Introduction: Additional insight in the occurrence and number of positive surgical margins (PSM) and the potential consequences is needed, since earlier studies show divergent results. This study aims at investigating the effect of the presence and number of PSM on oncological outcomes. Methods: Retrospective population-based cohort study including 648 consecutive prostate cancer patients who underwent RP in the Southern Netherlands in 2006-2008. The effect of PSM on risk of treatment failure, defined by either biochemical recurrence or necessity of any additional therapy (Cox regression), was evaluated. Results: PSM were observed in 39%; 11% had multiple PSM. Treatment failure was observed in 26% of all patients. Multivariably, the presence (hazard ratio 2.5) and number of PSM (hazard ratios: single 2.3; multiple 3.1) were independently associated with higher treatment failure rates, unlike location of PSM. Conclusions: Treatment failure rates are high among patients with PSM, especially in those with multiple PSM. This needs to be taken into account when decisions are made on the applicability of the adjuvant and salvage therapy.

Keywords:
Biochemical recurrence, Treatment failure, Radical prostatectomy, Positive surgical margins, Prognostic factors
1.
D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schultz D, Schnall M, Tomaszewski JE, et al: A multivariate analysis of clinical and pathological factors that predict for prostate specific antigen failure after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 1995;154:131-138.
2.
Han M, Partin AW, Zahurak M, Piantadosi S, Epstein JI, Walsh PC: Biochemical (prostate specific antigen) recurrence probability following radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2003;169:517-523.
3.
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;65:303-313.
4.
Swindle P, Eastham JA, Ohori M, Kattan MW, Wheeler T, Maru N, et al: Do margins matter? The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 2008;179(5 suppl):S47-S51.
5.
Meeks JJ, Eastham JA: Radical prostatectomy: positive surgical margins matter. Urol Oncol 2013;31:974-979.
6.
Oncoline: Richtlijn Prostaatcarcinoom 2.0. www.oncoline.nl. Integraal Kankercentrum Nederland, 2014.
7.
Eastham JA, Kattan MW, Riedel E, Begg CB, Wheeler TM, Gerigk C, et al: Variations among individual surgeons in the rate of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 2003;170:2292-2295.
8.
Karakiewicz PI, Eastham JA, Graefen M, Cagiannos I, Stricker PD, Klein E, et al: Prognostic impact of positive surgical margins in surgically treated prostate cancer: multi-institutional assessment of 5831 patients. Urology 2005;66:1245-1250.
9.
Yamamoto S, Yonese J, Kawakami S, Ohkubo Y, Tatokoro M, Komai Y, et al: Preoperative serum testosterone level as an independent predictor of treatment failure following radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2007;52:696-701.
10.
Namura K, Onuki T, Kouno M, Ishigaki H, Kato Y, Tajiri T, et al: [Retrospective analysis of predicting biochemical recurrence after initial radical prostatectomy]. Hinyokika Kiyo 2013;59:485-489.
11.
Cary KC, Paciorek A, Fuldeore MJ, Carroll PR, Cooperberg MR: Temporal trends and predictors of salvage cancer treatment after failure following radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy: an analysis from the CaPSURE registry. Cancer 2014;120:507-512.
12.
Eastham JA, Kuroiwa K, Ohori M, Serio AM, Gorbonos A, Maru N, et al: Prognostic significance of location of positive margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology 2007;70:965-969.
13.
Graefen M, Noldus J, Pichlmeier U, Haese A, Hammerer P, Fernandez S, et al: Early prostate-specific antigen relapse after radical retropubic prostatectomy: prediction on the basis of preoperative and postoperative tumor characteristics. Eur Urol 1999;36:21-30.
14.
Simon MA, Kim S, Soloway MS: Prostate specific antigen recurrence rates are low after radical retropubic prostatectomy and positive margins. J Urol 2006;175:140-144; discussion 144-145.
15.
Marks RA, Koch MO, Lopez-Beltran A, Montironi R, Juliar BE, Cheng L: The relationship between the extent of surgical margin positivity and prostate specific antigen recurrence in radical prostatectomy specimens. Hum Pathol 2007;38:1207-1211.
16.
Sofer M, Hamilton-Nelson KL, Civantos F, Soloway MS: Positive surgical margins after radical retropubic prostatectomy: the influence of site and number on progression. J Urol 2002;167:2453-2456.
17.
Pettus JA, Weight CJ, Thompson CJ, Middleton RG, Stephenson RA: Biochemical failure in men following radical retropubic prostatectomy: impact of surgical margin status and location. J Urol 2004;172:129-132.
18.
Richters A, Derks J, Husson O, Van Onna IE, Fossion LM, Kil PJ, et al: Effect of surgical margin status after radical prostatectomy on health-related quality of life and illness perception in patients with prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 2015;33:16.e9-e15.
19.
Preston MA, Breau RH, Lantz AG, Morash C, Gerridzen RG, Doucette S, et al: The association between nerve sparing and a positive surgical margin during radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol 2015;33:18.e1-e6.
20.
Bolla M, van Poppel H, Tombal B, Vekemans K, Da Pozzo L, de Reijke TM, et al: Postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer: long-term results of a randomised controlled trial (EORTC trial 22911). Lancet 2012;380:2018-2027.
© 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel
2015
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.