Positive surgical margins: Rate, contributing factors and impact on further treatment: Findings from the Prostate Cancer Registry

BJU International

Volumn 114, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 680-690

  Evans, Sue M ^a   Millar, Jeremy L ^b   Frydenberg, Mark ^a,c   Murphy, Declan G ^d,e   Davis, Ian D ^a   Spelman, Tim ^a   Bolton, Damien M ^f   Giles, Graham G ^g   Dean, Joanne ^a   Costello, Anthony J ^d   Frauman, Albert G ^h   Kearns, Paul A ⁱ   Day, Laura ^a   Daniels, Christopher ^b   McNeill, John J ^a  

^a MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b ALFRED HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^c SOUTHERN HEALTH   (Australia)

^d EPWORTH HEALTHCARE   (Australia)

^e PETER MACCALLUM CANCER CENTRE   (Australia)

^f REPATRIATION GENERAL HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^g Cancer Council   (Australia)

^h UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

ⁱ BARWON HEALTH   (Australia)

Author keywords

positive surgical margin; private hospitals; prostatectomy; prostatic neoplasm; public hospitals

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; ANDROGEN DEPRIVATION THERAPY; ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; CANCER REGISTRY; CANCER THERAPY; HOSPITAL CARE; HUMAN; LOW RISK POPULATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; POSITIVE SURGICAL MARGIN; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; AGED; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; PRIVATE HOSPITAL; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; PUBLIC HOSPITAL; REGISTER; VERY ELDERLY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; HOSPITALS, PRIVATE; HOSPITALS, PUBLIC; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REGISTRIES;

EID: 84912529577     PISSN: 14644096     EISSN: 1464410X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/bju.12509     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Cancer Incidence Projections: Australia 2011 to 2020. Canberra: AIHW, 2012
2. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Cancer in Australia: An Overview 2010. Cancer series number 60. Canberra: AIHW, 2010
3. Evans S, Millar J, Davis I, et al. Patterns of care for men diagnosed with prostate cancer in Victoria from 2008 to 2011. Med J Aust 2013; 198: 540-545
4. Eggener SE, Scardino PT, Walsh PC, et al. Predicting 15-year prostate cancer specific mortality after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2011; 185: 869-875
5. Tewari A, Sooriakumaran P, Bloch DA, Seshadri-Kreaden U, Hebert AE, Wiklund P,. Positive surgical margin and perioperative complication rates of primary surgical treatments for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 1-15
6. Boorjian SA, Karnes RJ, Crispen PL, et al. The impact of positive surgical margins on mortality following radical prostatectomy during the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol 2010; 183: 1003-1009
7. Ekici S, Ayhan A, Erkan I, Bakkaloʇlu M, Özen H,. The role of the pathologist in the evaluation of radical prostatectomy specimens. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2003; 37: 387-391
8. Evans AJ, Henry PC, Van der Kwast TH, et al. Interobserver variability between expert urologic pathologists for extraprostatic extension and surgical margin status in radical prostatectomy specimens. Am J Surg Pathol 2008; 32: 1503-1512
9. Smith JA Jr, Chan RC, Chang SS, et al. A comparison of the incidence and location of positive surgical margins in robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2007; 178: 2385-2389; discussion 2389-90
10. 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
11. Swindle P, Eastham JA, Ohori M, et al. Do margins matter? The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens [Reprint in J Urol]. 2008 May; 179 (5 Suppl): S47-51; PMID: 18405751]. J Urol 2005; 174: 903-907
12. Alkhateeb S, Alibhai S, Fleshner N, et al. Impact of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy differs by disease risk group. J Urol 2010; 183: 145-150
13. Daly T, Hickey BE, Lehman M, Francis DP, See AM,. Adjuvant radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; (12): CD007234
14. Cancer Care Ontario. Prostate Cancer Treatment Pathway. Ontario, Canada; November 2012
15. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Prostate Cancer; 2013. Available at: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician-gls/pdf/prostate.pdf. Accessed 26 November 2013
16. Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol 2011; 59: 61-71
17. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and Australian Cancer Network. Australian Cancer Network Management of Metastatic Prostate Cancer Working Party. Sydney: Cancer Council Australia and Australian Cancer Network, 2009
18. 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
19. Williams SB, Gu X, Lipsitz SR, Nguyen PL, Choueiri TK, Hu JC,. Utilization and expense of adjuvant cancer therapies following radical prostatectomy. Cancer 2011; 117: 4846-4854
20. Evans S, Millar J, Wood J, et al. The Prostate Cancer Registry: monitoring patterns and quality of care for men diagnosed with prostate cancer. BJU Int 2013; 111: E158-166
21. Giles G, Thursfield V,. Prostate Cancer Melbourne: Anti-Cancer Council of Victoria 2000. March 2000. Report No.: 30
22. Hoffman KE, Nguyen PL, Chen M-H, et al. Recommendations for post-prostatectomy radiation therapy in the United States before and after the presentation of randomized trials. J Urol 2011; 185: 116-120
23. Bolton D, Severi G, Millar JL, et al. A whole of population-based series of radical prostatectomy in victoria, 1995 to 2000. Aust NZ J Public Health 2009; 33: 527-533
24. Grossfeld GD, Chang JJ, Broering JM, 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 2000; 163: 1171-1177; quiz 1295
25. Kasraeian A, Barret E, Chan J, et al. Comparison of the rate, location and size of positive surgical margins after laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2011; 108: 1174-1178
26. Magheli A, Gonzalgo ML, Su L-M, et al. Impact of surgical technique (open vs laparoscopic vs robotic-assisted) on pathological and biochemical outcomes following radical prostatectomy: an analysis using propensity score matching. BJU Int 2011; 107: 1956-1962
27. Vickers AJ, Savage CJ, Hruza M, et al. The surgical learning curve for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2009; 10: 475-480
28. Vickers AJ, Bianco FJ, Serio AM, et al. The surgical learning curve for prostate cancer control after radical prostatectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007; 99: 1171-1177
29. Atug F, Castle EP, Srivastav SK, Burgess SV, Thomas R, Davis R,. Positive surgical margins in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: impact of learning curve on oncologic outcomes. Eur Urol 2006; 49: 866-871; discussion 871-2
30. Lawrentschuk N, Evans A, Srigley J, et al. Surgical margin status among men with organ-confined (pT2) prostate cancer: a population-based study. Can Urol Assoc J 2011; 5: 161-166
31. Chun FKH, 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 2006; 98: 1204-1209
32. Sammon JD, Karakiewicz PI, Sun M, et al. Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: the differential effect of regionalization, procedure volume and operative approach. J Urol 2013; 189: 1289-1294
33. van der Kwast TH, 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 2006; 449: 428-434
34. Fleshner NE, Evans A, Chadwick K, Lawrentschuk N, Zlotta A,. Clinical significance of the positive surgical margin based upon location, grade, and stage. Urol Oncol 2010; 28: 197-204
35. Stephenson AJ, Wood DP, Kattan MW, et al. Location, extent and number of positive surgical margins do not improve accuracy of predicting prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2009; 182: 1357-1363