Tumor Biological Feature and Its Association with Positive Surgical Margins and Apical Margins After Radical Prostatectomy in Non-Metastasis Prostate Cancer

Overview

Journal Curr Oncol

Publisher MDPI

Specialty Oncology

Date 2021 Apr 30

PMID 33924669

Citations 5

Authors

Shuo Wang

Peng Du

Yudong Cao

Xiao Yang

Yong Yang

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: We assessed clinical and tumor biological features and evaluated their association with positive surgical margins (PSMs) and positive apical margins (PAMs) variability after radical prostatectomy (RP) in men with non-metastasis prostate cancer (nmPCa) in our institute.

Patients And Methods: During the period from January 2013 to December 2017, clinical and pathological data were collected in 200 patients with nmPCa undergoing RP in the Urological department of Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute. Surgical and apical margins were stated negative and positive, separately. A dichotomous logistic regression model was used to assess clinical and tumor biological features including age, total prostate volume (TPV), biopsy positive cores (BPC), D'Amico risk grade, tumor clinical stage, International Society of Urologic Pathology (ISUP) grade, tPSA, f/t and pelvic lymph nodes (PLN) invasion, and their association with PSMs and PAMs was evaluated.

Results: Overall, men with nmPCa in this study had a high ISUP grade (58.5% grade 3-5), high risk grade (89.4%) and high clinical T stage (56% cT3-4). PSMs were detected in 106 patients; the rate of PSMs was 53%. Among patients with PSMs, 83% were PAMs; the overall rate of PAMs was 44%. Among patients with PSMs, high risk (OR, 1.439; = 0.023), cT3a (OR, 1.737; = 0.045), cT3b (OR, 5.286; < 0.001), cT4 (OR, 6.12; < 0.001), ISUP Grade 4 (OR, 2; = 0.034) and Grade 5 (OR, 6.167; < 0.001) and PLN invasion (OR, 6; = 0.019) were strongly associated with PSMs using a dichotomous logistic regression univariable model, and high risk (OR, 6; = 0.019), cT3a (OR, 5.116; = 0.048), cT3b (OR, 9.194; = 0.008), cT4 (OR, 4.58; = 0.01), ISUP Grade 4 (OR, 7.04; = 0.035), Grade 5 (OR, 16.514; = 0.002) and PLN invasion (OR, 5.516; = 0.03) were independently associated with PSMs by using multivariable analysis. Among patients with PAMs, cT3b (OR, 2.667; = 0.004), cT4 (OR, 3; = 0.034) and proportion of BPC (OR, 4.594; = 0.027) were strongly associated with PAMs by using a dichotomous logistic regression univariable model, and cT3b (OR, 3.899; = 0.02), cT4 (OR, 2.8; = 0.041) and proportion of BPC (OR, 5.247; = 0.04) were independently associated with PSMs by using multivariable analysis.

Conclusions: Patients with nmPCa in our institute had high risk, high ISUP grade and high clinical stage. Tumor biological factors were strongly associated with PSMs and PAMs, and PLN invasion was independently associated with PSMs. The risk factors influenced the status of surgical margins, and apical margins were different.

Citing Articles

Imaging classification of prostate cancer with extracapsular extension and its impact on positive surgical margins after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Wang J, Zhong C, Zhang K, Chen J Front Oncol. 2024; 14:1344050.

PMID: 38511144 PMC: 10951392. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1344050.

Value of three-dimensional visualization of preoperative prostatic magnetic resonance imaging based on measurements of anatomical structures in predicting positive surgical margin after radical prostatectomy.

Fan B, Zhang L, Wang Y, Dai Z, Pan H, Xie J Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2023; 14:1228892.

PMID: 37859989 PMC: 10582708. DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1228892.

Intravoxel incoherent motion predicts positive surgical margins and Gleason score upgrading after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer.

Meng S, Gan W, Chen L, Wang N, Liu A Radiol Med. 2023; 128(6):668-678.

PMID: 37277573 DOI: 10.1007/s11547-023-01645-2.

Role of inflammatory factors in prediction of Gleason score and its upgrading in localized prostate cancer patients after radical prostatectomy.

Wang S, Ji Y, Ma J, Du P, Cao Y, Yang X Front Oncol. 2023; 12:1079622.

PMID: 36713540 PMC: 9878388. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.1079622.

Radical or Not-So-Radical Prostatectomy: Do Surgical Margins Matter?.

Grypari I, Zolota V, Tzelepi V Cancers (Basel). 2022; 14(1).

PMID: 35008178 PMC: 8749855. DOI: 10.3390/cancers14010013.

References

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

Islamoglu E, Karamik K, Ozsoy C, Tokgoz H, Ates M, Savas M . The Learning Curve Does Not Affect Positive Surgical Margin Status in Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy. Urol J. 2018; 15(6):333-338. DOI: 10.22037/uj.v0i0.4426. View

Yossepowitch O, Briganti A, Eastham J, Epstein J, Graefen M, Montironi R . Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and contemporary update. Eur Urol. 2013; 65(2):303-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.07.039. View

Zhu Y, Yang X, Han C, Dai B, Zhang H, Shi G . Pathological features of localized prostate cancer in China: a contemporary analysis of radical prostatectomy specimens. PLoS One. 2015; 10(3):e0121076. PMC: 4370496. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0121076. View

Preisser F, Coxilha G, Heinze A, Oh S, Chun F, Sauter G . Impact of positive surgical margin length and Gleason grade at the margin on biochemical recurrence in patients with organ-confined prostate cancer. Prostate. 2019; 79(16):1832-1836. DOI: 10.1002/pros.23908. View

Chun F, Briganti A, Antebi E, Graefen M, Currlin E, Steuber T . Surgical volume is related to the rate of positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy in European patients. BJU Int. 2006; 98(6):1204-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06442.x. View

Chalfin H, Dinizo M, Trock B, Feng Z, Partin A, Walsh P . Impact of surgical margin status on prostate-cancer-specific mortality. BJU Int. 2012; 110(11):1684-9. PMC: 3876479. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11371.x. View

DAmico A, Whittington R, Malkowicz S, Schultz D, Blank K, Broderick G . Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998; 280(11):969-74. DOI: 10.1001/jama.280.11.969. View

Porcaro A, Tafuri A, Sebben M, Corsi P, Pocessali T, Pirozzi M . Positive Association between Preoperative Total Testosterone Levels and Risk of Positive Surgical Margins by Prostate Cancer: Results in 476 Consecutive Patients Treated Only by Radical Prostatectomy. Urol Int. 2018; 101(1):38-46. DOI: 10.1159/000490622. View

10.

Eastham J, Kattan M, Riedel E, Begg C, Wheeler T, Gerigk C . Variations among individual surgeons in the rate of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol. 2003; 170(6 Pt 1):2292-5. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000091100.83725.51. View

11.

Wieder J, Soloway M . Incidence, etiology, location, prevention and treatment of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol. 1998; 160(2):299-315. View

12.

Tan W, Krimphove M, Cole A, Marchese M, Berg S, Lipsitz S . Variation in Positive Surgical Margin Status After Radical Prostatectomy for pT2 Prostate Cancer. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2019; 17(5):e1060-e1068. DOI: 10.1016/j.clgc.2019.06.008. View

13.

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

14.

Kim A, Kim M, Jeong S, Song C, Cho Y, Ro J . Level of invasion into fibromuscular band is an independent factor for positive surgical margin and biochemical recurrence in men with organ confined prostate cancer. BMC Urol. 2018; 18(1):7. PMC: 5797402. DOI: 10.1186/s12894-018-0321-z. View

15.

Jo J, Hong S, Byun S, Zargar H, Autorino R, Lee S . Positive surgical margin in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: correlation with pathology findings and risk of biochemical recurrence. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2017; 69(5):493-500. DOI: 10.23736/S0393-2249.17.02707-2. View

16.

Cooperberg M, Hilton J, Carroll P . The CAPRA-S score: A straightforward tool for improved prediction of outcomes after radical prostatectomy. Cancer. 2011; 117(22):5039-46. PMC: 3170662. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.26169. View

17.

Alchin D, Murphy D, Lawrentschuk N . Predicting the risk of positive surgical margins following robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2016; 69(1):56-62. DOI: 10.23736/S0393-2249.16.02681-3. View

18.

Bravi C, Tin A, Vertosick E, Mazzone E, Martini A, Delloglio P . The Impact of Experience on the Risk of Surgical Margins and Biochemical Recurrence after Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Learning Curve Study. J Urol. 2019; 202(1):108-113. PMC: 7521607. DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000147. View

19.

Epstein J, Amin M, Boccon-Gibod L, Egevad L, Humphrey P, Mikuz G . Prognostic factors and reporting of prostate carcinoma in radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy specimens. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl. 2005; (216):34-63. DOI: 10.1080/03008880510030932. View

20.

Artibani W, Porcaro A, De Marco V, Cerruto M, Siracusano S . Management of Biochemical Recurrence after Primary Curative Treatment for Prostate Cancer: A Review. Urol Int. 2017; 100(3):251-262. DOI: 10.1159/000481438. View