Significance and Management of Positive Surgical Margins at the Time of Radical Prostatectomy

Overview

Journal Indian J Urol

Specialty Urology

Date 2014 Nov 8

PMID 25378825

Citations 22

Authors

Jonathan L Silberstein

James A Eastham

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Positive surgical margins (PSM) at the time of radical prostatectomy (RP) result in an increased risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR) and secondary treatment. We review current literature with a focus on stratifying the characteristics of the PSM that may define its significance, the impact of modern imaging and surgical approaches in avoidance of PSM, and management strategies when PSM do occur. We performed a review of the available literature to identify factors associated with PSM and their management. PSM have been repeatedly demonstrated to be associated with an increased risk of BCR following RP. The specific characteristics (size, number, location, Gleason score at the margin) of the PSM may influence the risk of recurrence. Novel imaging and surgical approaches are being investigated and may allow for reductions of PSM in the future. The use of adjuvant treatment for a PSM remains controversial and should be decided on an individual basis after a discussion about the risks and benefits. The goal of RP is complete resection of the tumor. PSM are associated with increased risk of BCR and secondary treatments. Of the risk factors associated with BCR after RP, a PSM is directly influenced by surgical technique.

Citing Articles

Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy by the Hugo Robotic-Assisted Surgery (RAS) System and the da Vinci System: A Comparison between the Two Platforms.

Ou H, Marian L, Li C, Juan Y, Tung M, Shih H Cancers (Basel). 2024; 16(6).

PMID: 38539541 PMC: 10969029. DOI: 10.3390/cancers16061207.

Tumor-associated macrophages and PD-L1 in prostate cancer: a possible key to unlocking immunotherapy efficacy.

Wang J, Wu W, Yuan T, Wang L, Zang L, Liu Q Aging (Albany NY). 2024; 16(1):445-465.

PMID: 38189834 PMC: 10817380. DOI: 10.18632/aging.205378.

MYB exhibits racially disparate expression, clinicopathologic association, and predictive potential for biochemical recurrence in prostate cancer.

Khan M, Acharya S, Anand S, Sameeta F, Pramanik P, Keel C iScience. 2023; 26(12):108487.

PMID: 38089573 PMC: 10711386. DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2023.108487.

Radical prostatectomies for treatment of prostate cancer: trends in a ten-year period in public health services in the city of São Paulo, Brazil.

Takemura L, Barbosa A, Amaral B, Bosco A, Lourenco D, Apezzato M Einstein (Sao Paulo). 2022; 20:eAO0049.

PMID: 36477523 PMC: 9744429. DOI: 10.31744/einstein_journal/2022AO0049.

Denonvilliers' Fascia: The Prostate Border to the Outside World.

Tzelves L, Protogerou V, Varkarakis I Cancers (Basel). 2022; 14(3).

PMID: 35158956 PMC: 8833507. DOI: 10.3390/cancers14030688.

References

Cao D, Humphrey P, Gao F, Tao Y, Kibel A . Ability of linear length of positive margin in radical prostatectomy specimens to predict biochemical recurrence. Urology. 2011; 77(6):1409-14. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2010.10.059. View

Hu J, Gu X, Lipsitz S, Barry M, DAmico A, Weinberg A . Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. JAMA. 2009; 302(14):1557-64. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2009.1451. View

Shah S, Fleet T, Williams V, Smith A, Skipper B, Wiggins C . SEER coding standards result in underestimation of positive surgical margin incidence at radical prostatectomy: results of a systematic audit. J Urol. 2011; 186(3):855-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.04.079. View

Blute M, Bostwick D, Bergstralh E, Slezak J, Martin S, Amling C . Anatomic site-specific positive margins in organ-confined prostate cancer and its impact on outcome after radical prostatectomy. Urology. 1997; 50(5):733-9. DOI: 10.1016/S0090-4295(97)00450-0. View

Preston M, Carriere M, Raju G, Morash C, Doucette S, Gerridzen R . The prognostic significance of capsular incision into tumor during radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2011; 59(4):613-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.12.005. View

Silberstein J, Su D, Glickman L, Kent M, Keren-Paz G, Vickers A . A case-mix-adjusted comparison of early oncological outcomes of open and robotic prostatectomy performed by experienced high volume surgeons. BJU Int. 2013; 111(2):206-12. PMC: 3759974. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11638.x. View

Wiegel T, Bottke D, Steiner U, Siegmann A, Golz R, Storkel S . Phase III postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy compared with radical prostatectomy alone in pT3 prostate cancer with postoperative undetectable prostate-specific antigen: ARO 96-02/AUO AP 09/95. J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27(18):2924-30. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2008.18.9563. View

van der Poel H, Buckle T, Brouwer O, Olmos R, van Leeuwen F . Intraoperative laparoscopic fluorescence guidance to the sentinel lymph node in prostate cancer patients: clinical proof of concept of an integrated functional imaging approach using a multimodal tracer. Eur Urol. 2011; 60(4):826-33. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.03.024. View

Karakiewicz P, Eastham J, Graefen M, Cagiannos I, Stricker P, Klein E . Prognostic impact of positive surgical margins in surgically treated prostate cancer: multi-institutional assessment of 5831 patients. Urology. 2005; 66(6):1245-50. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2005.06.108. View

10.

Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W, Cestari A, Galfano A, Graefen M . Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol. 2009; 55(5):1037-63. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.01.036. View

11.

Buschemeyer 3rd W, Hamilton R, Aronson W, Presti Jr J, Terris M, Kane C . Is a positive bladder neck margin truly a T4 lesion in the prostate specific antigen era? Results from the SEARCH Database. J Urol. 2007; 179(1):124-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.08.130. View

12.

van der Kwast T, Collette L, van Poppel H, van Cangh P, Vekemans K, DaPozzo L . Impact of pathology review of stage and margin status of radical prostatectomy specimens (EORTC trial 22911). Virchows Arch. 2006; 449(4):428-34. DOI: 10.1007/s00428-006-0254-x. View

13.

Sofer M, Hamilton-Nelson K, Civantos F, Soloway M . Positive surgical margins after radical retropubic prostatectomy: the influence of site and number on progression. J Urol. 2002; 167(6):2453-6. View

14.

Voges G, McNeal J, Redwine E, Freiha F, Stamey T . Morphologic analysis of surgical margins with positive findings in prostatectomy for adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Cancer. 1992; 69(2):520-6. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(19920115)69:2<520::aid-cncr2820690240>3.0.co;2-v. View

15.

Lowrance W, Eastham J, Savage C, Maschino A, Laudone V, Dechet C . Contemporary open and robotic radical prostatectomy practice patterns among urologists in the United States. J Urol. 2012; 187(6):2087-92. PMC: 3407038. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.01.061. View

16.

Tewari A, Sooriakumaran P, Bloch D, Seshadri-Kreaden U, Hebert A, 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; 62(1):1-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.02.029. View

17.

Pierorazio P, Epstein J, Humphreys E, Han M, Walsh P, Partin A . The significance of a positive bladder neck margin after radical prostatectomy: the American Joint Committee on Cancer Pathological Stage T4 designation is not warranted. J Urol. 2009; 183(1):151-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.08.138. View

18.

Labanaris A, Zugor V, Takriti S, Smiszek R, Engelhard K, Nutzel R . The role of conventional and functional endorectal magnetic resonance imaging in the decision of whether to preserve or resect the neurovascular bundles during radical retropubic prostatectomy. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2008; 43(1):25-31. DOI: 10.1080/00365590802326610. View

19.

Pettus J, Weight C, Thompson C, Middleton R, Stephenson R . Biochemical failure in men following radical retropubic prostatectomy: impact of surgical margin status and location. J Urol. 2004; 172(1):129-32. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000132160.68779.96. View

20.

Evans A, Henry P, van der Kwast T, Tkachuk D, Watson K, Lockwood G . Interobserver variability between expert urologic pathologists for extraprostatic extension and surgical margin status in radical prostatectomy specimens. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008; 32(10):1503-12. DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e31817fb3a0. View