When Should a Positive Surgical Margin Ring a Bell? An Analysis of a Multi-Institutional Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy Database
Standard
When Should a Positive Surgical Margin Ring a Bell? An Analysis of a Multi-Institutional Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy Database. / Abdollah, Firas; Moschini, Marco; Sood, Akshay; Sammon, Jesse; Dalela, Deepansh; Hsu, Linda; Beyer, Burkhard; Haese, Alexander; Graefen, Markus; Gandaglia, Giorgio; Montorsi, Francesco; Briganti, Alberto; Menon, Mani.
In: J ENDOUROL, Vol. 30, No. 2, 02.2016, p. 201-7.Research output: SCORING: Contribution to journal › SCORING: Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - When Should a Positive Surgical Margin Ring a Bell? An Analysis of a Multi-Institutional Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy Database
AU - Abdollah, Firas
AU - Moschini, Marco
AU - Sood, Akshay
AU - Sammon, Jesse
AU - Dalela, Deepansh
AU - Hsu, Linda
AU - Beyer, Burkhard
AU - Haese, Alexander
AU - Graefen, Markus
AU - Gandaglia, Giorgio
AU - Montorsi, Francesco
AU - Briganti, Alberto
AU - Menon, Mani
PY - 2016/2
Y1 - 2016/2
N2 - OBJECTIVE: The impact of positive surgical margin (SM) on cancer control outcomes in prostate cancer patients is a subject of continuous debate. We test the hypothesis that the impact of SM on clinical recurrence (CR) rate may vary based on the other clinical/pathologic characteristics of the tumor.MATERIALS AND METHODS: We focused on 5290 patients treated with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and pelvic node dissection, between 2002 and 2013, at three tertiary care centers. Regression tree analysis stratified patients into risk groups based on their tumor characteristics and the corresponding CR rate. Kaplan-Meier log-rank and multivariable Cox regression models tested the relationship between SM status and CR rate in each tree-generated risk group.RESULTS: Mean (median) follow-up time was 47.7 (39.0) months. Regression tree analysis that considered all available covariates, except SM status, divided patients based on their CR risk into the following risk groups: (1) high risk (any pT3b/pT4 disease); (2) intermediate risk (≤pT3a disease and pGS 8-10); (3) low risk (≤pT3a, pGS ≤7, and prostate-specific antigen [PSA] >9 ng/mL); and (4) very low risk (≤pT3a, pGS ≤7, and PSA ≤9 ng/mL). Positive SM had a significant detrimental impact on CR risk only in two groups: intermediate risk (p < 0.001) and high risk (p = 0.01). These observations were confirmed by multivariable analyses.CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that positive SM had a detrimental impact on CR only in a minority of patients (15%), specifically in those with advanced pathologic stage and/or pathologically poorly differentiated tumor. For all the remaining patients (85%), positive SM by itself did not increase the risk of CR.
AB - OBJECTIVE: The impact of positive surgical margin (SM) on cancer control outcomes in prostate cancer patients is a subject of continuous debate. We test the hypothesis that the impact of SM on clinical recurrence (CR) rate may vary based on the other clinical/pathologic characteristics of the tumor.MATERIALS AND METHODS: We focused on 5290 patients treated with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and pelvic node dissection, between 2002 and 2013, at three tertiary care centers. Regression tree analysis stratified patients into risk groups based on their tumor characteristics and the corresponding CR rate. Kaplan-Meier log-rank and multivariable Cox regression models tested the relationship between SM status and CR rate in each tree-generated risk group.RESULTS: Mean (median) follow-up time was 47.7 (39.0) months. Regression tree analysis that considered all available covariates, except SM status, divided patients based on their CR risk into the following risk groups: (1) high risk (any pT3b/pT4 disease); (2) intermediate risk (≤pT3a disease and pGS 8-10); (3) low risk (≤pT3a, pGS ≤7, and prostate-specific antigen [PSA] >9 ng/mL); and (4) very low risk (≤pT3a, pGS ≤7, and PSA ≤9 ng/mL). Positive SM had a significant detrimental impact on CR risk only in two groups: intermediate risk (p < 0.001) and high risk (p = 0.01). These observations were confirmed by multivariable analyses.CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that positive SM had a detrimental impact on CR only in a minority of patients (15%), specifically in those with advanced pathologic stage and/or pathologically poorly differentiated tumor. For all the remaining patients (85%), positive SM by itself did not increase the risk of CR.
U2 - 10.1089/end.2015.0465
DO - 10.1089/end.2015.0465
M3 - SCORING: Journal article
C2 - 26415003
VL - 30
SP - 201
EP - 207
JO - J ENDOUROL
JF - J ENDOUROL
SN - 0892-7790
IS - 2
ER -