Presence or absence of a positive pathological margin outperforms any other margin-associated variable in predicting clinically relevant biochemical recurrence in Gleason 7 prostate cancer

BJU International

Volumn 111, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 921-927

  Huang, James G ^a   Pedersen, John ^b   Hong, Matthew K H ^c   Harewood, Laurence M ^a,c   Peters, Justin ^a   Costello, Anthony J ^a,c   Hovens, Chris M ^c   Corcoran, Niall M ^a,c  

^a ROYAL MELBOURNE HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^b MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

biochemical recurrence; positive surgical margin; risk stratification

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; ARTICLE; ARTIFACT; BIOCHEMICAL RECURRENCE FREE SURVIVAL; BIOCHEMISTRY; CANCER GRADING; CANCER RECURRENCE; CANCER STAGING; COHORT ANALYSIS; DIATHERMY; FOLLOW UP; GLEASON SCORE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; RECURRENCE RISK; TUMOR GROWTH; TUMOR LOCALIZATION; TUMOR VOLUME;

AGED; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; NEOPLASM RECURRENCE, LOCAL; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; TUMOR BURDEN; TUMOR MARKERS, BIOLOGICAL;

EID: 84876897359     PISSN: 14644096     EISSN: 1464410X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11665.x     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. 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 (6 Pt 1): 2292-2295
2. Fitzsimons NJ, Presti JC Jr, Kane CJ, et al. Is biopsy Gleason score independently associated with biochemical progression following radical prostatectomy after adjusting for pathological Gleason score? J Urol 2006; 176 (6 Pt 1): 2453-2458
3. Hernandez DJ, Epstein JI, Trock BJ, Tsuzuki T, Carter HB, Walsh PC,. Radical retropubic prostatectomy. How often do experienced surgeons have positive surgical margins when there is extraprostatic extension in the region of the neurovascular bundle? J Urol 2005; 173: 446-449
4. Ploussard G, Agamy MA, Alenda O, et al. Impact of positive surgical margins on prostate-specific antigen failure after radical prostatectomy in adjuvant treatment-naive patients. BJU Int 2011; 107: 1748-1754
5. Roehl KA, Han M, Ramos CG, Antenor JA, Catalona WJ,. Cancer progression and survival rates following anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy in 3478 consecutive patients: long-term results. J Urol 2004; 172: 910-914
6. Van der Kwast TH, Bolla M, Van Poppel H, et al. Identification of patients with prostate cancer who benefit from immediate postoperative radiotherapy: EORTC 22911. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 4178-4186
7. Kordan Y, Salem S, Chang SS, et al. Impact of positive apical surgical margins on likelihood of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2009; 182: 2695-2701
8. Pound CR, Partin AW, Eisenberger MA, Chan DW, Pearson JD, Walsh PC,. Natural history of progression after PSA elevation following radical prostatectomy. JAMA 1999; 281: 1591-1597
9. Hong MK, Namdarian B, Corcoran NM, et al. Prostate tumour volume is an independent predictor of early biochemical recurrence in a high risk radical prostatectomy subgroup. Pathology 2011; 43: 138-142
10. Daskivich TJ, Regan MM, Oh WK,. Prostate specific antigen doubling time calculation: not as easy as 1, 2, 4. J Urol 2006; 176: 1927-1937
11. Corcoran NM, Hovens CM, Metcalfe C, et al. Positive surgical margins are a risk factor for significant biochemical recurrence only in intermediate-risk disease. BJU Int 2012; 110: 821
12. Antonarakis ES, Chen Y, Elsamanoudi SI, et al. Long-term overall survival and metastasis-free survival for men with prostate-specific antigen-recurrent prostate cancer after prostatectomy: analysis of the Center for Prostate Disease Research National Database. BJU Int 2011; 108: 378-385
13. 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
14. Cao D, Kibel AS, Gao F, Tao Y, Humphrey PA,. The Gleason score of tumor at the margin in radical prostatectomy is predictive of biochemical recurrence. Am J Surg Pathol 2010; 34: 994-1001
15. Cao D, Humphrey PA, Gao F, Tao Y, Kibel AS,. Ability of linear length of positive margin in radical prostatectomy specimens to predict biochemical recurrence. Urology 2011; 77: 1409-1414
16. Brimo F, Partin AW, Epstein JI,. Tumor grade at margins of resection in radical prostatectomy specimens is an independent predictor of prognosis. Urology 2010; 76: 1206-1209
17. Kollermann J, Helpap B,. Expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and VEGF receptor Flk-1 in benign, premalignant, and malignant prostate tissue. Am J Clin Pathol 2001; 116: 115-121
18. Wikstrom P, Lissbrant IF, Stattin P, Egevad L, Bergh A,. Endoglin (CD105) is expressed on immature blood vessels and is a marker for survival in prostate cancer. Prostate 2002; 51: 268-275
19. McGarvey TW, Stearns ME,. Keratinocyte growth factor and receptor mRNA expression in benign and malignant human prostate. Exp Mol Pathol 1995; 63: 52-62
20. Hagglof C, Hammarsten P, Josefsson A, et al. Stromal PDGFRbeta expression in prostate tumors and non-malignant prostate tissue predicts prostate cancer survival. PLoS ONE 2010; 5: e10747