Yıl: 2021 Cilt: 20 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 26 - 33 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.4274/uob.galenos.2020.1564 İndeks Tarihi: 17-05-2022

Prognostic Significance of Surgical Margin Status and Gleason Grade at the Positive Surgical Margin in Predicting Biochemical Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy in a Turkish Patient Cohort

Öz:
Objective: To investigate the prognostic role of positive surgical margin (PSM) features in addition to well-defined risk factors in predicting biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy. Materials and Methods: This study used the prostate cancer database from the Urooncology Association in Turkey. Clinical, surgical, pathological and follow-up data were recorded from the database. PSM features, including number, location, linear length and Gleason grade (GG) were also recorded. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were performed to assess differences in BCR-free survival (BCR-FS). In order to identify prognostic factors affecting BCR-FS, univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed. Results: The study included 984 patients who met the eligibility criteria. The median follow-up time was 29 (minimum: 6, maximum: 210) months, and BCR was detected in 178 (18.1%) patients. BCR-FS was found to be significantly lower in patients with higher total prostate-specific antigen, higher International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade, extraprostatic extension (EPE), seminal vesicle invasion, lymphovascular invasion, lymph node involvement, PSM and GG at PSM (PSMGG) ≥4 (log-rank p<0.001, p<0.001, p<0.001, p<0.001, p<0.001, p<0.001, p<0.001 and p=0.005). ISUP grade, EPE and PSM were identified as independent prognostic factors in predicting BCR-FS [Hazard ratio (HR): 1.89, p=0.035 and HR: 4.65, p<0.001, HR: 1.82, p=0.030, HR: 1.77, p=0.042, respectively]. Unlike the univariate analysis, in multivariate analysis, PSMGG did not prove to be an independent prognostic factor in predicting BCR-FS. Conclusion: PSM GG ≥4 was found to be significantly associated with shorter BCR-FS. There is a need for large, randomised prospective studies to clarify the role of PSMGG to be used in nomograms as an independent predictor to determine patients who would benefit from adjuvant radiation therapy.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • 1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin 2019;69:7-34.
  • 2. Isbarn H, Wanner M, Salomon G, et al. Long-term data on the survival of patients with prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy in the prostate-specific antigen era. BJU Int 2010;106:37-43.
  • 3. Eastham JA, Kattan MW, Riedel E, et al. Variations among individual surgeons in the rate of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 2003;170(6 Pt 1):2292-2295.
  • 4. Wright JL, Dalkin BL, True LD, et al. Positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy predict prostate cancer specific mortality. J Urol 2010;183:2213-2218.
  • 5. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, et al. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2016;40:244-252.
  • 6. Moul JW. Prostate specific antigen only progression of prostate cancer. J Urol 2000;163:1632-1642.
  • 7. Van den Broeck T, van den Bergh RC, Arfi N, et al. Prognostic value of biochemical recurrence following treatment with curative intent for prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2019;75:967-987.
  • 8. Shaikh MP, Alite F, Wu MJ, et al. Adjuvant Radiotherapy Versus Waitand- See Strategy for Pathologic T3 or Margin-Positive Prostate Cancer. Am J Clin Oncol 2018;41:730-738.
  • 9. Fossati N, Karnes RJ, Boorjian SA, et al. Long-term impact of adjuvant versus early salvage radiation therapy in pT3N0 prostate cancer patients treated with radical prostatectomy: results from a multiinstitutional series. Eur Urol 2017;71:886-893.
  • 10. Chun FKH, Karakiewicz PI, Briganti A, et al. Prostate cancer nomograms: an update. Eur Urol 2006;50:914-926.
  • 11. Kattan MW, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT. Postoperative nomogram for disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:1499-1507.
  • 12. Ondracek RP, Kattan MW, Murekeyisoni C, et al. Validation of the Kattan nomogram for prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2016;14:1395-1401.
  • 13. Kattan MW, Vickers AJ, Yu C, et al. Preoperative and postoperative nomograms incorporating surgeon experience for clinically localized prostate cancer. Cancer 2009;115:1005-1010.
  • 14. Liu H, Zhou H, Yan L, et al. Prognostic significance of six clinicopathological features for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget 2017;9:32238-32249.
  • 15. Kraus RD, Barsky A, Ji L, et al. The perineural invasion paradox: Is perineural invasion an independent prognostic indicator of biochemical recurrence risk in patients with pT2N0R0 prostate cancer? A multi-institutional study. Adv Radiat Oncol 2019;4:96-102.
  • 16. Jiang W, Zhang L, Wu B, et al. The impact of lymphovascular invasion in patients with prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy and its association with their clinicopathological features: An updated PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018;97:e13537.
  • 17. Karakiewicz PI, Eastham JA, Graefen M, et al. Prognostic impact of positive surgical margins in surgically treated prostate cancer: multi-institutional assessment of 5831 patients. Urology 2005;66:1245-1250.
  • 18. Swindle P, Eastham JA, Ohori M, et al. Do margins matter? The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 2005;174:903-907.
  • 19. Zhang L, Wu B, Zha Z, et al. Positive surgical margin is associated with biochemical recurrence risk following radical prostatectomy: a meta-analysis from high-quality retrospective cohort studies. World J Surg Oncol 2018;16:124.
  • 20. Fleshner NE, Evans A, Chadwick K, et al. Clinical significance of the positive surgical margin based upon location, grade, and stage. Urol Oncol 2010;28:197-204.
  • 21. Blute ML, Bostwick DG, Bergstralh EJ, et al. Anatomic site-specific positive margins in organconfined prostate cancer and its impact on outcome after radical prostatectomy. Urology 1997;50:733-739.
  • 22. Pettus JA, Weight CJ, Thompson CJ, et al. Biochemical failure in men following radical retropubic prostatectomy: impact of surgical margin status and location. J Urol 2004;172:129-132.
  • 23. Sammon JD, Trinh QD, Sukumar S, et al. Risk factors for biochemical recurrence following radical perineal prostatectomy in a large contemporary series: a detailed assessment of margin extent and location. Urol Oncol 2013;31:1470-1476.
  • 24. Kates M, Sopko NA, Han M, et al. Importance of reporting the Gleason score at the positive surgical margin site: analysis of 4,082 consecutive radical prostatectomy cases. J Urol 2016;195:337-342.
  • 25. Chapin BF, Nguyen JN, Achim MF, et al. Positive margin length and highest Gleason grade of tumor at the margin predict for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy in patients with organ-confined prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2018;21:221-227.
  • 26. Preisser F, Coxilha G, Heinze A, et al. Impact of positive surgical margin length and Gleason grade at the margin on biochemical recurrence in patients with organ-confined prostate cancer. Prostate 2019;79:1832-1836.
  • 27. Iremashvili V, Pelaez L, Jorda M, et al. A Comprehensive Analysis of the Association Between Gleason Score at a Positive Surgical Margin and the Risk of Biochemical Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy. Am J Surg Pathol 2019;43:369-373.
  • 28. Servoll E, Vlatkovic L, Sæter T, et al. The length of a positive surgical margin is of prognostic significance in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy. Urol Int 2014;93:289-295.
  • 29. Koskas Y, Lannes F, Branger N, et al. Extent of positive surgical margins following radical prostatectomy: impact on biochemical recurrence with long-term follow-up. BMC Urol 2019;19:37.
  • 30. Savdie R, Horvath LG, Benito RP, et al. High Gleason grade carcinoma at a positive surgical margin predicts biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy and may guide adjuvant radiotherapy. BJU Int 2012;109:1794-1800.
APA koparal m, Sozen T, aslan g, Baltacı S, SÜER E, MÜEZZINOGLU T, Akdoğan B, Türkeri L (2021). Prognostic Significance of Surgical Margin Status and Gleason Grade at the Positive Surgical Margin in Predicting Biochemical Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy in a Turkish Patient Cohort. , 26 - 33. 10.4274/uob.galenos.2020.1564
Chicago koparal murat yavuz,Sozen Tevfik Sinan,aslan guven,Baltacı Sümer,SÜER Evren,MÜEZZINOGLU TALHA,Akdoğan Bülent,Türkeri Levent Prognostic Significance of Surgical Margin Status and Gleason Grade at the Positive Surgical Margin in Predicting Biochemical Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy in a Turkish Patient Cohort. (2021): 26 - 33. 10.4274/uob.galenos.2020.1564
MLA koparal murat yavuz,Sozen Tevfik Sinan,aslan guven,Baltacı Sümer,SÜER Evren,MÜEZZINOGLU TALHA,Akdoğan Bülent,Türkeri Levent Prognostic Significance of Surgical Margin Status and Gleason Grade at the Positive Surgical Margin in Predicting Biochemical Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy in a Turkish Patient Cohort. , 2021, ss.26 - 33. 10.4274/uob.galenos.2020.1564
AMA koparal m,Sozen T,aslan g,Baltacı S,SÜER E,MÜEZZINOGLU T,Akdoğan B,Türkeri L Prognostic Significance of Surgical Margin Status and Gleason Grade at the Positive Surgical Margin in Predicting Biochemical Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy in a Turkish Patient Cohort. . 2021; 26 - 33. 10.4274/uob.galenos.2020.1564
Vancouver koparal m,Sozen T,aslan g,Baltacı S,SÜER E,MÜEZZINOGLU T,Akdoğan B,Türkeri L Prognostic Significance of Surgical Margin Status and Gleason Grade at the Positive Surgical Margin in Predicting Biochemical Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy in a Turkish Patient Cohort. . 2021; 26 - 33. 10.4274/uob.galenos.2020.1564
IEEE koparal m,Sozen T,aslan g,Baltacı S,SÜER E,MÜEZZINOGLU T,Akdoğan B,Türkeri L "Prognostic Significance of Surgical Margin Status and Gleason Grade at the Positive Surgical Margin in Predicting Biochemical Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy in a Turkish Patient Cohort." , ss.26 - 33, 2021. 10.4274/uob.galenos.2020.1564
ISNAD koparal, murat yavuz vd. "Prognostic Significance of Surgical Margin Status and Gleason Grade at the Positive Surgical Margin in Predicting Biochemical Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy in a Turkish Patient Cohort". (2021), 26-33. https://doi.org/10.4274/uob.galenos.2020.1564
APA koparal m, Sozen T, aslan g, Baltacı S, SÜER E, MÜEZZINOGLU T, Akdoğan B, Türkeri L (2021). Prognostic Significance of Surgical Margin Status and Gleason Grade at the Positive Surgical Margin in Predicting Biochemical Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy in a Turkish Patient Cohort. Üroonkoloji Bülteni, 20(1), 26 - 33. 10.4274/uob.galenos.2020.1564
Chicago koparal murat yavuz,Sozen Tevfik Sinan,aslan guven,Baltacı Sümer,SÜER Evren,MÜEZZINOGLU TALHA,Akdoğan Bülent,Türkeri Levent Prognostic Significance of Surgical Margin Status and Gleason Grade at the Positive Surgical Margin in Predicting Biochemical Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy in a Turkish Patient Cohort. Üroonkoloji Bülteni 20, no.1 (2021): 26 - 33. 10.4274/uob.galenos.2020.1564
MLA koparal murat yavuz,Sozen Tevfik Sinan,aslan guven,Baltacı Sümer,SÜER Evren,MÜEZZINOGLU TALHA,Akdoğan Bülent,Türkeri Levent Prognostic Significance of Surgical Margin Status and Gleason Grade at the Positive Surgical Margin in Predicting Biochemical Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy in a Turkish Patient Cohort. Üroonkoloji Bülteni, vol.20, no.1, 2021, ss.26 - 33. 10.4274/uob.galenos.2020.1564
AMA koparal m,Sozen T,aslan g,Baltacı S,SÜER E,MÜEZZINOGLU T,Akdoğan B,Türkeri L Prognostic Significance of Surgical Margin Status and Gleason Grade at the Positive Surgical Margin in Predicting Biochemical Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy in a Turkish Patient Cohort. Üroonkoloji Bülteni. 2021; 20(1): 26 - 33. 10.4274/uob.galenos.2020.1564
Vancouver koparal m,Sozen T,aslan g,Baltacı S,SÜER E,MÜEZZINOGLU T,Akdoğan B,Türkeri L Prognostic Significance of Surgical Margin Status and Gleason Grade at the Positive Surgical Margin in Predicting Biochemical Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy in a Turkish Patient Cohort. Üroonkoloji Bülteni. 2021; 20(1): 26 - 33. 10.4274/uob.galenos.2020.1564
IEEE koparal m,Sozen T,aslan g,Baltacı S,SÜER E,MÜEZZINOGLU T,Akdoğan B,Türkeri L "Prognostic Significance of Surgical Margin Status and Gleason Grade at the Positive Surgical Margin in Predicting Biochemical Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy in a Turkish Patient Cohort." Üroonkoloji Bülteni, 20, ss.26 - 33, 2021. 10.4274/uob.galenos.2020.1564
ISNAD koparal, murat yavuz vd. "Prognostic Significance of Surgical Margin Status and Gleason Grade at the Positive Surgical Margin in Predicting Biochemical Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy in a Turkish Patient Cohort". Üroonkoloji Bülteni 20/1 (2021), 26-33. https://doi.org/10.4274/uob.galenos.2020.1564