Radical prostatectomy: Does surgical technique influence margin control?

Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations

Volumn 28, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 219-225

  Gettman, Matthew T ^a   Blute, Michael L ^a  

^a MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOTECHNOLOGY; ECHOGRAPHY; FROZEN SECTION; HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; REVIEW; SURGEON;

HUMANS; MALE; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; SPECIMEN HANDLING;

EID: 77249171798     PISSN: 10781439     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2009.07.014     Document Type: Review

References (56)

1. Gettman M.T., and Blute M.L. Critical comparison of laparoscopic, robotic, and open radical prostatectomy: Techniques, outcomes, and cost. Curr Urol Rep 7 (2006) 193-199
2. Orvieto M.A., Alsikafi N.F., Shalhav A.L., et al. Impact of surgical margin status on long-term cancer control after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 98 (2006) 1199-1203
3. Curto F., Benijts J., Pansadoro A., et al. Nerve sparing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Our technique. Eur Urol 49 (2006) 344-352
4. Rassweiler J., Stolzenburg J., Sulser T., et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: The experience of the German laparoscopic working group. Eur Urol 49 (2006) 113-119
5. Ficarra V., Cacalleri S., Novara G., et al. Evidence from robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: A systematic review. Eur Urol 51 (2007) 45-56
6. Hermann T.R., Rabenalt R., Stolzenburg J.U., et al. Oncologic and functional results of open, robot-assisted and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Does surgical technique and surgical experience matter?. World J Urol 25 (2007) 149-160
7. Blute M.L., Bergstralh E.J., Iocca A., et al. Use of Gleason score, prostate specific antigen, seminal vesicle and margin status to predict biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 165 (2001) 119-125
8. Kausik S.J., Blute M.L., Sebo T.J., et al. Prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in patients with extraprostatic carcinoma after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 95 (2002) 1215-1219
9. Thompson R.H., Blute M.L., Slezak J.M., et al. Is the GPSM scoring algorithm for patients with prostate cancer valid in the contemporary era?. J Urol 178 (2007) 459-463
10. Swindle P., Eastham J.A., Ohori M., et al. Do margins matter?. The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 174 (2005) 903-907
11. Karakiewicz P.I., Eastham J.A., Graefen M., et al. Prognostic impact of positive surgical margins in surgically treated prostate cancer: Multi-institutional assessment of 5831 patients. Urology 66 (2005) 1245-1250
12. Blute M.L., Bostwick D.G., Bergstralh E.J., et al. Anatomic site-specific positive margins in organ-confined prostate cancer and its impact on outcome after radical prostatectomy. Urology 50 (1997) 733-739
13. Aydin H., Tsuzuki T., Hernandez D., et al. Positive proximal (bladder neck) margin at radical prostatectomy confers greater risk of biochemical progression. Urology 64 (2004) 551-555
14. Sofer M., Hamilton-Nelson K.L., Civantos F., et al. Positive surgical margins after radical retropubic prostatectomy: The influence of site and number on progression. J Urol 167 (2002) 2453-2456
15. Simon M.A., Kim S., and Soloway M.S. Prostate specific antigen recurrence rates are low after radical retropubic prostatectomy and positive margins. J Urol 175 (2006) 140-145
16. Ward J.F., Slezak J.M., Blute M.L., et al. Radical prostatectomy for clinically advanced (cT3) prostate cancer since the advent of prostate-specific antigen testing: 15-Year outcome. BJU Int 95 (2005) 751-756
17. Grossfield G.D., Chang J.J., Broering J.M., et al. Impact of positive surgical margins on prostate cancer recurrence and the use of secondary cancer treatment: Data from the CapSURE database. J Urol 163 (2000) 1171-1177
18. Sengupta S., Slezak J.M., Blute M.L., et al. Trends in distribution and prognostic significance of Gleason grades on radical retropubic prostatectomy specimens between 1989 and 2001. Cancer 106 (2006) 2630-2635
19. Han M., Partin A.W., Chan D.Y., et al. An evaluation of the decreasing incidence of positive surgical margins in a large retropubic prostatectomy series. J Urol 171 (2004) 23-26
20. Gettman M.T., Slezak J.M., Bergstralh E.J., et al. Margin positivity in patients diagnosed pathologically with small organ-confined prostatic adenocarcinomas: Trends in the PSA era. J Urol 177 (2007) 1077
21. Mitchell R.E., Shah J.B., Olsson C.A., et al. Does year of radical prostatectomy independently predict outcome in prostate cancer?. Urology 67 (2006) 368-372
22. Barocas D.A., Han M., Epstein J.I., et al. Does capsular incision at radical retropubic prostatectomy affect disease-free survival in otherwise organ-confined prostate cancer?. Urology 58 (2001) 746-751
23. Soderdahl D.W., Diaz J.I., Rabah D.M., et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Evaluation of specimen pathologic features to critically assess and modify surgical technique. Urology 66 (2005) 552-556
24. Kernek K.M., Koch M.O., Daggy J.K., et al. The presence of benign prostatic glandular tissue at surgical margins does not predict PSA recurrence. J Clin Pathol 58 (2005) 725-728
25. Freedland S.J., Grubb K.A., Yiu S.Y., et al. Obesity and capsular incision at the time of open retropubic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 174 (2005) 1798-1801
26. Shah R., Bassily N., Wei J., et al. Benign prostatic glands at surgical margins of radical prostatectomy specimens: Frequency and associated risk factors. Urology 56 (2000) 721-725
27. Davis B.J., Pisansky T.M., Wilson T.M., et al. The radial distance of extraprostatic extension of prostate carcinoma: Implications for prostate brachytherapy. Cancer 85 (1999) 2630-2637
28. Tsuboi T., Ohori M., Kuroiwa K., et al. Is intraoperative frozen section analysis an efficient way to reduce positive surgical margins?. Urology 66 (2005) 1287-1291
29. Ahlering T.E., Eichel L., Edwards R.A., et al. Robotic radical prostatectomy: A technique to reduce pT2 positive margins. Urology 64 (2004) 1224-1228
30. Hegarty N.J., and Kaouk J.H. Radical prostatectomy: A comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted laparoscopic approaches. Can J Urol 13 Suppl (2006) 56-61
31. Guazzoni G., Cestari A., Naspro R., et al. Intra- and perioperative outcomes comparing radical retropubic and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Results from a prospective, randomized, single-surgeon study. Eur Urol 50 (2006) 98-104
32. Myers R.P. Localized prostate cancer: Important points of conduct for radical retropubic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 1 Suppl (2002) 15-19
33. Alsikafi N.F., and Brendler C.B. Surgical modifications of radical retropubic prostatectomy to decrease incidence of positive surgical margins. J Urol 159 (1998) 1281-1285
34. Brown J.A., Garlitz C., Gomella L.G., et al. Pathologic comparison of laparoscopic vs. open radical retropubic prostatectomy specimens. Urology 62 (2003) 481-486
35. Dahl D., He W., Lazarus R., et al. Pathologic outcome of laparoscopic and open radical prostatectomy. Urology 68 (2006) 1253-1256
36. Bianco F.J., Grignon D.J., Sakr W.A., et al. Radical prostatectomy with bladder neck preservation: Impact on positive margins. Eur Urol 43 (2003) 461-466
37. Deliveliotis C., Protogerou V., Alargof E., et al. Radical prostatectomy: Bladder neck preservation and puboprostatic ligament sparing-effects on continence and positive margins. Urology 60 (2002) 855-858
38. Katz R., Salomon L., Hoznek A., et al. Positive surgical margins in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: The impact of apical dissection, bladder neck remodeling, and nerve preservation. J Urol 169 (2003) 2049-2052
39. Baccala A., Reuther A.M., Bianco F.J., et al. Complete resection of seminal vesicles at radical prostatectomy results in substantial long-term disease-free survival: Multi-institutional study of 6,740 patients. Urology 69 (2007) 536-540
40. Sella T., Schwartz L.H., and Hricak H. Retained seminal vesicles after radical prostatectomy: Frequency, MRI characteristics, and clinical relevance. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186 (2006) 539-546
41. Ward J.F., Zincke H., Bergstralh E.J., et al. The impact of surgical approach (nerve bundle preservation versus wide local excision) on surgical margins and biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy. J Urol 172 (2004) 1328-1332
42. Sofer M., Hamilton-Nelson K.L., Schlesselman J.J., et al. Risk of positive margins and biochemical recurrence in relation to nerve-sparing radical prostectomy. J Clin Oncol 20 (2002) 1853-1858
43. Villers A., Stamey T.A., Yemoto C., et al. Modified extrafascial radical retropubic prostatectomy technique decreases frequency of positive surgical margins in T2 cancers <2 cm(3). Eur Urol 38 (2000) 64-73
44. Secin F.P., Serio A., Bianco F.J., et al. Preoperative and intraoperative risk factors for side-specific positive surgical margins in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Eur Urol 51 (2007) 764-771
45. Zorn K.C., Gofrit O.N., Orvieto M.A., et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: Functional and pathologic outcomes with interfascial nerve preservation. Eur Urol 51 (2007) 755-763
46. Eastham J.A., Kattan M.W., Riedel E., et al. Variations among individual surgeons in the rate of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 170 (2003) 2292-2295
47. Chun F.K.H., Briganti A., Antebi E., et al. Surgical volume is related to the rate of positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy in European patients. BJU Int 98 (2006) 1204-1209
48. Bianco F.J., Riedel E.R., Begg C.B., et al. Variations among high volume surgeons in the rate of complications after radical prostatectomy: Further evidence that technique matters. J Urol 173 (2005) 2099-2103
49. Vickers A.J., Bianco F.J., Serio A.M., et al. The surgical learning curve for prostate cancer control after radical prostatectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst 99 (2007) 1171-1177
50. Ates M., Teber D., Gozen A.S., et al. Do tumor volume, tumor volume ratio, type of nerve sparing, and surgical experience affect prostate specific antigen recurrence after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy?. A matched pair analysis. J Urol 177 (2007) 1771-1776
51. Chaung M.S., O'Connor R.C., Laven B.A., et al. Early release of the neurovascular bundles and optical loupe magnification lead to improved and earlier return of potency following radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 173 (2005) 537-539
52. Magera J.S., Inman B.A., Slezak J.M., et al. Increased optical magnification from 2.5× to 4.3× with technical modification lowers positive margin rate in open radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 179 (2008) 130-135
53. Ukimura O., Magi-Galluzzi C., and Gill I.S. Real-time transrectal ultrasound guidance during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Impact on surgical margins. J Urol 175 (2006) 1304-1310
54. van der Kwast T.H., Collette L., Van Poppel H., et al. Impact of pathology review of stage and margin status of radical prostatectomy specimens (EORTC trial 22911). Virchows Arch 449 (2006) 428-434
55. Ekici S., Ayhan A., Erkan I., et al. The role of the pathologist in the evaluation of radical prostatectomy specimens. Scand J Urol Nephrol 37 (2003) 387-391
56. Fromont G., Cathelineau X., Rozet F., et al. Impact of margin size on the incidence of local residual tumor after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 172 (2004) 1845-1847