Biochemical Recurrence Rates after Minimally Invasive Radical Prostatectomy and Positive Surgical Margins in Localized Prostate Cancer

Authors

  • Chatchawet Liwrotsap Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
  • Sittiporn Srinualnad Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
  • Mongkol Ouyprasertkul Department of Pathology, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
  • Julaporn Pooliam Office for Research and Development, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
  • Sunai Leewansangtong Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
  • Chaiyong Nualyong Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
  • Tawatchai Taweemonkongsap Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
  • Teerapon Amornvesukit Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
  • Bansithi Chaiyaprasithi Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
  • Siros Jitpraphai Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand

Keywords:

prostate cancer, laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy, positive margins, biochemical recurrence

Abstract

Objective: To retrospectively evaluate biochemical recurrence rates of the patients who underwent minimally invasive radical prostatectomy and positive margins in localized prostate cancer. Treatment in men with positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy is controversial. Immediate adjuvant therapy reduces the risk of biochemical recurrence at the cost of increased toxicity. Providing the appropriate treatment should be based on an understanding of the risk of recurrence without treatment.

Materials and Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of the records of 944 men who underwent minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (laparoscopic or robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy) in Siriraj hospital between December 2005 to July 2009. Patient age at surgery, clinical stage, preoperative PSA, operative time, estimated blood loss, surgical specimen pathology(specimen weight, tumor grade, tumor volume, stage and surgical margin status) and follow up PSA were recorded. All specimens were reviewed by one pathologist. Of 944 patients, 122 met criteria for analysis.

Results: Mean follow up was 21.4 months (3.2-58.3). The positive margin rate was 12.9% (122 of 944 patients). The overall PSA biochemical recurrence rate was 13.9% (17 of 122, 95%CI: 8.9%-21.2%). Mean PSA slightly higher in patients with biochemical recurrence (11.9 vs 11.5, p = 0.864). The recurrence rate was higher in patients with multiple positive margins compared to those with a solitary positive margin (17.2% vs 12.9%, p = 0.549). However, these differences failed to attain statistical significance. Mean interval to biochemical recurrence (n=17) was 10.9+8.4 months (2.8-29.1). No statistically significant risk factors for recurrence in patients with a positive margin on univariated analysis were found.

Conclusions: A low biochemical recurrence rate, (13.9%) was found in patients with a positive surgical margin following minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. If adjuvant radiation is given to every patient with a positive surgical margin, more than 86% of patients will receive unnecessary adjuvant radiation and/or hormonal therapy.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Boyle P, Ferlay J. Cancer incidence and mortality in Europe 2004. Ann Oncol 2005;16:481-8.

Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Murray T, et al. Cancer statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J Clin 2008; 58: 71-96.

Catalona W J, Han M. Definitive therapy for localized prostate cancer-An overview In: Alan J Wein (ed.) Campbell-Walsh Urology 9th ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders 2007; p.2932-46.

Srinualnad S, Nualyong C, Udompunturak S, Kongsuwan W. Endoscopic Extraperitoneal Radical Prostatectomy (EERPE): A New Aproach for Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer. J Med Assoc Thai 2006; 89: 1601-8.

Eastham JA, Kattan MW, Riedel E, Begg CB, Wheeler TM, Gerigk C, et al. Variations among individual surgeons in the rate of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 2003; 170: 2292-5.

Wieder JA, Soloway MS. Incidence, etiology, location, prevention and treatment of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 1998; 160: 299-315.

Guillonneau B, el-Fettouh H, Baumert H, Cathelineau X, Doublet JD, Fromont G, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: oncological evaluation after 1,000 cases at Montsouris Institute. J Urol 2003; 169: 1261-6.8.

Freedland SJ, Aronson WJ, Terris MK, Kane CJ, Amling CL, Dorey F, et al. Percent of prostate needle biopsy cores with cancer is significant independent predictor of prostate specific antigen recurrence following radical prostatectomy: results from SEARCH database. J Urol 2003; 169: 2136-41.

DûAmico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schultz D, Schnall M, Tomaszewski JE, et al. A multivariate analysis of clinical and pathological factors that predict for prostate specific antigen failure after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 1995; 154: 131-8.

Epstein JI: Incidence and significance of positive margins in radical prostatectomy. Urol Clin North Am 1996; 23: 651-63.

Salomon L, Anastasiadis AG, Johnson CW, McKiernan JM, Goluboff ET, Abbou CC, et al. Seminal vesicle involvement after radical prostatectomy: predicting risk factors for progression. Urology 2003; 62: 304-3.

Simon MA, Kim S, Soloway MS. Prostate specific antigen recurrence rates are low after radical retropubic prostatectomy and positive margins. J Urol 2006; 175: 140-4.

Thompson IM Jr, Tangen CM, Paradelo J, Lucia MS, Miller G, Troyer D, et al. Adjuvant radiotherapy for pathologically advanced prostate cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2006; 296: 2329-35.

Bolla M, van Poppel H, Collette L, van Cangh P, Vekemans K, Da Pozzo L, et al. Postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy: a randomised controlled trial (EORTC trial 22911). Lancet 2005; 366: 572-8.

Cookson MS, Aus G, Burnett AL, Canby-Hagino ED, DûAmico AV, Dmochowski RR, et al. Variation in the definition of biochemical recurrence in patients treated for localized prostate cancer: the American Urological prostate guidelines for localized prostate cancer update panel report and recommendations for a standard in the reporting of surgical outcomes. J Urol 2007; 177: 540-5.

Mohler J, DûAmico A, Kantoff P, Smith M.R, Amling C, Walsh C.P, et al. Adjuvant or salvage radiation therapy after radical prostatectomy In: Mohler J. editors. NCCN clinical practice guidelines for prostate cancer; 2009 version 2: 2009, 14.

Moul JW, Wu H, Sun L, McLeod DG, Amling C, Donahue T, et al. Early versus delayed hormonal therapy for prostate specific antigen only recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2004; 171: 1141-7.

Rassweiler J, Schulze M, Teber D, Marrero R, Seemann O, Frede T, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with the Heilbronn technique: oncological results in the first 500 patients. J Urol 2005; 173: 761-4.

Zorn KC, Gofrit ON, Orvieto MA, Mikhail AA, Zagaja GP, Shalhav AL. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: functional and pathologic outcome with interfascial nerve preservation. Eur Urol 2007; 51(3): 755-62.

Patel V., Tully A., Holmes R., Lindsay J. Robotic radical prostatectomy in the community setting-the learning curve and beyond: Initial 200 cases. J Urol 2005; 174: 269-72.

Smith JA Jr, Chan RC, Chang SS, Herrell SD, Clark PE, Baumgartner R, et al. A comparison of the incidence and location of positive surgical margins in robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2007; 178: 2385-90.

Sofer M, Hamilton-Nelson KL, Schlesselman JJ, Soloway MS. Risk of positive margins and biochemical recurrence in relation to nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 1853-8.

Stephenson AJ, Shariat SF, Zelefsky MJ, Kattan MW, Butler EB, Teh BS, et al. Salvage radiotherapy for recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. JAMA 2004; 291: 1325-32.

Downloads

Published

2010-12-01

How to Cite

Liwrotsap, C., Srinualnad, S., Ouyprasertkul, M., Pooliam, J., Leewansangtong, S., Nualyong, C., Taweemonkongsap, T., Amornvesukit, T., Chaiyaprasithi, B., & Jitpraphai, S. (2010). Biochemical Recurrence Rates after Minimally Invasive Radical Prostatectomy and Positive Surgical Margins in Localized Prostate Cancer. Insight Urology, 31(2), 88–96. Retrieved from https://he02.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/TJU/article/view/252397

Issue

Section

Original article