4.4 Article

Ethnic Variation in Pelvimetric Measures and Its Impact on Positive Surgical Margins at Radical Prostatectomy

Journal

UROLOGY
Volume 76, Issue 5, Pages 1092-1096

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2010.02.020

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Sidney Kimmel Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVES We sought to evaluate the ethnic variation in pelvimetry and its impact as a predictor of positive surgical margins (PSM) at radical prostatectomy (RP). METHODS Preoperative MRI was performed in 482 Caucasian and 103 African American (AA) men undergoing RP without previous treatment from July 2003 to January 2005 and November 2001 to June 2007, respectively. We measured bony and soft tissue dimensions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to evaluate the pelvic inlet, midplane, prostate size, and apical depth. Analysis of covariance was performed to determine the effect of ethnicity on the midpelvic area (MPA). We performed multivariate logistic regression analysis for prediction of overall and site-specific PSM. RESULTS AA men had a significantly steeper symphysis pubis angle (median, 43.1 vs. 41.3 degrees, respectively, P = .001) and smaller MPA (median, 78.5 vs. 83.9 cm(2), respectively, P = .004). Ethnicity and BMI were found to have a significant effect on MPA. Apical depth of the prostate was identified as a significant independent predictor of apical PSM, with a more pronounced effect in AA men. Pelvimetric measures were not a significant predictor of other sites of PSM. CONCLUSIONS AA men have a significantly smaller MPA and steeper symphysis angle. The adverse impact of a deep pelvis, as measured by the apical prostatic depth on apical PSM was found to be greater in AA men. Evaluation of pelvic dimensions and prostate parameters in preoperative MRI may add to our understanding of their impact on surgical outcomes. UROLOGY 76: 1092-1096, 2010. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available