Impact of nerve sparing on surgical margins and biochemical recurrence: Results from the SEARCH database

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases

Volumn 12, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 172-176

  Nelles, J L ^a   Freedland, S J ^b,c   Presti, J C ^d,e   Terris, M K ^f,g   Aronson, W J ^h,i   Amling, C L ^j   Kane, C J ^k,l  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b DURHAM VA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e VA PALO ALTO HEALTH CARE SYSTEM   (United States)

^f VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^g MEDICAL COLLEGE OF GEORGIA   (United States)

^h VA GREATER LOS ANGELES HEALTHCARE SYSTEM   (United States)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^j University of Alabama at Birmingham   (United States)

^k UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^l UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NERVE INJURY; NERVE SPARING RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY; NONHUMAN; PATIENT SELECTION; PERIOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; PROSTATECTOMY; RECURRENCE RISK; RISK ASSESSMENT; SURGICAL APPROACH; SURGICAL RISK; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; TREATMENT INDICATION; TREATMENT RESPONSE;

ADENOCARCINOMA; DATABASES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; KAPLAN-MEIERS ESTIMATE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM RECURRENCE, LOCAL; NEOPLASM STAGING; PROSTATE; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS;

EID: 67349219668     PISSN: 13657852     EISSN: 14765608     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/pcan.2008.40     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Walsh PC, Donker PJ. Impotence following radical prostatectomy: Insight into etiology and prevention. J Urol 1982; 128: 492-497.
2. Smith DS, Catalona WJ, Herschman JD. Longitudinal screening for prostate cancer with prostate-specific antigen. JAMA 1996; 276: 1309-1315.
3. Ohori M, Scardino PT. Localized prostate cancer. Curr Probl Surg 2002; 39: 833-957.
4. Epstein JI. Pathologic assessment of the surgical specimen. Urol Clin North Am 2001; 28: 567-594.
5. Han M, Partin AW, Pound CR, Epstein JI, Walsh PC. Long-term biochemical disease-free and cancer-specific survival following anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy: The 15-year Johns Hopkins experience. Urol Clin North Am 2001; 28: 555-565.
6. Freedland SJ, Amling CL, Dorey F, Kane CJ, Presti Jr JC, Terris MK et al. Race as an outcome predictor after radical prostatectomy: Results from the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital (SEARCH) database. Urology 2002; 60: 670-674.
7. Cox DR. Regression models and life tables. J Roy Stat Soc 1972; 34: 187-220.
8. D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schultz D, Schnall M, Tomaszewski JE et al. A multivariate analysis of clinical and pathological factors that predict for prostate specific antigen failure after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 1995; 154: 131-138.
9. Swindle P, Eastham JA, Ohori M, Kattan MW, Wheeler T, Maru N et al Do margins matter? The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 2005; 174 903-907.
10. Blute ML, Bostwick DG, Bergstralh EJ, Slezak JM, Martin SK, Amling CL et al. Anatomic site-specific positive margins in organ-confined prostate cancer and its impact on outcome after radical prostatectomy. Urology 1997; 50: 733-739.
11. Simon MA, Kim S, Soloway MS. Prostate specific antigen recurrence rates are low after radical retropubic prostatectomy and positive margins. J Urol 2006; 175: 140-145.
12. Freedland SJ, Aronson WJ, Presti JC, Kane CJ, Terris MK, Elashoff D et al. Should a positive surgical margin following radical prostatectomy be pathological stage T2 or T3? Results from the SEARCH database. J Urol 2003; 169: 2142-2146.
13. Connolly SS, O'Malley KJ, O'Brien A, Kelly DG, Mulvin DW, Quinlan DM. Can prostate biopsies predict suitability for nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy? Scand J Urol Nephrol 2004; 38: 216-220.
14. Obek C, Louis P, Civantos F, Soloway MS. Comparison of digital rectal examination and biopsy results with the radical prostatectomy specimen. J Urol 1999; 161: 494-499.
15. Ward JF, Zincke H, Bergstralh EJ, Slezak JM, Myers RP, Blute ML. The impact of surgical approach (nerve bundle preservation versus wide local excision) on surgical margins and biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2004; 172: 1328-1332.
16. Sofer M, Hamilton-Nelson KL, Schlesselman JJ, Soloway MS. Risk of positive margins and biochemical recurrence in relation to nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 1853-1858.
17. Palisaar RJ, Noldus J, Graefen M, Erbersdobler A, Haese A, Huland H. Influence of nerve-sparing (NS) procedure during radical prostatectomy (RP) on margin status and biochemical failure. Eur Urol 2005; 47: 176-184.
18. Katz R, Salomon L, Hoznek A, de la Taille A, Antiphon P, Abbou CC. Positive surgical margins in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: The impact of apical dissection, bladder neck remodeling and nerve preservation. J Urol 2003; 169: 2049-2052.