Tumor volume, surgical margin, and the risk of biochemical recurrence in men with organ-confined prostate cancer

Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations

Volumn 31, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 168-174

  Song, Cheryn ^a   Kang, Taejin ^a   Yoo, Sangjun ^a   Jeong, In Gab ^a   Ro, Jae Y ^a,b   Hong, Jun Hyuk ^a   Kim, Choung Soo ^a   Ahn, Hanjong ^a  

^a University of Ulsan College of Medicine   (South Korea)

^b WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

Biochemical recurrence; Prostatic carcinoma; Radical prostatectomy; Surgical margin; Tumor volume

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; ARTICLE; BIOCHEMICAL RECURRENCE FREE SURVIVAL; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER RECURRENCE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; TUMOR VOLUME;

AGED; AREA UNDER CURVE; DISEASE-FREE SURVIVAL; HUMANS; KAPLAN-MEIER ESTIMATE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; NEOPLASM RECURRENCE, LOCAL; NEOPLASM STAGING; PROGNOSIS; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RISK FACTORS; ROC CURVE; TUMOR BURDEN;

EID: 84875243217     PISSN: 10781439     EISSN: 18732496     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2010.11.005     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Huland H., Hammerer P., Henke R.P., et al. Preoperative prediction of tumor heterogeneity and recurrence after radical prostatectomy for localized prostatic carcinoma with digital rectal, examination prostate specific antigen and the results of 6 systematic biopsies. J Urol 1996, 155:1344-1347.
2. Hull G.W., Rabbani F., Abbas F., et al. Cancer control with radical prostatectomy alone in 1,000 consecutive patients. J Urol 2002, 167(2 Pt 1):528-534.
3. Chuang A.Y., Epstein J.I. Positive surgical margins in areas of capsular incision in otherwise organ-confined disease at radical prostatectomy: Histologic features and pitfalls. Am J Surg Pathol 2008, 32:1201-1206.
4. Simon M.A., Kim S., Soloway M.S. Prostate specific antigen recurrence rates are low after radical retropubic prostatectomy and positive margins. J Urol 2006, 175:140-144. Discussion 4-5.
5. van den Ouden D., Bentvelsen F.M., Boeve E.R., et al. Positive margins after radical prostatectomy: Correlation with local recurrence and distant progression. Br J Urol 1993, 72:489-494.
6. Watson R.B., Civantos F., Soloway M.S. Positive surgical margins with radical prostatectomy: Detailed pathological analysis and prognosis. Urology 1996, 48:80-90.
7. Ohori M., Wheeler T.M., Kattan M.W., et al. Prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 1995, 154:1818-1824.
8. Chung B.I., Tarin T.V., Ferrari M., et al. Comparison of prostate cancer tumor volume and percent cancer in prediction of biochemical recurrence and cancer specific survival. Urol Oncol 2011, 29:314-318.
9. Carvalhal G.F., Humphrey P.A., Thorson P., et al. Visual estimate of the percentage of carcinoma is an independent predictor of prostate carcinoma recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 2000, 89:1308-1314.
10. Rampersaud E.N., Sun L., Moul J.W., et al. Percent tumor involvement and risk of biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2008, 180:571-576. Discussion 6.
11. Stamey T.A., McNeal J.E., Yemoto C.M., et al. Biological determinants of cancer progression in men with prostate cancer. JAMA 1999, 281:1395-1400.
12. Epstein J.I., Amin M., Boccon-Gibod L., et al. Prognostic factors and reporting of prostate carcinoma in radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy specimens. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2005, 216:34-63.
13. Rosen M.A., Goldstone L., Lapin S., et al. Frequency and location of extracapsular extension and positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 1992, 148(2 Pt 1):331-337.
14. Porter C.R., Kodama K., Gibbons R.P., et al. Twenty-five-year prostate cancer control and survival outcomes: A 40-year radical prostatectomy single institution series. J Urol 2006, 176:569-574.
15. Roehl K.A., Han M., Ramos C.G., et al. Cancer progression and survival rates following anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy in 3,478 consecutive patients: Long-term results. J Urol 2004, 172:910-914.
16. Chuang A.Y., Nielsen M.E., Hernandez D.J., 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(4 Pt 1):1306-1310.
17. Shuford M.D., Cookson M.S., Chang S.S., et al. Adverse prognostic significance of capsular incision with radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Uroly 2004, 172:119-123.
18. Cheng L., Darson M.F., Bergstralh E.J., et al. Correlation of margin status and extraprostatic extension with progression of prostate carcinoma. Cancer 1999, 86:1775-1782.
19. Swindle P., Eastham J.A., Ohori M., et al. Do margins matter? The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Uroly 2005, 174:903-907.
20. Kumano M., Miyake H., Muramaki M., et al. Adverse prognostic impact of capsular incision at radical prostatectomy for Japanese men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Int Urol Nephrol 2009, 41:581-586.
21. Palisaar R.J., Graefen M., Karakiewicz P.I., et al. Assessment of clinical and pathologic characteristics predisposing to disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy in men with pathologically organ-confined prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2002, 41:155-161.
22. Kordan Y., Salem S., Chang S.S., et al. Impact of positive apical surgical margins on likelihood of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Uroly 2009, 182:2695-2701.
23. Ramos C.G., Roehl K.A., Antenor J.A., et al. Percent carcinoma in prostatectomy specimen is associated with risk of recurrence after radical prostatectomy in patients with pathologically organ confined prostate cancer. J Urol 2004, 172:137-140.
24. Salomon L., Levrel O., Anastasiadis A.G., et al. Prognostic significance of tumor volume after radical prostatectomy: A multivariate analysis of pathological prognostic factors. Eur Urol 2003, 43:39-44.
25. van Oort I.M., Witjes J.A., Kok D.E., et al. Maximum tumor diameter is not an independent prognostic factor in high-risk localized prostate cancer. World J Uro 2008, 26:237-241.
26. Wolters T., Roobol M.J., van Leeuwen P.J., et al. Should pathologists routinely report prostate tumor volume? The prognostic value of tumor volume in prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2010, 57:821-829.
27. Alkhateeb S, Alibhai S, Fleshner N, et al. Impact of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy differs by disease risk group. J Urol;183:145-50.
28. Godoy G., Tareen B.U., Lepor H. Is the apical soft tissue margin a better predictor of biochemical recurrence than the surgical specimen?. Urol Oncol 2009, (in press).
29. Godoy G., Tareen B.U., Lepor H. Site of positive surgical margins influences biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2009, 104:1610-1614.
30. Humphrey P.A., Vollmer R.T. Percentage carcinoma as a measure of prostatic tumor size in radical prostatectomy tissues. Mod Pathol 1997, 10:326-333.