The length of positive surgical margins correlates with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy

Histopathology

Volumn 56, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 464-471

  Van Oort, Inge M ^a   Bruins, H Maxim ^a   Kiemeney, Lambertus A L M ^a,b   Knipscheer, Ben C ^c   Witjes, J Alfred ^a   Hulsbergen Van De Kaa, Christina A ^a  

^a Department of Urology ^*  (Netherlands)

^b HTA ^*  (Netherlands)

^c Schepersziekenhuis   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Biochemical recurrence; Length; Prognosis; Prostatic cancer; Surgical margin

Indexed keywords

ADJUVANT CHEMOTHERAPY; ARTICLE; CANCER RECURRENCE; CANCER SURVIVAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; GLEASON SCORE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY;

BIOPSY; HUMANS; MALE; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RECURRENCE; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 77949609519     PISSN: 03090167     EISSN: 13652559     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2010.03497.x     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Han M, Partin AW, Pound CR et al. 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.
2. Eastham JA, Kattan MW, Riedel E et al. Variations among individual surgeons in the rate of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J. Urol. 2003 170 2292 2295.
3. Epstein JI, Partin AW, Sauvageot J et al. Prediction of progression following radical prostatectomy. A multivariate analysis of 721 men with long-term follow-up. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 1996 20 286 292.
4. Karakiewicz PI, Eastham JA, Graefen M et al. Prognostic impact of positive surgical margins in surgically treated prostate cancer: multi-institutional assessment of 5831 patients. Urology 2005 66 1245 1250.
5. Ohori M, Wheeler TM, Kattan MW et al. Prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J. Urol. 1995 154 1818 1824.
6. Swindle P, Eastham JA, Ohori M et al. Do margins matter? The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens J. Urol. 2005 174 903 907.
7. Eastham JA, Kuroiwa K, Ohori M et al. Prognostic significance of location of positive margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology 2007 70 965 969.
8. Simon MA, Kim S, Soloway MS. Prostate specific antigen recurrence rates are low after radical retropubic prostatectomy and positive margins. J. Urol. 2006 175 140 144.
9. Chuang AY, Nielsen ME, Hernandez DJ et al. The significance of positive surgical margin in areas of capsular incision in otherwise organ confined disease at radical prostatectomy. J. Urol. 2007 178 1306 1310.
10. Marks RA, Koch MO, Lopez-Beltran A et al. The relationship between the extent of surgical margin positivity and prostate specific antigen recurrence in radical prostatectomy specimens. Hum. Pathol. 2007 38 1207 1211.
11. Ochiai A, Sotelo T, Troncoso P et al. Natural history of biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy based on length of a positive margin. Urology 2008 71 308 312.
12. Hoedemaeker RF, Ruijter ETG, van der Kwast TH, Ruizeveld-de Winter JA, van der Kaa CA. Processing radical prostatectomy specimens: a comprehensive and standardized protocol. J. Urol. Pathol. 1998 9 211 222.
13. Ruijter ET, Van De Kaa CA, Schalken JA et al. Histological grade heterogeneity in multifocal prostate cancer. Biological and clinical implications. J. Pathol. 1996 180 295 299.
14. Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID et al. AJCC cancer staging manual, 6th edn. New-York : Springer-Verlag, 2002.
15. Montironi R, van der Kwast T, Boccon-Gibod L, Bono AV, Boccon-Gibod L. Handling and pathology reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens. Eur. Urol. 2003 44 626 636.
16. Srigley JR, Amin MB, Epstein JI et al. Updated protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with carcinomas of the prostate gland.; Members of the Cancer Committee, College of American Pathologists. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 2006 130 936 946.
17. Epstein JI, Carmichael M, Partin AW et al. Is tumor volume an independent predictor of progression following radical prostatectomy? A multivariate analysis of 185 clinical stage B adenocarcinomas of the prostate with 5 years of followup J. Urol. 1993 149 1478 1481.
18. Epstein JI, Pizov G, Walsh PC. Correlation of pathologic findings with progression after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Cancer 1993 71 3582 3593.
19. Vis AN, Schroder FH, van der Kwast TH. The actual value of the surgical margin status as a predictor of disease progression in men with early prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 2006 50 258 265.
20. Watson RB, Civantos F, Soloway MS. Positive surgical margins with radical prostatectomy: detailed pathological analysis and prognosis. Urology 1996 48 80 90.
21. Babaian RJ, Troncoso P, Bhadkamkar VA et al. Analysis of clinicopathologic factors predicting outcome after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 2001 91 1414 1422.
22. Barocas DA, Han M, Epstein JI et al. Does capsular incision at radical retropubic prostatectomy affect disease-free survival in otherwise organ-confined prostate cancer? Urology 2001 58 746 751.
23. Blute ML, Bostwick DG, Bergstralh EJ 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.
24. Obek C, Sadek S, Lai S et al. Positive surgical margins with radical retropubic prostatectomy: anatomic site-specific pathologic analysis and impact on prognosis. Urology 1999 54 682 688.
25. Ravery V, De la Taille A, Toublanc M et al. Prostate specimen reevaluation in patients with organ confined prostate cancer and postoperative biological recurrence. J. Urol. 1996 155 1981 1982.