A Side-specific Nomogram for Extraprostatic Extension May Reduce the Positive Surgical Margin Rate in Radical Prostatectomy

Overview

Journal World J Urol

Specialty Urology

Date 2022 Nov 7

PMID 36344738

Authors

Joris G Heetman

Timo F W Soeterik

Lieke Wever

Aswin R Meyer

Jody E Nuininga

Robert J van Soest

Harm H E van Melick

Jean-Paul P A van Basten

Roderick C N van den Bergh

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: Nomograms predicting side-specific extraprostatic extension (EPE) may be applied to reduce positive surgical margin (PSM) rates in patients planned for radical prostatectomy (RP). This study evaluates the impact of implementing an externally validated nomogram for side-specific EPE on PSM rate and degree of nerve-sparing.

Methods: In patients planned for RP, the side-specific nomogram predictions (based on MRI, ISUP grade group, and PSA density), with an advised threshold of 20% for safe nerve-sparing, were presented preoperatively to the urological surgeon. The surgeon completed a survey before RP about the planning with respect to side-specific nerve-sparing and change of management due to the result of the nomogram. PSM rates and degree of nerve-sparing were compared to a retrospective control group treated in the months prior to the introduction of the nomogram.

Results: A total of 100 patients were included, 50 patients in both groups representing 200 prostate lobes. Of the patients, 37% had histologically confirmed EPE, and 40% a PSM. In 12% of the 100 lobes planned after nomogram presentation, a change in management due to the nomogram was reported. A per-prostate lobe analysis of all the lobes showed comparable rates of full nerve-sparing (45% vs. 30%; p = 0.083) and lower rates of PSM on the lobes with histological EPE (45% vs. 85%; p < 0.05) in the intervention (nomogram) group versus the control group.

Conclusion: Implementing a predictive nomogram for side-specific EPE in the surgical planning for nerve-sparing leads to lower rates PSM on the side of the histological EPE without compromising nerve-sparing.

Citing Articles

Lesion-based grading system using clinicopathological and MRI features for predicting positive surgical margins in prostate cancer.

Xu H, Chen D, Ma Y, Ning X, Bai X, Liu B Abdom Radiol (NY). 2025; .

PMID: 39870823 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-025-04808-z.

Histogram analysis of MR quantitative parameters: are they correlated with prognostic factors in prostate cancer?.

Chen Y, Meng T, Cao W, Zhang W, Ling J, Wen Z Abdom Radiol (NY). 2024; 49(5):1534-1544.

PMID: 38546826 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-024-04227-6.

The Development and External Validation of Artificial Intelligence-Driven MRI-Based Models to Improve Prediction of Lesion-Specific Extraprostatic Extension in Patients with Prostate Cancer.

van den Berg I, Soeterik T, van der Hoeven E, Claassen B, Brink W, Baas D Cancers (Basel). 2023; 15(22).

PMID: 38001712 PMC: 10670855. DOI: 10.3390/cancers15225452.

External validation of nomograms including MRI features for the prediction of side-specific extraprostatic extension.

Heetman J, van der Hoeven E, Rajwa P, Zattoni F, Kesch C, Shariat S Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2023; 27(3):492-499.

PMID: 37932522 DOI: 10.1038/s41391-023-00738-3.

A Novel Nomogram for Identifying the Patients at Risk for Rapid Progression of Advanced Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.

Wu M, Pan C, He Y, Yang B Cancer Manag Res. 2023; 15:1015-1024.

PMID: 37746314 PMC: 10516215. DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S425181.

References

Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H, Taari K, Busch C, Nordling S . Radical Prostatectomy or Watchful Waiting in Prostate Cancer - 29-Year Follow-up. N Engl J Med. 2018; 379(24):2319-2329. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1807801. View

Holze S, Braunlich M, Mende M, Arthanareeswaran V, Neuhaus P, Truss M . Age-stratified outcomes after radical prostatectomy in a randomized setting (LAP-01): do younger patients have more to lose?. World J Urol. 2022; 40(5):1151-1158. PMC: 9085667. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-022-03945-0. View

Walsh P . The discovery of the cavernous nerves and development of nerve sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol. 2007; 177(5):1632-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.01.012. View

Nguyen L, Head L, Witiuk K, Punjani N, Mallick R, Cnossen S . The Risks and Benefits of Cavernous Neurovascular Bundle Sparing during Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Urol. 2017; 198(4):760-769. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.02.3344. View

Soeterik T, van Melick H, Dijksman L, Stomps S, Witjes J, Van Basten J . Nerve Sparing during Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy Increases the Risk of Ipsilateral Positive Surgical Margins. J Urol. 2020; 204(1):91-95. DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000760. View

Morizane S, Yumioka T, Makishima K, Tsounapi P, Iwamoto H, Hikita K . Impact of positive surgical margin status in predicting early biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Int J Clin Oncol. 2021; 26(10):1961-1967. DOI: 10.1007/s10147-021-01977-x. View

Mottet N, van den Bergh R, Briers E, Van den Broeck T, Cumberbatch M, De Santis M . EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2020 Update. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol. 2020; 79(2):243-262. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042. View

Ohori M, Kattan M, Koh H, Maru N, Slawin K, Shariat S . Predicting the presence and side of extracapsular extension: a nomogram for staging prostate cancer. J Urol. 2004; 171(5):1844-9. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000121693.05077.3d. View

Tosoian J, Chappidi M, Feng Z, Humphreys E, Han M, Pavlovich C . Prediction of pathological stage based on clinical stage, serum prostate-specific antigen, and biopsy Gleason score: Partin Tables in the contemporary era. BJU Int. 2016; 119(5):676-683. DOI: 10.1111/bju.13573. View

10.

de Rooij M, Hamoen E, Witjes J, Barentsz J, Rovers M . Accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Local Staging of Prostate Cancer: A Diagnostic Meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2015; 70(2):233-45. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.029. View

11.

Sighinolfi M, Rocco B . Re: EAU Guidelines: Prostate Cancer 2019. Eur Urol. 2019; 76(6):871. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.07.014. View

12.

Martini A, Gupta A, Lewis S, Cumarasamy S, Haines 3rd K, Briganti A . Development and internal validation of a side-specific, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-based nomogram for the prediction of extracapsular extension of prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2018; 122(6):1025-1033. DOI: 10.1111/bju.14353. View

13.

Diamand R, Ploussard G, Roumiguie M, Oderda M, Benamran D, Fiard G . External Validation of a Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-based Nomogram for the Prediction of Extracapsular Extension and Seminal Vesicle Invasion in Prostate Cancer Patients Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2020; 79(2):180-185. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.037. View

14.

Nyarangi-Dix J, Wiesenfarth M, Bonekamp D, Hitthaler B, Schutz V, Dieffenbacher S . Combined Clinical Parameters and Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Prediction of Extraprostatic Disease-A Risk Model for Patient-tailored Risk Stratification When Planning Radical Prostatectomy. Eur Urol Focus. 2018; 6(6):1205-1212. DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2018.11.004. View

15.

Wibmer A, Kattan M, Alessandrino F, Baur A, Boesen L, Franco F . International Multi-Site Initiative to Develop an MRI-Inclusive Nomogram for Side-Specific Prediction of Extraprostatic Extension of Prostate Cancer. Cancers (Basel). 2021; 13(11). PMC: 8198352. DOI: 10.3390/cancers13112627. View

16.

Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz A, Haider M, Padhani A, Villeirs G, Macura K . Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2. Eur Urol. 2019; 76(3):340-351. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033. View

17.

Wegelin O, Exterkate L, van der Leest M, Kummer J, Vreuls W, de Bruin P . The FUTURE Trial: A Multicenter Randomised Controlled Trial on Target Biopsy Techniques Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer in Patients with Prior Negative Biopsies. Eur Urol. 2018; 75(4):582-590. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.040. View

18.

Montorsi F, Wilson T, Rosen R, Ahlering T, Artibani W, Carroll P . Best practices in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: recommendations of the Pasadena Consensus Panel. Eur Urol. 2012; 62(3):368-81. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.057. View

19.

van Leenders G, van der Kwast T, Grignon D, Evans A, Kristiansen G, Kweldam C . The 2019 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2020; 44(8):e87-e99. PMC: 7382533. DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000001497. View

20.

Fine S, Amin M, Berney D, Bjartell A, Egevad L, Epstein J . A contemporary update on pathology reporting for prostate cancer: biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Eur Urol. 2012; 62(1):20-39. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.02.055. View