Prostate Cancer

Prostate Cancer / 2011 / Article
Special Issue

Pathology Update for Urologists

View this Special Issue

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2011 |Article ID 673021 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/673021

Kenneth A. Iczkowski, M. Scott Lucia, "Frequency of Positive Surgical Margin at Prostatectomy and Its Effect on Patient Outcome", Prostate Cancer, vol. 2011, Article ID 673021, 12 pages, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/673021

Frequency of Positive Surgical Margin at Prostatectomy and Its Effect on Patient Outcome

Academic Editor: R. Montironi
Received09 Mar 2011
Accepted27 Mar 2011
Published09 Jun 2011

Abstract

A positive surgical margin at prostatectomy is defined as tumor cells touching the inked edge of the specimen. This finding is reported in 8.8% to 42% of cases (median about 20%) in various studies. It is one of the main determinants of eventual biochemical (PSA) failure, generally associated with a doubled or tripled risk of failure. The effect of a positive margin on outcome can be modified by stage or grade and the length, number and location of positive margins, as well as by technical operative approach and duration of operator experience. This paper tabulates data from the past decade of studies on margin status.

1. Introduction

1.1. Definition of a Positive Surgical Margin (PSM) in Radical Prostatectomy Specimens

As with all surgical specimens resected for cancer, the margins of a prostatectomy specimen are inked, usually using one color dye for the right side and one for the left. It is the pathologist’s task to assess the microscopic slides and determine the proximity of tumor glands or cells to the ink to decide whether there is a definite positive surgical margin (PSM) (Figure 1).

A fundamental question is whether a tumor focus that is close to, but not touching, the resection margin (Figure 2) holds the same implications as a PSM. This question was first answered by Epstein and Sauvageot in 1997, in a study of 101 cases [1]. They found that patients with biochemical progression were no more likely to have tumor close to the margin than those without progression. Emerson et al., confining their study to just 278 margin-negative whole-mount prostate cases, validated that the closest distance between tumor and resection margin was not a significant predictor of PSA recurrence by univariate or multivariate analysis [2]. Thus, it was the consensus of the International Society of Urological Pathology in 2009 not to mention in written reports if tumor merely approaches but does not touch the margin [3]. This contrasts with the practice in other types of specimens such as breast lumpectomy specimens, in which the distance of tumor close to the margin is reported and does matter for outcome.

A PSM is a strong determinant of the probability of biochemical failure and is at least as important as grade, stage, and preoperative serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA). In unselected contemporary studies the PSM rate ranges from 8.8% [4] to 37% [5]. The interobserver reproducibility of designation of a PSM by urologic pathologists, using the definition of tumor on ink, has been shown to be good to excellent. The kappa value is 0.73 for definitive surgical margin status [6]. This supports the validity of many studies in concluding that, compared to negative surgical margin (NSM) status, a PSM correlates with a significant rise in biochemical failure rate. The purpose of this paper is to provide a compendium for urologists and their patients of all that is known about prostate margin status as an outcome predictor.

2. Methods

A review of papers pertaining to prostate margin status and its effect on outcome was undertaken using PubMed searches from 1997 to the present.

3. Results

3.1. Can Prostate Biopsy Results Predict Margin Status?

We undertook a study a few years ago to determine the extent to which prostate biopsy results could predict cancer at prostatectomy that is unifocal, unilateral, margin-negative, and of small volume [20]. These four factors are the main criteria for choosing minimally invasive therapies such as targeted focal ablation of the prostate, as alternatives to radical prostatectomy. Unilateral cancer at prostatectomy was predicted by unilateral cancer in the biopsy (OR, 4.30) and unifocal cancer in the biopsy (OR, 2.63). In that study, negative surgical margins were predicted by unilateral cancer in the biopsy (OR 2.53, positive predictive value 82%). Therefore, biopsy findings can strongly predict prostatectomy margin status and other findings.

3.2. Comparison of PSM Rates by Technical Approach (Table 1)

First author, yrNo. of ptsCohort yearsMedian f/u, yrOpenLaparoscopicRoboticFailure rate if PSM
PSM rate valuePSM rateHR, val.PSM rateHR, val.

Williams
2010 [7]
42402004–200620.1%17.4%17.4%
Coelho
2010 [8]
≥250††1994–200924.0%21.3%13.6%
Sciarra
2010 [9]
2002003–200718% anterograde, 14% retrograde
Williams
2010 [10]
9502005–20087.6%13.5%,HR 1.9*,
Coelho
2010 [11]
8762008-2009pT2, 6.8%, pT3, 34.0%
Guru
2009 [12]
4802005–20085% apical, 2% versus 8%**
Bong
2009 [13]
3011994–20062.024.7% at 1 institution but 4.2% at another *** 25.6% at 1 institution but 100% at other
Hakimi
2009 [14]
1502001–200813.7%12%6.7% versus 5.3%
Laurila
2009 [15]
192200614%13% , no diff in apical margin
Terakawa
2008 [16]
1372000–2007PSMNot signif.More multiple PSM, get #
Smith
2007 [17]
4002002–200635%15%
Silva
2007 [18]
1791999–200341.6%24.44%
Touijer
2007 [19]
11772003–200511.0%;
pT2 5.3%,
pT3 22.0%
11.3%;
pT2 8.2%;
pT3 17.2%
HR 1.2,

*OR falls to 1.6 if nerve-sparing is eliminated as a variable .
**Lower rate achieved by cold incision of the dorsal venous complex before suture ligation.
***For the same surgeon; but higher average pathologic stage at the first institution.
But open method was used for more high-risk cases and also cases with a higher preoperative PSA, .
††Review of several papers.

In the past decade, nonrobotic or robotic laparoscopic techniques have been increasingly used in place of conventional open radical prostatectomy. The laparoscopic approaches are often considered superior for continence and potency [8, 11, 12, 14, 16]. Most studies involving prostate pathology after laparoscopic approaches have found a PSM rate comparable with that of an open approach [7, 8, 14, 15, 19]. PSM rates were as follow: open, 7.6% [10] to 41.6% [18]; laparoscopic without robot, 11.3% [19] to 21.3% [8]; robotic, 13% [15] to 24.44% [18].

PSM rate for robotic approaches was found to be significantly worse than that for open ones in one study [10]; however, two other studies found open approaches superior to the robotic ones [17, 18]. In the study that found the open approach better, the result was confounded by nerve sparing, so robotic prostatectomies showed a nonsignificant trend toward lower PSM for a non-nerve-sparing approach [10]. When the anterograde open approach was compared with the retrograde approach, significantly fewer PSMs were found by retrograde approach [9].

In a comparison of robotic versus nonrobotic laparoscopic approaches, one study found the robotic method superior [8]. Another found that the outcome was highly stage dependent, with 7% of pT2 patients with biochemical failure as opposed to 34% of pT3 patients [11]. Failure could also depend on number of positive margins [16]. In a study evaluating the robotic approach, a lower PSM rate was achieved by cold incision of the dorsal venous complex before suture ligation [12].

3.3. Comparison of PSM Rates by Duration of Surgical Experience (Table 2)

First author, yrNumber of casesCohort yearsPSM rate
OpenLaparoscopicRobotic

Rodriguez 2010 [21]400, by intervals of 1002004–2006For pT2: 28.4%–31.9% to 11.6%–11.5%*
Yee 2009 [22]50, then 2502005–2008Cases  1–50: 36%,
51–250: 17.6%,
251–450: 7.5%
Liss 2008 [23]2162003–200714.8%, decr. over time , nerve-sparing increased risk
Eastham 2007 [24]24421983–1990 and 1991–200418% versus 10%,
Touijer 2007 [19]11772003–2005No decrease over timeDecreased over time,

*First 200 cases versus last 200 cases.

In the above comparison of surgical approaches, it must be noted that the new laparoscopic approaches have a demonstrable learning curve. That is, in three studies conducted in the middle of the 2000–2010 decade, the PSM rate improved after a few years of practice [2123]. While a significant decrease in PSM rate occurred over time with a laparoscopic approach, PSM held steady for open procedures during the same time period [19]. Even with the open approach, during the 1990s and early 2000s, one study had noted that there was also a learning curve with respect to the PSM rate [24].

It is a bit disconcerting but it also must be admitted that individual surgeons may vary in their frequency of PSMs. In a study of 4,629 men operated on by open prostatectomy by one of 44 surgeons, for the 26 surgeons who each treated >10 patients, the rate of PSM ranged from 10% to 48% [33]. A 6-fold difference was even reported for the same surgeon at different institutions [13].

3.4. Margin Status Effect on PSA Failure Rate at 10 Years (Table 3)

First author, yr Cohort yearsPSA fail criterion, ng/mL% PSM, overall% biochemical failure rate
PSMNSM value, HR

Williams 2011 [25]158††2005–200913No f/u
Ahyai 2010 [26]9321992–2004≥0.112.921.76.9
Tsao 2009 [27]100*2004–2007≥0.223
Sæther 2008 [28]2191996–2004≥0.232.44018
Pfitzenmaier 2008 [29]4061990–2006≥0.217.264.320.5 , HR 3.21
Swanson 2007 [30]7191985–1995≥0.315.36327
Ahyai 2010 [26]9361992–2003≥0.437197
Kausik 2002 [31]12021987–1995>0.2423524
Menon 2010 [32]13842001–2005*≥0.225.1 , HR 2.43 (1.72–3.42)

*Robotic only.
pT3 cases only.
††pT2 cases only.

PSM rates in studies not comparing approaches ranged from 13% [25] to 42% [31] with a median 23% [27]. In the presence of a PSM, the failure rate was either double [28, 30, 32, 34, 40, 42, 43], triple [5, 26, 29, 38] or showed an increase of greater magnitude [4, 39] compared to NSM. Two studies did not specify this [5, 30]. In studies reporting a Hazard Ratio (HR) comparing a PSM to NSM, the HR ranged from 1.3 [46] up to 3.66 [42].

3.5. Tumor Stage (Table 4) or Grade (Table 5) Can Modify the Effect of PSM on PSA Failure Rates, at 10 Years

First author, yr Cohort YearsPSA fail criterion ng/mL% PSM, overall% biochemical failure rate% biochemical failure rate with PSM by stage
PSMNSM value HRpT2 value, HRpT3a value, HRStage pT3b value, HR

Williams
2010 [7]
42402004–200619.4No f/u14.942
Ploussard
2010 [34]
19432000–2008>0.225.654.229.9 , HR 2.6 , HR 3.81 , HR 2.09 , HR 1.46
Budäus
2010 [35]
44901992–2008≥0.118.917 versus 5HR 2.938 versus 26HR 1.971 versus 53,HR 1.4
Brimo
2010 [36]
1081995–2008≥0.2Inclusion criterion58
Hsu
2010 [37]
1641977–2004≥0.248.2
(all cT3)
57%, HR 4.1,
Ficarra
2009 [38]
322*2005–2008≥0.229.56.21.8 (at 12 mo.)10.657.5 , 72.2
Kwak
2010 [39]
2661995–2007≥0.218.552.68 29.3 versus 7.3$ 51 versus 10.5
HR 1.4,
Hashimoto
2008 [40]
238**1985–2005≥0.234.438.419.3 HR 3.36, , HR 7.13,
Chuang
2007 [41]
135** 1993–2004 ≥0.228.7 versus 3.3 Focal EPE 21.4% versus 10.3%, ,
Ext EPE 41.5% versus 26%,
Orvieto
2006 [4]
9961994–2004≥0.18.8 (all); pT2 1.7, pT3a 24.9, pT3b 27.1357.8 , HR 3.27 , , HR 3.6 , HR 6.5
Karakiewicz
2005 [42]
58311983–2000≥0.1–≥0.426.763.929.9 , HR 3.6663 versus 30
Swindle
2005 [43]
13691983–2000≥0.412.9 (all); pT2 6.8, pT3 234219 , HR 1.5238.6 versus 19.6 74.9% versus 53.8%,

*Robotic only.
**Study used 5-year biochemical recurrence.
Restricted to , stage pT3a, and PSM.
$If there is capsular incision, versus no capsular incision.

First author, yr Cohort yearsPSA Fail criterion, ng/mL% PSM, overall% biochemical failure rateGleason score effect on failure if PSM
PSMNSM value, HRComparisons value, HR

Ploussard
2010 [34]
19432000–2008>0.225.654.229.9
HR 2.6
≤7 versus ≥8
Budäus
2010 [35]
44901992–2008≥0.118.9compared to : for 3 + 4, for 4 + 3, for ≥8,HR 2.81
HR 6.57 HR 9.86,
all
Brimo
2010 [36]
1081995–2008≥0.2Inclusion criterionScore at margin
Alkhateeb
2010 [44]
11,7291992–2008≥0.431.15677
HR 1.63
Low risk 5.1% versus 0.4%;
med. risk 17% versus 65%;
hi. risk 43.9% versus 21.5%
Orvieto
2006 [4]
9961994–2004≥0.1All 8.8; pT2 1.7, pT3a 24.9, pT3b 27.1357.8
HR 3.27
7 versus ≥8, , HR 7.2
, HR 21
Karakiewicz
2005 [42]
58311983–2000≥0.1 to ≥0.426.763.929.9
HR 3.66
≥7 , HR 2.81

Restricted to , stage pT3a, and PSM.
Risk groups based on Gleason score and preoperative PSA: low = PSA , Gleason ; medium = PSA 10–20 or Gleason 7; high = PSA or Gleason .

Nine studies compared PSA failure rates as a function of pathologic stage pT3a and pT3b versus pT2 or of pT3 versus pT2. (The apparent stage sometimes cannot be assessed because of capsular incision [58].) Failure rates with a PSM in stage pT2 ranged from 10.6% [38] to 63% [42], with an HR of 1.7 [4] to 3.81 [34] compared to having an NSM. For stage pT3a, failure rates were 38% [35] to 58% [36], with HR ranging from 1.4 [46] to 3.6 [4] compared to NSM. For stage pT3b, one study reports 71% failure, with HR of 1.4 compared to NSM [35]. Some studies chose to combine both pT3 substages and disclosed failure rates from 57% [37] to 75% [43] and HR of 4.1 [37] to 11.85 [38]. Thus, PSM exerts an effect that is synergistic with increasing stage, although the HR compared to NSM seems fairly constant across stages pT2, pT3a, and pT3b, at about 3 to 4. A study examining the phenomenon of capsular incision, sometimes denoted pT2+, found a 29.3% failure rate versus 7.3% for no incision [46].

The HR for failure with a PSM seems to increase with increasing Gleason score [4, 35, 42, 44]. In one study [34], however, after controlling for Gleason score, a PSM versus NSM with Gleason ≤7 was significantly predictive of failure, while PSM versus NSM with Gleason ≥8 was not . Finally, Cao et al. noted that the Gleason score at the positive margin was predictive of biochemical recurrence [59]. Also, as the Gleason score of the main tumor rose, the concordance with the grade at the margin diminished: 99% for score 6 but 38% for score 9. By multivariate analysis, Gleason score at the margin predicted biochemical failure [59].

3.6. The Effect of PSM on Mortality Rate at 10 Years Is Also Modified by Stage and Grade (Table 6)

First author, yr PSA Fail criterion, ng/mLPSM, %Median f/u, yrPCa death rate ifPSM rate or HR by stagePSM rate by grade
PSM, %NSM, % value, HRpT2pT3 a-bGleason
value

Wright
2010 [45]
65,63321.270.860.33 17.7%43.8%, 27.5% versus 18.3%
Boorjian 2010 [34]11,729≥0.431.18.241 HR 1.0HR 2.1,
Ploussard 2010 [34]1943>0.225.66.72.60.6 , 3.7 (1.5–9.5)16.033.6–40.2

Three studies addressed the prostate cancer-specific death rate in the presence of a PSM. Two studies, one based on the SEER cancer data registry [45], found a significantly higher death rate at 10 years in the presence of a PSM [34, 45], namely, 0.86% versus 0.33% and 2.6% versus 0.6% which was significant . In another study, from the Mayo Clinic registry, a PSM was not a significant predictor of death among 11,729 cases , but did predict death in the subset that was stage pT3 [34].

3.7. PSA Failure Rates after a PSM Are Influenced by Length and Number of PSM (Table 7) and by Location of PSM (Table 8)

First author, yr Cohort yearsPSA fail criterion ng/mLMedian f/u, yrPSM, overall%Biochemical failure rateAccording to length at marginAccording to number of PSM
PSMNSM value,
HR
Fail rate with PSMHR and valueFail rate with PSMHR and value

Brimo
2010 [36]
1081995–2008≥0.23.0Inclusion criterion>3 mm:
as continuous variable

van Oort
2010 [47]
174*1995–2005≥0.13.0Inclusion criterion29>10 mm,
39% versus 21%
HR 2.3, >1 versus 1HR 1.46
Lake
2010 [48]
19971996–2008>0.24.118, 6.7 for T2ext. 62, focal 3616% extensive 62%,
focal 36%
negative 16%
Stephenson
2009 [46]
71601995–2006≥0.23.22140 , extensive 66%, focal 34%HR 1.3, multiple 83%,
one 17%
HR 1.4, MVA
Shikanov
2009 [49]
13982003–2008≥0.11.017** , HR 4.4<1 mm 1–3 mm >3 mmHR 0.26
HR 9.6,

HR 14.8,
?
for fail
Goetzl
2009 [50]
1031998–2008≥0.223.3≥6 mmHR 1.7, ≥3 PSM versus 1 versus 2 PSMHR 1.3,
Not sig.
Pfitzenmaier
2008 [29]
4061990–2006≥0.25.217.264.320.5 ,
HR 3.21
≥3 versus 1
Marks
2007 [51]
1581990–1998≥0.1455≥5 mmHR 1.00,
Vis
2006 [52]
2811994–1999≥0.16.7523.533.37.9 Focal versus extensive
Emerson
2005 [53]
3691999–2003≥0.11.02325.6Median 3 mm univariate but
.076 multivar.††
Mean 2.45 versus 1.80
by univar. analysis
Sofer
2002 [54]
498≥0.24 yr 5 mo19.7HR 2.8, ≥2, versus 1
Kausik
2002 [31]
1202†††1987–1995>0.24.9423524 ≥2,
62% versus 1, 65%
Fromont
2004 [55]
7341992–1999≥0.225>2 versus 1HR 2.19,
not done

*Study used 5-year biochemical recurrence.
**Robotic only.
But a predictive model nomogram does not improve accuracy of predicting failure after prostatectomy.
††Linear extent of positivity was associated with other pathologic variables such as preoperative PSA and tumor volume and not independently predictive when adjusted for Gleason score.
†††pT3 cases only.

First author, yr Cohort yearsPSA fail criterion, ng/mLMedi-an f/u, yr%PSM, overall%Biochemical failure rateFailure according to PSM locationMost common location
PSMNSM value, HR% fail:HR and value

van Oort
2010 [47]
174***1995–2005≥0.13.0Inclusion criterion29Post 43%,
ant 35%,
apex 33%
Lake
2010 [48]
19971996–2008>0.24.118, 6.7 for T2Ext. 62 focal 3616 Apex
Ant
Posterolat
HR 2.24, , HR 3.7, HR 2.5,
Godoy
2009 [56]
246**, ***2000–2006>0.152.8Apical surgical, 3.2, apical soft tissue, 6.6; total 9.8Apical surgical 48.6%, apical soft tissue, 4.7%***
Stephenson
2009 [46]
71601995–2006≥0.23.22140 Apex versus otherHR 1.1,
Shikanov
2009 [49]
13982003–2008≥0.11.017** HR 4.4Posterolateral for failPosterolat 45%;
apex 29%;
base 6%
Pfitzenmaier
2008 [29]
4061990–2006≥0.25.217.264.320.5 HR 3.21Apex versus nonapex
Eastham
2007 [24]
24421983–2004≥0.22.911.2,
pT2 7,
pT3 22
2510 HR 1.39Posterolat.
Posterior
HR 2.80 HR 1.96 versus neg, Apex 37%,
posterolat 35%
Chuang
2007 [41]
135†***1993–2004≥0.228.7***3.3 posterolat 61.5%
post 19%
ant 9%
Vis
2006 [52]
2811994–1999≥0.16.7523.533.37.9 Apex versus other
Emerson
2005 [53]
3691999–2003≥0.11.02325.6Location, gen’l:Ass’n for # of lateral sites:
Pettus
2004 [57]
498≥0.24.419.7HR 2.9, , See breakdownapex 21% nonapex 26% , HR 2.25, , HR 2.96apex 5.6, nonapex 11.4
Kausik
2002 [31]
1202††1987–1995>0.24.9423524 apex 46% post. 64%
Sofer
2002 [54]
7341992–1999≥0.225apex 45%; post. 32%

**Robotic only.
***Study used 5-year biochemical recurrence.
pT2 cases only.
††pT3 cases only.

Many pathologists report the length of a PSM. Using categorical PSM length cut-offs between 3 mm and 10 mm, length significantly affected outcome in many [36, 41, 4749, 58] but not all [5052] studies. Emerson et al. [53] found a PSM length >3 mm to be a significant outcome predictor by univariate analysis but it fell short of significance by multivariate analysis [53]. Moreover, the length of PSM by frozen section predicted residual tumor in additionally resected neurovascular bundles by multivariate analysis [55].

The number of PSMs probably lacks predictive value. In most studies, number of PSM was not significant for outcome [29, 31, 47, 49]. In two studies, multiple PSMs as opposed to a single PSM predicted failure (HR 1.4, by multivariate analysis or ) [54, 58]. In another study, number of PSMs carried only borderline significance when ≥3 foci were positive compared to one and not significant for 2 foci compared to one [50]. Emerson et al. found that PSM number predicted failure by univariate analysis but lost most of its predictive value when adjusted for Gleason score [53].

The most common location of a PSM was in the posterior or posterolateral prostate [41, 47, 49], although one study found PSM equally common at the apex [24]. A positive apical soft tissue margin appears more consequential than a prostatic tissue margin [56]. Eastham et al. noted that the elevated risk of a posterior PSM means that “efforts to maintain adequate tissue covering including the routine excision of Denonvilliers’ fascia and a component of the fat of the anterior rectal wall should be made in all patients ” [24]. Broken down by various sites, a posterolateral PSM predicted failure in most studies [24, 48] but not all [49].

Comparing various sites of PSM, the effect of an apical PSM was not significantly different from PSM at posterolateral or other sites [29, 52, 58], and another study concluded that the PSM location seemed not to predict failure [53]. However, in two studies, a positive posterolateral margin predicted failure while the apical margin did not [24, 57]. Possibly, residual apical tumor is less viable than residual tumor in the posterolateral region.

4. Conclusion

Prostate margin status is an important determinant of patient outcome after radical prostatectomy. In a 2010 College of American Pathologists survey, this feature was missing from 1% of pathology reports [60], thus the inclusion of this and other essential features is a quality assurance concern for pathologists. Most urologic pathologists endorse the reporting of the extensiveness of positive margins, expressed as length, number, or radial extent positive for tumor cells; all these measurements have some relevance toward outcome. The presence of a positive margin confers a 2-3-fold increased hazard ratio for biochemical recurrence—modified by stage and tumor grade—and necessitates close clinical followup.

References

  1. J. I. Epstein and J. Sauvageot, “Do close but negative margins in radical prostatectomy specimens increase the risk of postoperative progression?” Journal of Urology, vol. 157, no. 1, pp. 241–243, 1997. View at: Google Scholar
  2. R. E. Emerson, M. O. Koch, J. K. Daggy, and L. Cheng, “Closest distance between tumor and resection margin in radical prostatectomy specimens: lack of prognostic significance,” American Journal of Surgical Pathology, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 225–229, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. P. H. Tan, L. Cheng, J. R. Srigley et al., “International society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 5: surgical margins,” Modern Pathology, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 48–57, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. M. A. Orvieto, N. F. Alsikafi, A. L. Shalhav et al., “Impact of surgical margin status on long-term cancer control after radical prostatectomy,” BJU International, vol. 98, no. 6, pp. 1199–1203, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. M. A. Simon, S. Kim, and M. S. Soloway, “Prostate specific antigen recurrence rates are low after radical retropubic prostatectomy and positive margins,” Journal of Urology, vol. 175, no. 1, pp. 140–144, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. A. J. Evans, P. C. Henry, T. H. Van Der Kwast et al., “Interobserver variability between expert urologic pathologists for extraprostatic extension and surgical margin status in radical prostatectomy specimens,” American Journal of Surgical Pathology, vol. 32, no. 10, pp. 1503–1512, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. S. B. Williams, A. V. D'Amico, A. C. Weinberg, X. Gu, S. R. Lipsitz, and J. C. Hu, “Population-based determinants of radical prostatectomy surgical margin positivity,” BJU International, vol. 107, pp. 1734–1740, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. R. F. Coelho, B. Rocco, M. B. Patel et al., “Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a critical review of outcomes reported by high-volume centers,” Journal of Endourology, vol. 24, no. 12, pp. 2003–2015, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. A. Sciarra, C. Cristini, M. von Heland, S. Salciccia, and V. Gentile, “Randomized trial comparing an anterograde versus a retrograde approach to open radical prostatectomy: results in terms of positive margin rate,” Journal of the Canadian Urological Association, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 192–198, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  10. S. B. Williams, M. H. Chen, A. V. D'Amico et al., “Radical retropubic prostatectomy and robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: likelihood of positive surgical margin(s),” Urology, vol. 76, pp. 1097–1101, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. R. F. Coelho, S. Chauhan, M. A. Orvieto, K. J. Palmer, B. Rocco, and V. R. Patel, “Predictive factors for positive surgical margins and their locations after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy,” European Urology, vol. 57, no. 6, pp. 1022–1029, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. K. A. Guru, A. E. Perlmutter, M. J. Sheldon et al., “Apical margins after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: does technique matter?” Journal of Endourology, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 123–127, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. G. W. Bong, C. W. M. Ritenour, A. O. Osunkoya, M. T. Smith, and T. E. Keane, “Evaluation of modern pathological criteria for positive margins in radical prostatectomy specimens and their use for predicting biochemical recurrence,” BJU International, vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 327–331, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. A. A. Hakimi, J. Blitstein, M. Feder, E. Shapiro, and R. Ghavamian, “Direct comparison of surgical and functional outcomes of robotic-assisted versus pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: single-surgeon experience,” Urology, vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 119–123, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. T. A. J. Laurila, W. Huang, and D. F. Jarrard, “Robotic-assisted laparoscopic and radical retropubic prostatectomy generate similar positive margin rates in low and intermediate risk patients,” Urologic Oncology, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 529–533, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. T. Terakawa, H. Miyake, K. Tanaka, A. Takenaka, T. A. Inoue, and M. Fujisawa, “Surgical margin status of open versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy specimens,” International Journal of Urology, vol. 15, no. 8, pp. 704–708, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. J. A. Smith Jr., R. C. Chan, S. S. Chang et al., “A comparison of the incidence and location of positive surgical margins in robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and open retropubic radical prostatectomy,” Journal of Urology, vol. 178, no. 6, pp. 2385–2390, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. E. Silva, U. Ferreira, G. D. Silva et al., “Surgical margins in radical prostatectomy: a comparison between retropubic and laparoscopic surgery,” International Urology and Nephrology, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 865–869, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. K. Touijer, K. Kuroiwa, J. A. Eastham et al., “Risk-adjusted analysis of positive surgical margins following laparoscopic and retropubic radical prostatectomy,” European Urology, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 1090–1096, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. K. A. Iczkowski, D. Hossain, K. C. Torkko et al., “Preoperative prediction of unifocal, unilateral, margin-negative, and small volume prostate cancer,” Urology, vol. 71, no. 6, pp. 1166–1171, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. A. R. Rodriguez, K. Rachna, and J. M. Pow-Sang, “Laparoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: impact of the learning curve on perioperative outcomes and margin status,” Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 6–13, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. D. S. Yee, N. Narula, M. B. Amin, D. W. Skarecky, and T. E. Ahlering, “Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: current evaluation of surgical margins in clinically low-, intermediate-, and high-risk prostate cancer,” Journal of Endourology, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 1461–1465, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. M. Liss, K. Osann, and D. Ornstein, “Positive surgical margins during robotic radical prostatectomy: a contemporary analysis of risk factors,” BJU International, vol. 102, no. 5, pp. 603–607, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. J. A. Eastham, K. Kuroiwa, M. Ohori et al., “Prognostic significance of location of positive margins in radical prostatectomy specimens,” Urology, vol. 70, no. 5, pp. 965–969, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. AK Williams, V Chalasani, CH Martínez et al., “Cumulative summation graphs are a useful tool for monitoring positive surgical margin rates in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy,” BJU International, vol. 107, no. 10, pp. 1648–1652, 2011. View at: Google Scholar
  26. S. A. Ahyai, M. Zacharias, H. Isbarn et al., “Prognostic significance of a positive surgical margin in pathologically organ-confined prostate cancer,” BJU International, vol. 106, no. 4, pp. 478–483, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. A. K. Tsao, M. D. Smaldone, T. D. Averch, and S. V. Jackman, “Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: the first 100 patients-improving patient safety and outcomes,” Journal of Endourology, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 481–484, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. T. Sæther, L. T. Sørlien, T. Viset, S. Lydersen, and A. Angelsen, “Are positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens an independent prognostic marker?” Scandinavian Journal of Urology and Nephrology, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 514–521, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. J. Pfitzenmaier, S. Pahernik, T. Tremmel, A. Haferkamp, S. Buse, and M. Hohenfellner, “Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: do they have an impact on biochemical or clinical progression?” BJU International, vol. 102, no. 10, pp. 1413–1418, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. G. P. Swanson, M. Riggs, and M. Hermans, “Pathologic findings at radical prostatectomy: risk factors for failure and death,” Urologic Oncology, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 110–114, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  31. S. J. Kausik, M. L. Blute, T. J. Sebo et al., “Prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in patients with extraprostatic carcinoma after radical prostatectomy,” Cancer, vol. 95, no. 6, pp. 1215–1219, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. M. Menon, M. Bhandari, N. Gupta et al., “Biochemical recurrence following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: analysis of 1384 patients with a median 5-year follow-up,” European Urology, vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 838–846, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  33. J. A. Eastham, M. W. Kattan, E. Riedel et al., “Variations among individual surgeons in the rate of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens,” Journal of Urology, vol. 170, no. 6, pp. 2292–2295, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  34. G. Ploussard, M. A. Agamy, and O. Alenda, “Impact of positive surgical margins on prostate-specific antigen failure after radical prostatectomy in adjuvant treatment-naïve patients,” BJU International, vol. 107, pp. 1748–1754, 2011. View at: Google Scholar
  35. L. Budäus, H. Isbarn, C. Eichelberg et al., “Biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: multiplicative interaction between surgical margin status and pathological stage,” Journal of Urology, vol. 184, no. 4, pp. 1341–1346, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. F. Brimo, A. W. Partin, and J. I. Epstein, “Tumor grade at margins of resection in radical prostatectomy specimens is an independent predictor of prognosis,” Urology, vol. 76, no. 5, pp. 1206–1209, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. C. Y. Hsu, M. F. Wildhagen, H. Van Poppel, and C. H. Bangma, “Prognostic factors for and outcome of locally advanced prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy,” BJU International, vol. 105, no. 11, pp. 1536–1540, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  38. V. Ficarra, G. Novara, S. Secco et al., “Predictors of positive surgical margins after laparoscopic robot assisted radical prostatectomy,” Journal of Urology, vol. 182, no. 6, pp. 2682–2688, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  39. K. W. Kwak, H. M. Lee, and H. Y. Choi, “Impact of capsular incision on biochemical recurrence after radical perineal prostatectomy,” Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 28–33, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  40. K. Hashimoto, N. Masumori, F. Takei et al., “Prognostic value of surgical margin status for biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy,” Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 31–35, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  41. A. Y. Chuang, M. E. Nielsen, D. J. Hernandez, P. C. Walsh, and J. I. Epstein, “The significance of positive surgical margin in areas of capsular incision in otherwise organ confined disease at radical prostatectomy,” Journal of Urology, vol. 178, no. 4, pp. 1306–1310, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  42. P. I. Karakiewicz, J. A. Eastham, M. Graefen et al., “Prognostic impact of positive surgical margins in surgically treated prostate cancer: multi-institutional assessment of 5831 patients,” Urology, vol. 66, no. 6, pp. 1245–1250, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  43. P. Swindle, J. A. Eastham, M. Ohori et al., “Do margins matter? The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens,” Journal of Urology, vol. 174, no. 3, pp. 903–907, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  44. S. Alkhateeb, S. Alibhai, N. Fleshner et al., “Impact of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy differs by disease risk group,” Journal of Urology, vol. 183, no. 1, pp. 145–150, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  45. J. L. Wright, B. L. Dalkin, L. D. True et al., “Positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy predict prostate cancer specific mortality,” Journal of Urology, vol. 183, no. 6, pp. 2213–2218, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  46. A. J. Stephenson, D. P. Wood, M. W. Kattan et al., “Location, extent and number of positive surgical margins do not improve accuracy of predicting prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy,” Journal of Urology, vol. 182, no. 4, pp. 1357–1363, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  47. I. M. Van Oort, H. M. Bruins, L. A. L. M. Kiemeney, B. C. Knipscheer, J. A. Witjes, and C. A. Hulsbergen-Van De Kaa, “The length of positive surgical margins correlates with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy,” Histopathology, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 464–471, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  48. A. M. Lake, C. He, and D. P. Wood Jr., “Focal positive surgical margins decrease disease-free survival after radical prostatectomy even in organ-confined disease,” Urology, vol. 76, pp. 1212–1216, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  49. S. Shikanov, J. Song, C. Royce et al., “Length of positive surgical margin after radical prostatectomy as a predictor of biochemical recurrence,” Journal of Urology, vol. 182, no. 1, pp. 139–144, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  50. M. A. Goetzl, R. Krebill, T. L. Griebling, and J. B. Thrasher, “Predictors of positive surgical margins after radical perineal prostatectomy,” The Canadian Journal of Urology, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 4553–4557, 2009. View at: Google Scholar
  51. R. A. Marks, M. O. Koch, A. Lopez-Beltran, R. Montironi, B. E. Juliar, and L. Cheng, “The relationship between the extent of surgical margin positivity and prostate specific antigen recurrence in radical prostatectomy specimens,” Human Pathology, vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 1207–1211, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  52. A. N. Vis, F. H. Schröder, and T. H. van der Kwast, “The actual value of the surgical margin status as a predictor of disease progression in men with early prostate cancer,” European Urology, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 258–265, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  53. R. E. Emerson, M. O. Koch, T. D. Jones, J. K. Daggy, B. E. Juliar, and L. Cheng, “The influence of extent of surgical margin positivity on prostate specific antigen recurrence,” Journal of Clinical Pathology, vol. 58, no. 10, pp. 1028–1032, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  54. M. Sofer, K. L. Hamilton-Nelson, F. Civantos, and M. S. Soloway, “Positive surgical margins after radical retropubic prostatectomy: the influence of site and number on progression,” Journal of Urology, vol. 167, no. 6, pp. 2453–2456, 2002. View at: Google Scholar
  55. G. Fromont, X. Cathelineau, F. Rozet, D. Prapotnich, P. Validire, and G. Vallancien, “Impact of margin size on the incidence of local residual tumor after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy,” Journal of Urology, vol. 172, no. 5, pp. 1845–1847, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  56. G. Godoy, B. U. Tareen, and H. Lepor, “Is the apical soft tissue margin a better predictor of biochemical recurrence than the surgical specimen?” Urologic Oncology. In press. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  57. J. A. Pettus, C. J. Weight, C. J. Thompson, R. G. Middleton, and R. A. Stephenson, “Biochemical failure in men following radical retropubic prostatectomy: impact of surgical margin status and location,” Journal of Urology, vol. 172, no. 1, pp. 129–132, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  58. A. Y. Chuang and J. I. Epstein, “Positive surgical margins in areas of capsular incision in otherwise organ-confined disease at radical prostatectomy: histologic features and pitfalls,” American Journal of Surgical Pathology, vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 1201–1206, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  59. D. Cao, A. S. Kibel, F. Gao, Y. Tao, and P. A. Humphrey, “The gleason score of tumor at the margin in radical prostatectomy is predictive of biochemical recurrence,” American Journal of Surgical Pathology, vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 994–1001, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  60. M. O. Idowu, L. G. Bekeris, S. Raab, S. G. Ruby, and R. E. Nakhleh, “Adequacy of surgical pathology reporting of cancer: a college of American pathologists q-probes study of 86 institutions,” Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, vol. 134, no. 7, pp. 969–974, 2010. View at: Google Scholar

Copyright © 2011 Kenneth A. Iczkowski and M. Scott Lucia. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


More related articles

 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder
Views7217
Downloads754
Citations

Related articles