Extent of positive surgical margins following radical prostatectomy: impact on biochemical recurrence with long-term follow-up
- PMID: 31092240
- PMCID: PMC6518701
- DOI: 10.1186/s12894-019-0470-8
Extent of positive surgical margins following radical prostatectomy: impact on biochemical recurrence with long-term follow-up
Abstract
Background: To assess the prognostic value of the extent of positive surgical margins (PSM) following radical prostatectomy (RP) on biochemical recurrence (BR) with long-term follow-up.
Methods: This retrospective study analyzed 1275 RPs performed between January 1992 and December 2013 in two university centers in Marseille (France). The inclusion criteria were: follow-up > 24 months, undetectable postoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA), no seminal vesicle (SV) invasion, no lymph node invasion confirmed by surgery (pN0) or imaging (pNx), and no neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment. BR was defined by PSA level ≥ 0.2 ng/mL on two successive samples. We included 189 patients, divided into two groups: - Focal PSM (fPSM): single PSM (sPSM) ≤3 mm; - Extensive PSM (ePSM): sPSM with linear length > 3 mm or several margins regardless of the length.
Results: The median follow-up was 101 months (18-283) and the median age was 63 years (46-76). BR occurred in only 12.1% (14/115) of cases involving fPSM and in 54.1% (40/74) of cases involving ePSM. In the multivariate model, ePSM patients were significantly associated with increased BR compared to fPSM (hazard ratio [HR] = 6.11; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.25-11.49). The ePSM significantly decreased BR-free survival (p < 0.001) for every patient and every subgroup (pT2, pT3a, pG ≤6, and pG ≥7). The median BR time following RP was significantly shorter for ePSM patients than fPSM (57.2 vs. 89.2 months p < 0.001).
Conclusion: With a median 8-year follow-up, ePSM was strongly associated with BR compared to fPSM. Therefore, it seems legitimate to monitor patients with fPSM. In cases of ePSM, adjuvant treatment appears effective.
Keywords: Biochemical recurrence; Extent; Focal positive surgical margins; Positive surgical margins; Prostate cancer; Radical prostatectomy.
Conflict of interest statement
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This study protocol was reviewed and approved by the ethic committee of French Association of Urology (ref: 2018/010) and obtaining additional informed consent from patients was not required by the ethic committee for this retrospective study.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Figures
References
-
- Yossepowitch O, Briganti A, Eastham JA, Epstein J, Graefen M, Montironi R, et al. Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and contemporary update. Eur Urol. 2014;65(2):303–313. - PubMed
-
- Tan PH, Cheng L, Srigley JR, Griffiths D, Humphrey PA, Van Der Kwast TH, et al. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 5: surgical margins. Mod Pathol. 2011;24(1):48–57. - PubMed
-
- Pfitzenmaier J, Pahernik S, Tremmel T, Haferkamp A, Buse S, Hohenfellner M. Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: do they have an impact on biochemical or clinical progression? BJU Int. 2008;102(10):1413–1418. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials
Miscellaneous