Surgical margin status does not affect overall survival following radical prostatectomy: A single institution experience with expectant management
Department of Urology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida 33101, USA. The Canadian Journal of Urology
(Impact Factor: 0.98).
The objective of this report is to describe the oncologic outcomes of men with margin-positive prostate cancer who were managed expectantly following radical prostatectomy.
Between January 1992 and January 2011, 2166 men underwent an open radical prostatectomy by a single surgeon. Of these patients, 1592 (74%) had complete data and met the inclusion criteria of negative lymph nodes and no history of neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy. This cohort was dichotomized by the presence or absence of at least one positive surgical margin. Groups were compared for differences in recurrence-free and overall survival.
In total, 507 (32%) of 1592 patients had at least one positive surgical margin. Clinical and pathological characteristics of these patients indicated more aggressive disease. The median follow up for biochemical recurrence and overall survival was 3.4 years and 7.7 years, respectively. Of those patients with a positive margin, 147 (29%) recurred, with estimated 5 and 10 year biochemical recurrence rates of 31% and 47%, respectively. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that the presence of a positive margin was associated with a 2.45-fold increased hazard of recurrence (p < 0.001). Despite initial observation, surgical margin status was not associated with a decrease in overall survival on both uni- (p = 0.684) and multivariate analyses (p = 0.177).
Although a positive surgical margin is associated with an increased risk of biochemical recurrence, patients in our series were not at an increased risk of all-cause mortality.
Available from: Yun-Sok Ha
- "This reluctance to widely adopt ART might be attributed to the bias of urologic surgeons on the perceived toxicity of radiotherapy. Moreover, recent data demonstrated that patients with PSM who underwent SRT after biochemical recurrence (BCR) had similar long-term outcomes to those who had adjuvant radiotherapy and recurred [11,12]. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Recently, three prospective randomized trials have shown that adjuvant radiotherapy (ART) after radical prostatectomy for the patients with pT3 and/or positive margins improves biochemical progression-free survival and local recurrence free survival. But, the optimal management of these patients after radical prostatectomy is an issue which has been debated continuously. The object of this study was to determine the necessity of adjuvant radiotherapy (ART) by reviewing the outcomes of observation without ART after radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients with pathologic indications for ART according to the American Urological Association (AUA)/American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) guideline.
From a prospectively maintained database, 163 patients were eligible for inclusion in this study. These men had a pathological stage pT2-3 N0 with undetectable PSA level after RP and met one or more of the three following risk factors: capsular perforation, positive surgical margins, or seminal vesicle invasion. We excluded the patients who had received neoadjuvant hormonal therapy or adjuvant treatment, or had less than 24 months of follow-up. To determine the factors that influenced biochemical recurrence-free (BCR), univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards analyses were performed.
Among the 163 patients, median follow-up was 50.5 months (24.0-88.2 months). Of those men under observation, 27 patients had BCR and received salvage radiotherapy (SRT). The multivariate Cox analysis showed that BCR was marginally associated with pre-operative serum PSA (P = 0.082), and the pathologic GS (HR, 4.063; P = 0.001) was an independent predictor of BCR. More importantly, in 87 patients with pre-operative PSA < 6.35 ng/ml and GS <= 7, only 3 developed BCR.
Of the 163 patients who qualified for ART based on the current AUA/ASTRO guideline, only 27 (16.6%) developed BCR and received SRT. Therefore, using ART following RP using the current recommendation may be an overtreatment in an overwhelming majority of the patients.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Because radical prostatectomy with robot-assisted surgery can lead to unwanted prostatic capsular incisions, capsular incision in normal prostatic tissue (CINPT) is not rare. To study the relationship between positive surgical margins (PSM) and CINPT after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.
From September 2009 to January 2013, 203 consecutive robot-assisted prostatectomies were carried out by the same surgeon. A transperitoneal Montsouris technique was used for all cases, but modified to suit the use of the four-arm DaVinci device. The data were recorded prospectively in our database. Preoperative data were patient's age, body mass index, prostate-specific antigen level, prostate weight, percentage of positive biopsy, clinical stage, and Gleason score. Postoperative data were preservation of the bladder neck and neurovascular bundles (NVB), the presence of extended pelvic lymph-node dissection (ePLND), pathological stage, Gleason score, margin status, blood loss, and operative room times. The CINPT and no-CINPT groups were analysed and compared retrospectively.
The CINPT rates were 23.2 versus 18.2 % for PSM. CINPT contrary to PSM seemed to be more frequent in low-risk prostate cancer. NVB preservation led to more CINPT (p = 0.01). At the multivariate analysis, only the absence of ePLND significantly affected the CINPT status (p = 0.03) and the absence of CINPT positively affected the PSM rate (p = 0.03).
Capsular incision in normal prostatic tissue is not a predictive factor of PSM but reflected risk-taking during surgery especially when NVB preservation is indicated in low-risk prostate cancer. It can therefore only be considered a means to evaluate a surgical technique, but not a real predictor of PSM.
Available from: omicsonline.org
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.