Outcomes| Volume 76, ISSUE 5, P1210-1211, November 2010

Download started.



      We appreciate the comments made by Drs. Reuter and Fine about our publication related to the association between the Gleason grade of cancer at the positive surgical margin and the rate of biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP). The 2 major concerns raised by the authors were (1) whether the study cohort was “sufficient in number and features to assess the value” of the presented results, and (2) whether the different subclassifications of positive surgical margins have any additive prognostic information altogether.
      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 to Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • 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
        • Stephenson A.J.
        • Wood D.P.
        • Kattan M.W.
        • et al.
        Location, extent and number of positive surgical margins do not improve accuracy of predicting prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy.
        J Urol. 2009; 182: 1357-1363
        • 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
        • Epstein J.I.
        Evaluation of radical prostatectomy capsular margins of resection.
        Am J Surg Pathol. 1990; 14: 626-632
        • 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
        • Babaian R.J.
        • Troncoso P.
        • Bhadkamkar V.A.
        • et al.
        Analysis of clinicopathologic factors predicting outcome after radical prostatectomy.
        Cancer. 2001; 91: 1414-1422
        • Emerson R.E.
        • Koch M.O.
        • Daggy J.K.
        • et al.
        Closest distance between tumor and resection margin in radical prostatectomy specimens: lack of prognostic significance.
        Am J Surg Pathol. 2005; 29: 225-229
        • Cao D.
        • Kibel A.S.
        • Gao F.
        • et al.
        Tumor Gleason grade and the extent of involvement at the margin in radical prostatectomy are predictive of prostate cancer recurrence.
        Mod Pathol. 2010; 23: 182A

      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