Radical prostatectomy and positive surgical margins: Relationship with prostate cancer outcome

International Braz J Urol

Volumn 40, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 306-315

  Felts de La Roca, Ricardo L R ^a   da Cunha, Isabela Werneck ^a   Bezerra, Stephania Martins ^a   da Fonseca, Francisco Paulo ^a  

^a A C CAMARGO CANCER CENTER   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Tumor Burden

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADENOCARCINOMA; ADULT; ADVERSE EFFECTS; AGED; BLOOD; CANCER GRADING; CANCER STAGING; DISEASE FREE SURVIVAL; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MINIMAL RESIDUAL DISEASE; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; TIME; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TUMOR RECURRENCE; TUMOR VOLUME; VERY ELDERLY;

ADENOCARCINOMA; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; DISEASE-FREE SURVIVAL; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; NEOPLASM GRADING; NEOPLASM RECURRENCE, LOCAL; NEOPLASM STAGING; NEOPLASM, RESIDUAL; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; TIME FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TUMOR BURDEN;

EID: 84906682066     PISSN: 16775538     EISSN: 16776119     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2014.03.03     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Ohori M, Wheeler TM, Kattan MW, Goto Y, Scardino PT: Prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol. 1995; 154: 1818-24.
2. Karakiewicz PI, Eastham JA, Graefen M, Cagiannos I, Stricker PD, Klein E, et al.: Prognostic impact of positive surgical margins in surgically treated prostate cancer: multi-institutional assessment of 5831patients. Urology. 2005; 66: 1245-50.
3. 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 radicalprostatectomy. Urology. 1997; 50: 733-9.
4. Makarov DV, Trock BJ, Humphreys EB, Mangold LA, Walsh PC, Epstein JI, et al.: Updated nomogram to predict pathologic stage of prostate cancer given prostate-specific antigen level, clinical stage, andbiopsy Gleason score (Partin tables) based on cases from 2000 to 2005. Urology. 2007; 69: 1095-101.
5. Godoy G, Tareen BU, Lepor H: Site of positive surgical margins influences biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2009; 104: 1610-4.
6. Tan PH, Cheng L, Srigley JR, Griffiths D, Humphrey PA,van der Kwast TH, Montironi R, Wheeler TM, Delahunt B, Egevad L, Epstein J I and the ISUP Prostate Cancer Group: International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 5: surgical margins. Modern Pathology. 2011; 24: 48-57.
7. Ko J, Falzarano SM, Walker E, Streator Smith K, Stephenson AJ, Klein EA, et al.: Prostate cancer patients older than 70 years treated by radical prostatectomy have higher biochemical recurrence rate than their matched younger counterpart. Prostate. 2013; 73: 897-903.
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: 131-8.
9. Sofer M, Hamilton-Nelson KL, Civantos F, Soloway MS: Positive surgical margins after radical retropubic prostatectomy: the influence of site and number on progression. J Urol. 2002; 167: 2453-6.
10. Obek C, Sadek S, Lai S, Civantos F, Rubinowicz D, Soloway MS: Positive surgical margins with radical retropubic prostatectomy: anatomic site-specific pathologic analysis and impact onprognosis. Urology. 1999; 54: 682-8.
11. Thurairaja R, Osborn J, McFarlane J, Bahl A, Persad R: Radical prostatectomy with positive surgical margins: how are patients managed? BJU Int. 2006; 97: 445-50.
12. Freedland SJ, Aronson W, Presti JC Jr, 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: 2142-6.
13. Stephenson AJ, Wood DP, Kattan MW, Klein EA, Scardino PT, Eastham JA, Carver BS: Location, extent and number of positive surgical margins do not improve accuracy of predicting prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2009; 182: 1357-63.
14. Guram K, Virgil G, Goran A: Vascular invasion as a marker for prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. European Urology Supplements. 2002;1: pp. 67.
15. Palisaar RJ, Graefen M, Karakiewicz PI, Hammerer PG, Huland E, Haese A, et al.: Assessment of clinical and pathologic characteristics predisposing to disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy inmen with pathologically organconfined prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2002; 41: 155-61.
16. Thompson IM 3rd, Salem S, Chang SS, Clark PE, Davis R, Herrell SD, et al.: Tumor volume as a predictor of adverse pathologic features and biochemical recurrence (BCR) in radical prostatectomyspecimens: a tale of two methods. World J Urol. 2011; 29: 15-20.
17. Cho IC, Kwon WA, Kim JE, Joung JY, Seo HK, Chung J, et al.: Prostate volume has prognostic value only in pathologic T2 radical prostatectomy specimens. J Korean Med Sci. 2011; 26: 807-13.
18. Epstein JI, Carmichael M, Partin AW, Walsh PC: Is tumor volume an independent predictor of progression following radical prostatectomy? A multivariate analysis of 185clinical stage B adenocarcinomas of the prostate with 5 years of followup. J Urol. 1993; 149: 1478-81.
19. Salomon L, Levrel O, Anastasiadis AG, Irani J, De La Taille A, Saint F, et al.: Prognostic significance of tumor volume after radical prostatectomy: a multivariate analysis of pathological prognostic factors. Eur Urol. 2003; 43: 39-44.
20. Wolters T, Roobol MJ, van Leeuwen PJ, van den Bergh RC, Hoedemaeker RF, van Leenders GJ, et al.: Should pathologists routinely report prostate tumour volume? The prognostic value of tumour volume in prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2010; 57: 821-9.