Background: The prediction of positive surgical margins (SM) after radical prostatectomy (RP) is important for planning the surgical modality and adjuvant therapy in patients with prostate cancer (PCa). Objectives: To investigate factors affecting SM positivity in patients diagnosed with PCa who underwent RP using the PCa database of the Urooncology Association (Turkey). Methods: Patients who underwent RP due to clinically T1c–T3 PCa and who had detailed SM data for the RP specimen were included in the study. Pathological data of 12 core transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsies and RP were evaluated. Patients were divided into 2 groups (SM positive and SM negative) according to SM status after RP. Data were compared between the groups. Factors affecting SM positivity, the number of positive SM sites, and the location of positive SM were separately evaluated with regression models. Results: A total of 2,643 patients from 6 different centers (median age: 63 years) with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of 7.3 ng/mL were investigated in the study. BMI, PSA, biopsy Gleason score (GS), and perineural invasion (PNI) were found to be independent predictive factors for SM positivity and the number of positive SM locations, respectively (p < 0.05). According to the positive SM location, PSA was found to be associated with positive SM in apex, anterior prostate, and bladder neck locations. Also, according to posterolateral SM status, PNI and nerve-sparing RP (nsRP) rates were 21.3 and 44% for patients with negative posterolateral SM, and rates were 35.4 and 50.6% for patients with positive posterolateral SM, respectively (p < 0.05). In patients who underwent nsRP, positive SM was present in 22.2% of patients who did not have PNI on prostate biopsy, whereas positive SM was present in 40.6% of patients with PNI (p < 0.001). Similarly, 10.9% of patients without PNI had positive posterolateral SM, whereas 17.3% of patients with PNI had positive posterolateral SM (p = 0.031). Conclusions: BMI, PSA, biopsy GS, and biopsy PNI positivity were found to be predictive factors affecting SM positivity. The most important factors affecting posterolateral positive SM were biopsy PNI and nsRP, indicating that the nsRP approach may cause positive SM in the posterolateral margin of the prostate (neurovascular bundle location) in patients with positive PNI on biopsy.

1.
Williams
S
,
Chiong
E
,
Lojanapiwat
B
,
Umbas
R
,
Akaza
H
;
Asian Oncology Summit 2013
.
Management of prostate cancer in Asia: resource-stratified guidelines from the Asian Oncology Summit 2013
.
Lancet Oncol
.
2013
Nov
;
14
(
12
):
e524
34
.
[PubMed]
1470-2045
2.
Siegel
RL
,
Miller
KD
,
Jemal
A
.
Cancer statistics, 2019
.
CA Cancer J Clin
.
2019
Jan
;
69
(
1
):
7
34
.
[PubMed]
0007-9235
3.
Punnen
S
,
Cooperberg
MR
.
The epidemiology of high-risk prostate cancer
.
Curr Opin Urol
.
2013
Jul
;
23
(
4
):
331
6
.
[PubMed]
0963-0643
4.
Gnanapragasam
VJ
,
Mason
MD
,
Shaw
GL
,
Neal
DE
.
The role of surgery in high-risk localised prostate cancer
.
BJU Int
.
2012
Mar
;
109
(
5
):
648
58
.
[PubMed]
1464-4096
5.
Swanson
GP
,
Basler
JW
.
Prognostic factors for failure after prostatectomy
.
J Cancer
.
2010
Dec
;
2
:
1
19
.
[PubMed]
0378-2360
6.
Bloom
KD
,
Richie
JP
,
Schultz
D
,
Renshaw
A
,
Saegaert
T
,
D’amico
AV
.
Invasion of seminal vesicles by adenocarcinoma of the prostate: PSA outcome determined by preoperative and postoperative factors
.
Urology
.
2004
Feb
;
63
(
2
):
333
6
.
[PubMed]
0090-4295
7.
Samaratunga
H
,
Montironi
R
,
True
L
,
Epstein
JI
,
Griffiths
DF
,
Humphrey
PA
, et al.;
ISUP Prostate Cancer Group
.
International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 1: specimen handling
.
Mod Pathol
.
2011
Jan
;
24
(
1
):
6
15
.
[PubMed]
0893-3952
8.
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
Feb
;
65
(
2
):
303
13
.
[PubMed]
0302-2838
9.
Hsu
M
,
Chang
SL
,
Ferrari
M
,
Nolley
R
,
Presti
JC
 Jr
,
Brooks
JD
.
Length of site-specific positive surgical margins as a risk factor for biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy
.
Int J Urol
.
2011
Apr
;
18
(
4
):
272
9
.
[PubMed]
0919-8172
10.
Alkhateeb
S
,
Alibhai
S
,
Fleshner
N
,
Finelli
A
,
Jewett
M
,
Zlotta
A
, et al.
Impact of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy differs by disease risk group
.
J Urol
.
2010
Jan
;
183
(
1
):
145
50
.
[PubMed]
0022-5347
11.
Pettenati
C
,
Neuzillet
Y
,
Radulescu
C
,
Hervé
JM
,
Molinié
V
,
Lebret
T
.
Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: what should we care about?
World J Urol
.
2015
Dec
;
33
(
12
):
1973
8
.
[PubMed]
0724-4983
12.
Stephenson
AJ
,
Wood
DP
,
Kattan
MW
,
Klein
EA
,
Scardino
PT
,
Eastham
JA
, 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
Oct
;
182
(
4
):
1357
63
.
[PubMed]
0022-5347
13.
Yossepowitch
O
,
Sircar
K
,
Scardino
PT
,
Ohori
M
,
Kattan
MW
,
Wheeler
TM
, et al.
Bladder neck involvement in pathological stage pT4 radical prostatectomy specimens is not an independent prognostic factor
.
J Urol
.
2002
Nov
;
168
(
5
):
2011
5
.
[PubMed]
0022-5347
14.
Yossepowitch
O
,
Engelstein
D
,
Konichezky
M
,
Sella
A
,
Livne
PM
,
Baniel
J
.
Bladder neck involvement at radical prostatectomy: positive margins or advanced T4 disease?
Urology
.
2000
Sep
;
56
(
3
):
448
52
.
[PubMed]
0090-4295
15.
Fontenot
PA
,
Mansour
AM
.
Reporting positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: time for standardization
.
BJU Int
.
2013
Jun
;
111
(
8
):
E290
9
.
[PubMed]
1464-4096
16.
Brimo
F
,
Partin
AW
,
Epstein
JI
.
Tumor grade at margins of resection in radical prostatectomy specimens is an independent predictor of prognosis
.
Urology
.
2010
Nov
;
76
(
5
):
1206
9
.
[PubMed]
0090-4295
17.
van Oort
IM
,
Bruins
HM
,
Kiemeney
LA
,
Knipscheer
BC
,
Witjes
JA
,
Hulsbergen-van de Kaa
CA
.
The length of positive surgical margins correlates with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy
.
Histopathology
.
2010
Mar
;
56
(
4
):
464
71
.
[PubMed]
0309-0167
18.
Emerson
RE
,
Koch
MO
,
Jones
TD
,
Daggy
JK
,
Juliar
BE
,
Cheng
L
.
The influence of extent of surgical margin positivity on prostate specific antigen recurrence
.
J Clin Pathol
.
2005
Oct
;
58
(
10
):
1028
32
.
[PubMed]
0021-9746
19.
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
Jul
;
62
(
1
):
1
15
.
[PubMed]
0302-2838
20.
Touijer
K
,
Eastham
JA
,
Secin
FP
,
Romero Otero
J
,
Serio
A
,
Stasi
J
, et al.
Comprehensive prospective comparative analysis of outcomes between open and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy conducted in 2003 to 2005
.
J Urol
.
2008
May
;
179
(
5
):
1811
7
.
[PubMed]
0022-5347
21.
Wiltz
AL
,
Shikanov
S
,
Eggener
SE
,
Katz
MH
,
Thong
AE
,
Steinberg
GD
, et al.
Robotic radical prostatectomy in overweight and obese patients: oncological and validated-functional outcomes
.
Urology
.
2009
Feb
;
73
(
2
):
316
22
.
[PubMed]
0090-4295
22.
Patel
VR
,
Coelho
RF
,
Rocco
B
,
Orvieto
M
,
Sivaraman
A
,
Palmer
KJ
, et al.
Positive surgical margins after robotic assisted radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional study
.
J Urol
.
2011
Aug
;
186
(
2
):
511
6
.
[PubMed]
0022-5347
23.
Lepor
H
,
Tareen
B
.
Neurovascular bundle resection: does it improve the margins?
Urol Oncol
.
2010
Mar-Apr
;
28
(
2
):
215
8
.
[PubMed]
1078-1439
24.
Sofer
M
,
Hamilton-Nelson
KL
,
Schlesselman
JJ
,
Soloway
MS
.
Risk of positive margins and biochemical recurrence in relation to nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy
.
J Clin Oncol
.
2002
Apr
;
20
(
7
):
1853
8
.
[PubMed]
0732-183X
25.
Tsuzuki
T
,
Hernandez
DJ
,
Aydin
H
,
Trock
B
,
Walsh
PC
,
Epstein
JI
.
Prediction of extraprostatic extension in the neurovascular bundle based on prostate needle biopsy pathology, serum prostate specific antigen and digital rectal examination
.
J Urol
.
2005
Feb
;
173
(
2
):
450
3
.
[PubMed]
0022-5347
26.
Shah
O
,
Robbins
DA
,
Melamed
J
,
Lepor
H
.
The New York University nerve sparing algorithm decreases the rate of positive surgical margins following radical retropubic prostatectomy
.
J Urol
.
2003
Jun
;
169
(
6
):
2147
52
.
[PubMed]
0022-5347
27.
Godoy
G
,
Tareen
BU
,
Lepor
H
.
Site of positive surgical margins influences biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy
.
BJU Int
.
2009
Dec
;
104
(
11
):
1610
4
.
[PubMed]
1464-4096
28.
Taneja
SS
,
Penson
DF
,
Epelbaum
A
,
Handler
T
,
Lepor
H
.
Does site specific labeling of sextant biopsy cores predict the site of extracapsular extension in radical prostatectomy surgical specimen
.
J Urol
.
1999
Oct
;
162
(
4
):
1352
7
.
[PubMed]
0022-5347
29.
Cheng
L
,
Slezak
J
,
Bergstralh
EJ
,
Myers
RP
,
Zincke
H
,
Bostwick
DG
.
Preoperative prediction of surgical margin status in patients with prostate cancer treated by radical prostatectomy
.
J Clin Oncol
.
2000
Aug
;
18
(
15
):
2862
8
.
[PubMed]
0732-183X
30.
Ohori
M
,
Kattan
MW
,
Koh
H
,
Maru
N
,
Slawin
KM
,
Shariat
S
, et al.
Predicting the presence and side of extracapsular extension: a nomogram for staging prostate cancer
.
J Urol
.
2004
May
;
171
(
5
):
1844
9
.
[PubMed]
0022-5347
31.
Lepor
H
,
Kaci
L
.
Contemporary evaluation of operative parameters and complications related to open radical retropubic prostatectomy
.
Urology
.
2003
Oct
;
62
(
4
):
702
6
.
[PubMed]
0090-4295
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.