schiavina, Riccardo
    Borghesi, Marco
    Casablanca, Carlo
    Chessa, Francesco
    Mineo Bianchi, Federico
    Pultrone, Cristian
    Vagnoni, Valerio
    Ercolino, Amelio
    Dababneh, Hussam
    Fiorentino, Michelangelo
    Brunocilla, Eugenio
    MINERVA UROLOGICA E NEFROLOGICA, 2020, 72 (04) : 464 - 473
  • [22] Prostate carcinoma with positive margins at radical prostatectomy: role of tumour zonal origin in biochemical recurrence
    O'Neil, Luke M.
    Walsh, Shane
    Cohen, Ronald J.
    Lee, Stephen
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2015, 116 : 42 - 48
  • [23] Risk of biochemical recurrence based on extent and location of positive surgical margins after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy
    Gautier, Marcq
    Aude, Michelet
    Gerjon, Hannink
    Jerome, Rizk
    Jean, Sauvain
    Arnauld, Villers
    Mo, Saffarini
    Charles, H. Rochat
    BMC CANCER, 2018, 18
  • [24] Prognostic Value of Focal Positive Surgical Margins After Radical Prostatectomy
    Lee, Sangchul
    Kim, Ki Bom
    Jo, Jung Ki
    Ho, Jin-Nyoung
    Oh, Jong Jin
    Jeong, Seong Jin
    Hong, Sung Kyu
    Byun, Seok-Soo
    Choe, Gheeyoung
    Lee, Sang Eun
    CLINICAL GENITOURINARY CANCER, 2016, 14 (04) : E313 - E319
  • [25] Defining Clinically Meaningful Positive Surgical Margins in Patients Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy for Localised Prostate Cancer
    Martini, Alberto
    Gandaglia, Giorgio
    Fossati, Nicola
    Scuderi, Simone
    Bravi, Carlo Andrea
    Mazzone, Elio
    Stabile, Armando
    Scarcella, Simone
    Robesti, Daniele
    Barletta, Francesco
    Cucchiara, Vito
    Mirone, Vincenzo
    Montorsi, Francesco
    Briganti, Alberto
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY ONCOLOGY, 2021, 4 (01): : 42 - 48
  • [26] Location, Extent and Number of Positive Surgical Margins Do Not Improve Accuracy of Predicting Prostate Cancer Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy
    Stephenson, Andrew J.
    Wood, David P.
    Kattan, Michael W.
    Klein, Eric A.
    Scardino, Peter T.
    Eastham, James A.
    Carver, Brett S.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2009, 182 (04) : 1357 - 1363
  • [27] Impact of positive surgical margins and their locations after radical prostatectomy: comparison of biochemical recurrence according to risk stratification and surgical modality
    Choo, Min Soo
    Cho, Sung Yong
    Ko, Kyungtae
    Jeong, Chang Wook
    Lee, Seung Bae
    Ku, Ja Hyeon
    Hong, Sung Kyu
    Byun, Seok-Soo
    Kwak, Cheol
    Kim, Hyeon Hoe
    Lee, Sang Eun
    Jeong, Hyeon
    WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2014, 32 (06) : 1401 - 1409
  • [28] Predictors of positive surgical margins after radical perineal prostatectomy
    Goetzl, Manlio A.
    Krebill, Ron
    Griebling, Tomas L.
    Thrasher, J. Brantley
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2009, 16 (02) : 4553 - 4557
  • [29] Positive Surgical Margins After Radical Prostatectomy: Does It Matter?
    Preston, Mark A.
    Blute, Michael L.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2014, 65 (02) : 314 - 315
  • [30] The impact of nerve sparing on incidence and location of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy
    Moore, Benjamin M.
    Savdie, Richard
    PeBenito, Ruth A.
    Haynes, Anne-Maree
    Matthews, Jayne
    Delprado, Warick
    Rasiah, Krishan K.
    Stricker, Phillip D.
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2012, 109 (04) : 533 - 538