Prognostic relevance of number and bilaterality of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy

19Citations
Citations of this article
10Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Purpose: Positive surgical margin (PSM) status following radical prostatectomy (RP) is a well-established prognostic factor. The aim of the present study is to evaluate whether number of PSMs or bilaterality of PSMs might have prognostic significance for biochemical recurrence (BCR) in the population with a PSM status following RP. Methods: We evaluated 1,395 RP pathology reports from our center between 1980 and 2006. All patients who underwent (neo)-adjuvant therapy were excluded, leaving a cohort of 1,009 patients, with 249 (24. 7%) subjects having a PSM at RP of whom 29. 4% had multiple PSMs (≥ 2 sites), while 13. 6% had bilateral PSMs. Median follow-up was 40 months (range 0-258 months). We used BCR-free survival as the primary study outcome. BCR was defined as any rise in PSA above or equal to 0. 2 ng/ml. Results: Of patients with a PSM status, 41% (95% CI: 33-49%) developed BCR within 5 years, compared to 12% (95% CI: 9-15%) in the population without a PSM. Multivariable analysis identified PSA at diagnosis and RP Gleason score as independent predictive factors for BCR. Increasing number and/or bilaterality of PSM did not lead to significant higher rates of BCR. Conclusion: In patients with a PSM, the number of positive sites or bilaterality of PSM status does not add prognostic information for risk of BCR. Survival curve slopes were different for patients with bilateral PSM, showing a significant tendency to progress to BCR earlier during follow-up than patients with unilateral PSM. © 2011 The Author(s).

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Somford, D. M., van Oort, I. M., Cosyns, J. P., Witjes, J. A., Kiemeney, L. A. L. M., & Tombal, B. (2012). Prognostic relevance of number and bilaterality of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy. World Journal of Urology, 30(1), 105–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-010-0641-4

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free