Objective: To establish predictors of clinical failure in patients operated with radical prostatectomy (RP) for clinically localized prostate cancer (PC) by analyzing the pathological characteristics of positive surgical margins (PSM). Patients and Methods: The RP specimens of 303 consecutive patients operated with RP between 1985 and 2009 were reviewed. PSM were analyzed with regard to the PSM length, location and multifocality and the Gleason score (GS) at the PSM. Results: Of the 163 patients with PSM, 79 (48%) progressed to clinical failure compared to 30 (22%) in the negative-margin-status group. In univariate analysis, a GS at the PSM ≥4 + 3 = 7 (p = 0. 013) and a PSM length >3.0 mm (p < 0.005) were significantly associated with higher clinical failure rates compared to a GS at the PSM ≤3 + 4 = 7 and ≤3.0 mm in extent, respectively. A linear extent of the PSM ≤3.0 mm appeared to have the same clinical outcome as in the group with a negative margin status. In multivariate analysis, a PSM length >3.0 mm remained an independent predictor of clinical failure. Conclusions: PSM length is an independent predictor of clinical failure following RP.

Keywords:
Prostate cancer, Radical prostatectomy, Positive margin, Clinical failure
1.
Kreftregisteret: Cancer in Norway 2010. Oslo, Kreftregisteret, 2010.
2.
Wright JL, Dalkin BL, True LD, Ellis WJ, Stanford JL, Lange PH, Lin DW: Positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy predict prostate cancer specific mortality. J Urol 2010;183:2213-2218.
3.
Swindle P, Eastham JA, Ohori M, Kattan MW, Wheeler T, Maru N, Slawin K, Scardino PT: Do margins matter? The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 2005;174:903-907.
4.
Vis AN, Schröder FH, van der Kwast TH: The actual value of the surgical margin status as a predictor of disease progression in men with early prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2006;50:258-265.
5.
Stephenson AJ, Wood DP, Kattan MW, Klein EA, Scardino PT, Eastham JA, Carvert BS: 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.
6.
Boorjian SA, Karnes RJ, Crispen PL, Carlson RE, Rangel LJ, Bergstrahl EJ, Blute ML: The impact of positive surgical margins on mortality following radical prostatectomy during the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol 2010;183:1003-1009.
7.
Yossepowitch O, Bjartell A, Eastham JA, Graefen M, Guillonneau BD, Karakiewicz PI, Montironi R, Montorsi F: Positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy: outlining the problem and its long-term consequences. Eur Urol 2009;55:87-99.
8.
Shikanov S, Song J, Royce C, Al-Ahmadie H, Zorn K, Steinberg G, Zagaja G, Shalhav A, Eggener S: Length of positive surgical margin after radical prostatectomy as a predictor of biochemical recurrence. J Urol 2009;182:139-144.
9.
Tan PH, Cheng L, Srigley JR, 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;24:48-57.
10.
Ochiai A, Sotelo T, Troncosso P, Bhadkamkar V, Babaian RJ: Natural history of biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy based on length of a positive margin. Urology 2008;71:308-312.
11.
Udo K, Cronin AM, Carlino LJ, Savage CJ, Maschino AC, Al-Ahmadie H, Gopalan A, Tickoo SK, Scardino PT, Eastham JA, Reuter VE, Fine SW: Prognostic impact of subclassification of radical prostatectomy positive margins by linear extent and Gleason grade. J Urol 2013;189:1302-1307.
12.
Ploumidis A, Prasanna S, Haendler L, Nyberg T, Olsson M, Carlsson S, Steineck G, Wiklund P: Prognostic Significance of Length of Positive Margins on Biochemical Recurrence after Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy in a Single Center with Minimum Follow-Up of Five Years (abstract 1000). Linthicum, American Urological Association, 2013.
13.
Cheng L, Montironi R, Bostwick DG, Lopez-Beltran A, Berney DM: Staging of prostate cancer. Histopathology 2012;60:87-117.
14.
Trapasso JG, de Kernion JB, Smith RB, Dorey F: The incidence and significance of detectable levels of serum prostate specific antigen after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1994;152:1824-1825.
15.
Epstein JL, Allsbrook WC, Amin MB, Egevad LL; ISUP Grading Committee: The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005;29:1228-1242.
16.
Epstein JL, Pizov G, Walsh PC: Correlation of pathologic findings with progression after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Cancer 1993;71:3582-3593.
17.
Blute ML, Bergstrahl EJ, Jocca A, et al: Use of Gleason score, prostate specific antigen, seminal vesicle and margin status to predict biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2001;165:119-123.
18.
Sæther T, Sørlien LT, Viset T, Lydersen S, Angelsen A: Are positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens an independent prognostic marker? Scand J Urol Nephrol 2008;42:514-521.
19.
Freedland SJ, Humphreys EB, Mangold LA, Eisenberger M, Partin AW: Time to prostate specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy and risk of prostate cancer specific mortality. J Urol 2006;176:1404-1408.
20.
Servoll E, Sæter T, Vlatkovic L, Lund T, Nesland J, Waaler G, Axcrona K, Beisland HO: Impact of a tertiary Gleason pattern 4 or 5 on clinical failure and mortality after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 2011;109:1489-1494.
21.
Ploussard G, Agamy MA, Alenda O, Allory Y, Mouracade P, Vordos D, Hoznek A, Abbou C-C, de la Taille A, Salomon L: Impact of positive surgical margins on prostate-specific antigen failure after radical prostatectomy in adjuvant treatment-naïve patients. BJU Int 2010;107:1748-1754.
22.
Cao D, Humphrey PA, Gao F, Tao Y, Kibel AS: Ability of linear length of positive margin in radical prostatectomy specimens to predict biochemical recurrence. Urol 2011;77:1409-1415.
23.
Eastham JA, Kuroiwa K, Ohori M, Serio AM, Gorbonos A, Maru N, Vickers AJ, Slawin AM, Wheeler TM, Reuter VE, Scardino PT: Prognostic significance of location of positive margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urol 2007;70:965-969.
24.
Blute ML, Bostwick DG, Bergstrahl EJ, et al: Anatomic site-specific positive margins in organ-confined prostate cancer and its impact on outcome after radical prostatectomy. Urol 1997;50:733-739.
25.
Aydin H, Tsuzuki T, Hernandez D, Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JL: Positive proximal (bladder neck) margin at radical prostatectomy confers greater risk of biochemical progression. Urol 2004;64:551-555.
26.
Cao D, Kibel AS, Gao F, Tao Y, Humphrey PA: The Gleason score of tumor at the margin in radical prostatectomy is predictive of biochemical recurrence. Am J Surg Pathol 2010;34:994-1001.
27.
Savdie R, Horvath LG, Benito RP, Rasiah KK, Haynes A-M, Chatfield M, Stricker PD, Turner JJ, Delprado W, Henshall SM, Sutherland RL, Kench JG: High Gleason grade carcinoma at a positive surgical margin predicts biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy and may guide adjuvant radiotherapy. BJU Int 2011;109:1794-1800.
28.
Brimo F, Partin AW, Epstein JI: Tumor grade at margins of resection in radical prostatectomy specimens is an independent predictor of prognosis. Urol 2010;76:1206-1211.
29.
Orvieto MA, Alsikafi NF, Shalhav AL, Laven BA, Steinberg GD, Zagaja GP, Brendler CB: Impact of surgical margin status on long-term cancer control after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2006;98:1199-1203.
© 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel
2014
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.