Advertisement

Tumor Grade at Margins of Resection in Radical Prostatectomy Specimens Is an Independent Predictor of Prognosis

  • Fadi Brimo
    Affiliations
    Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins Hospital Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland
    Search for articles by this author
  • Alan W. Partin
    Affiliations
    Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins Hospital Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland
    Search for articles by this author
  • Jonathan I. Epstein
    Correspondence
    Reprint requests: Jonathan I. Epstein, M.D., Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins Hospital, 600 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21287
    Affiliations
    Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins Hospital Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland

    Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins Hospital Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland

    Department of Oncology, Johns Hopkins Hospital Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland
    Search for articles by this author

      Objectives

      To assess whether reporting the grade of cancer at the site of positive margins in a radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen was independently prognostic of the outcome.

      Methods

      We restricted our study to 108 patients with Gleason score (GS) 7, nonfocal extraprostatic extension (EPE) (Stage pT3a), and positive surgical margins. Patients with a tertiary pattern 5, those who had received neoadjuvant therapy, and those with positive margins because of an intraprostatic incision were excluded.

      Results

      The overall GS was 3 + 4 in 73 patients (67%) and 4 + 3 in 35 (33%). The median length of the positive margin was 3.0 mm (range 0.5-10). The GS at the margin was 3 + 3, 3 + 4, 4 + 3, and 4 + 4 in 40 (37%), 41 (38%), 16 (14.8%), and 11 (10.2%) cases, respectively. Of the 108 patients, 45 (42%) remained free of disease after RP (median follow-up 6 years, range 3-13). Univariate and multivariate analyses showed no correlation between biochemical recurrence and either the preoperative serum prostate-specific antigen level (P = .7) or overall GS (P = .5). A strong association was noted between biochemical recurrence and the GS at the positive surgical margin (P = .007), with length of cancer at the margin also predictive (P = .015) on multivariate analysis. Using the median length of the positive margin (3 mm) as the cutoff, the association with biochemical recurrence was significantly different between the 2 groups (P = .004) using Kaplan-Meier analysis.

      Conclusions

      This is the first study to show that the grade of cancer at the site of a positive margin influences the outcome. We were able to stratify the grade into 3 categories: 3 + 3, 3 + 4, and 4 + 3 or greater (4 + 3 and 4 + 4 at the positive margin provided equal prognostic information).
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Walsh P.C.
        • Partin A.W.
        • Epstein J.I.
        Cancer control and quality of life following anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy: results at 10 years.
        J Urol. 1994; 152: 1831-1836
        • Chang S.S.
        • Cookson M.S.
        Impact of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy.
        Urology. 2006; 68: 249-252
        • Wieder J.A.
        • Soloway M.S.
        Incidence, etiology, location, prevention and treatment of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer.
        J Urol. 1998; 160: 299-315
        • Ohori M.
        • Scardino P.T.
        Localized prostate cancer.
        Curr Probl Surg. 2002; 39: 833-957
        • Epstein J.I.
        Pathologic assessment of the surgical specimen.
        Urol Clin North Am. 2001; 28: 567-594
        • Obek C.
        • Sadek S.
        • Lai S.
        • et al.
        Positive surgical margins with radical retropubic prostatectomy: anatomic site-specific pathologic analysis and impact on prognosis.
        Urology. 1999; 54: 682-688
        • Epstein J.I.
        • Pizov G.
        • Walsh P.C.
        Correlation of pathologic findings with progression after radical retropubic prostatectomy.
        Cancer. 1993; 71: 3582-3593
        • Epstein J.I.
        • Partin A.W.
        • Sauvageot J.
        • et al.
        Prediction of progression following radical prostatectomy: a multivariate analysis of 721 men with long-term follow-up.
        Am J Surg Pathol. 1996; 20: 286-292
        • Partin A.W.
        • Borland R.N.
        • Epstein J.I.
        • et al.
        Influence of wide excision of the neurovascular bundle(s) on prognosis in men with clinically localized prostate cancer with established capsular penetration.
        J Urol. 1993; 150: 142-148
        • Epstein J.I.
        Evaluation of radical prostatectomy capsular margins of resection: the significance of margins designated as negative, closely approaching, and positive.
        Am J Surg Pathol. 1990; 14: 626-632
        • Cheng L.
        • Darson M.F.
        • Bergstralh E.J.
        • et al.
        Correlation of margin status and extraprostatic extension with progression of prostate carcinoma.
        Cancer. 1999; 86: 1775-1782
        • Watson R.B.
        • Civantos F.
        • Soloway M.S.
        Positive surgical margins with radical prostatectomy: detailed pathological analysis and prognosis.
        Urology. 1996; 48: 80-90
        • Sofer M.
        • Hamilton-Nelson K.L.
        • Schlesselman J.J.
        • et al.
        Risk of positive margins and biochemical recurrence in relation to nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy.
        J Clin Oncol. 2002; 20: 1853-1858
        • Ochiai A.
        • Sotelo T.
        • Troncoso P.
        • et al.
        Natural history of biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy based on length of a positive margin.
        Urology. 2008; 71: 308-312
        • Shikanov S.
        • Song J.
        • Royce C.
        • et al.
        Length of positive surgical margin after radical prostatectomy as a predictor of biochemical recurrence.
        J Urol. 2009; 182: 139-144
        • Babaian R.J.
        • Troncoso P.
        • Bhadkamkar V.A.
        • et al.
        Analysis of clinicopathologic factors predicting outcome after radical prostatectomy.
        Cancer. 2001; 91: 1414-1422
        • Epstein J.I.
        • Pound C.R.
        • Partin A.W.
        • et al.
        Disease progression following radical prostatectomy in men with Gleason score 7 tumor.
        J Urol. 1998; 160: 97-101
        • Hull G.W.
        • Rabbani F.
        • Abbas F.
        • et al.
        Cancer control with radical prostatectomy alone in 1,000 consecutive patients.
        J Urol. 2002; 167: 528-534
        • Kattan M.W.
        • Wheeler T.M.
        • Scardino P.T.
        Postoperative nomogram for disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer.
        J Clin Oncol. 1999; 17: 1499-1507
        • Pettus J.A.
        • Weight C.J.
        • Thompson C.J.
        • et al.
        Biochemical failure in men following radical retropubic prostatectomy: impact of surgical margin status and location.
        J Urol. 2004; 172: 129-132
        • Swindle P.
        • Eastham J.A.
        • Ohori M.
        • et al.
        Do margins matter?.
        J Urol. 2005; 174: 903-907
        • Han M.
        • Partin A.W.
        • Pound C.R.
        • et al.
        Long-term biochemical disease-free and cancer-specific survival following anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy: the 15-year Johns Hopkins experience.
        Urol Clin North Am. 2001; 28: 555-565
        • Kausik S.J.
        • Blute M.L.
        • Sebo T.J.
        • et al.
        Prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in patients with extraprostatic carcinoma after radical prostatectomy.
        Cancer. 2002; 95: 1215-1219
        • Chuang A.Y.
        • Nielsen M.E.
        • Hernandez D.J.
        • et al.
        The significance of positive surgical margin in areas of capsular incision in otherwise organ confined disease at radical prostatectomy.
        J Urol. 2007; 178: 1306-1310

      Linked Article

      • Editorial Comment
        UrologyVol. 76Issue 5
        • Preview
          Positive surgical margins and their relevance in predicting biochemical recurrence (BCR) is currently a “hot” topic in urology studies. Recent publications have suggested that more detailed annotation of the pathologic parameters related to a positive margin might provide additional prognostic information. Brimo et al1 are the first to highlight an association between the Gleason score at a positive surgical margin and BCR in 108 patients with an overall Gleason score of 7, extraprostatic extension (EPE), and margin positivity.
        • Full-Text
        • PDF