4.5 Article

Prognostic value of unifocal and multifocal positive surgical margins in a large series of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 37, 期 9, 页码 1837-1844

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00345-018-2578-y

关键词

Prostate cancer; Radical prostatectomy; Surgical margins; Focality; Prognosis; Biochemical recurrence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose To evaluate the prognostic value of positive surgical margins (PSM) focality for the prediction of biochemical recurrence (BCR) in patients undergoing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) for prostate cancer. Methods All men with clinically localized prostate cancer undergoing RARP in our tertiary referral centre between May 2005 and August 2016 were retrospectively identified. Patients with neoadjuvant therapy were excluded. Comparisons were made between cases with negative surgical margins (NSM), unifocal PSM (uPSM), and multifocal PSM (mPSM). Results From a total of 973 patients available for analysis, 315 (32%) had a PSM. In these patients, 190 had uPSM and 125 had mPSM. Focality of PSM was significantly associated with tumour stage and grade, preoperative PSA, and postoperative PSA persistence (all p < 0.001), but not with nerve sparing (NS) (p = 0.15). PSA persistence was found in 120 (12%) patients, resulting in 853 patients available for survival analyses with a median follow-up of 52 months. Both uPSM and mPSM were found to be independent predictors of BCR, conferring a hazard ratio of 1.9 (95% CI 1.3-3.0; p = 0.002) and 3.4 (95% CI 2.1-5.6; p < 0.001), respectively, when compared to NSM. In subgroup analyses, PSM was particularly predictive for BCR when patients underwent unilateral or bilateral NS (p <= 0.003). Conclusions Based on a large case series of RARP, we found PSM focality to be an independent predictor of BCR, with a 1.9- and 3.4-fold risk increase for BCR in case of uPSM and mPSM, respectively. PSM seems to be of particular prognostic relevance when NS has been performed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据