SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Üroonkoloji Bülteni / 2017 / Cilt: 16 - Sayı: 3

Do Length and Tumor Grades of Positive Surgical Margin Have an Impact on Biochemical Recurrence After Prostatectomy?

Pozitif Cerrahi Sınırın Uzunluğu ve Tümör Derecesinin Prostatektomi Sonrası Biyokimyasal Nükse Etkisi Var mıdır?

Murat Yavuz KOPARAL
Cenk ACAR
BETÜL ÖĞÜT
Eda TOKAT
Fatih BIÇAKLIOĞLU
İPEK IŞIK GÖNÜL
ALİ FURKAN BATUR
Tevfik Sinan SÖZEN
Pages
86–91
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It is wise to assess adjunctive SM features such as SM, length, Gleason score and grade, and decide according to the patients’ risk groups to decide on adjuvant treatment

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: Biochemical recurrence (BCR) does not occur in all patients with surgical margin (SM) positivity after radical prostatectomy (RP).
📊
Key Findings & Data:The aim of our study is to evaluate the effect of additional features such as length, extent and Gleason grade on BCR in the positive SM determined in patients undergoing RP in our clinic.Materials and Methods: Clinicopathologic data and SM characteristics of 56 patients with pathologic stages of pT2-3aN0M0 and surgical border positivity were recorded from patients admitted to our RP database with retropublic RP between August 2001 and January 2015 and their relationship with BCR was evaluated statistically.Results: The median follow-up time of the patients was 39.4 months.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It is wise to assess adjunctive SM features such as SM, length, Gleason score and grade, and decide according to the patients’ risk groups to decide on adjuvant treatment
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2001 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: Biochemical recurrence (BCR) does not occur in all patients with surgical margin (SM) positivity after radical prostatectomy (RP). The aim of our study is to evaluate the effect of additional features such as length, extent and Gleason grade on BCR in the positive SM determined in patients undergoing RP in our clinic.Materials and Methods: Clinicopathologic data and SM characteristics of 56 patients with pathologic stages of pT2-3aN0M0 and surgical border positivity were recorded from patients admitted to our RP database with retropublic RP between August 2001 and January 2015 and their relationship with BCR was evaluated statistically.Results: The median follow-up time of the patients was 39.4 months. BCR was detected in 17 (30.3%) of the patients. Prostate specific antigen levels, tumor volumes and tumor percentages were found significantly higher in the patients with BCR (p 0.05). According to the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, the relationship between SMGG and the time of BCR was statistically significant (p=0.04). In SMGG 5 patients, the duration of BCR development was found significantly shorter. According to multivariable Cox regression analysis none of the factors were found to be effective on BCR (p> 0.05). Conclusion: SM positivity is one of the important factors for BCR. However, patients with positive SMs are quite heterogeneous and it is obvious that not all patients should be treated in the same way. It is wise to assess adjunctive SM features such as SM, length, Gleason score and grade, and decide according to the patients’ risk groups to decide on adjuvant treatment

Özet

Amaç: Radikal prostatektomi (RP) sonrasında cerrahi sınır (CS) pozitifliği saptanan hastaların tümünde biyokimyasal nüks (BKN) gelişmemektedir. Çalışmamızın amacı kliniğimizde RP uygulanan hastalarda saptanan pozitif CS'deki uzunluk, yaygınlık ve Gleason derecesi gibi ek özelliklerin BKN'ye olan etkisini değerlendirmektir.Gereç ve Yöntem: Kliniğimiz RP veri tabanına kayıtlı ve Ağustos 2001Ocak 2015 tarihleri arasında retropubik RP uygulanan takipli hastalardan patolojik evreleri pT2-3aN0M0 olan ve CS pozitifliği saptanan 56 hastanın klinikopatolojik verileri ve CS özellikleri incelenerek BKN ile olan ilişkisi istatistiksel olarak değerlendirildi.Bulgular: Hastaların takip süreleri ortalama 39,4 ay idi. Hastaların 17'sinde (%30,3) BKN saptandı. BKN saptanan hastaların tanı sırasındaki prostat spesifik antijen düzeyleri, tümör hacimleri ve tümör yüzdelerinin anlamlı olarak daha yüksek olduğu görüldü (p 0,05). KaplanMeier sağkalım analizine göre CSGD ile BKN saptanma süresi arasındaki ilişki istatistiksel olarak anlamlıydı (p=0,04). CSGD 5 hastalarda BKN gelişme süresi anlamlı olarak kısa saptandı. Çok değişkenli Cox regresyon analizine göre hiçbir faktörün BKN üzerine etkili olmadığı görüldü (p> 0,05). Sonuç: CS pozitifliği BKN için önemli faktörlerden biridir. Ancak CS pozitif saptanan hastalar oldukça heterojen bir grup olup, tüm hastaların aynı şekilde tedavi edilmemeleri gerektiği aşikardır. CS yaygınlığı, uzunluğu, Gleason skoru ve derecesi gibi ek CS özelliklerinin değerlendirilip, hastaların risk gruplarına göre ayrılarak adjuvan tedavi kararının verilmesi akılcı gözükmektedir

🔖

Cite This Article

KOPARAL, M. Y., ACAR, C., ÖĞÜT, B., TOKAT, E., BIÇAKLIOĞLU, F., GÖNÜL, İ. I., BATUR, A. F., SÖZEN, T. S. (2017). Do Length and Tumor Grades of Positive Surgical Margin Have an Impact on Biochemical Recurrence After Prostatectomy?. Üroonkoloji Bülteni, Cilt: 16 - Sayı: 3, 86–91. https://ajindex.com/articles/334322

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Amling CL, Blute ML, Bergstralh EJ, et al. Long-term hazard of progression after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: continued risk of biochemical failure after 5 years. J Urol 2000;164:101-105
  2. Pound CR, Partin AW, Eisenberger MA, et al. Natural history of progression after PSA elevation following radical prostatectomy. JAMA 1999;281:1591-1597
  3. Pound CR, Partin AW, Epstein JI, Walsh PC. Prostate-specific antigen after anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy. Patterns of recurrence and cancer control. Urol Clin North Am 1997;24:395-406
  4. Han M, Partin AW, Zahurak M, et al. Biochemical (prostate specific antigen) recurrence probability following radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2003;169:517-523
  5. Roehl KA, Han M, Ramos CG, et al. Cancer progression and survival rates following anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy in 3,478 consecutive patients: long-term results. J Urol 2004;172:910-914
  6. Kausik SJ, Blute ML, Sebo TJ, et al. Prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in patients with extraprostatic carcinoma after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 2002;95:1215-1219
  7. Swindle P, Eastham JA, Ohori M, et al. Do margins matter? The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 2005;174:903-907
  8. Wright JL, Dalkin BL, True LD, et al. Positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy predict prostate cancer specific mortality. J Urol 2010;183:2213-2218
  9. Khan MA, Partin AW, Mangold LA, et al. Probability of biochemical recurrence by analysis of pathologic stage, Gleason score, and margin status for localized prostate cancer. Urology 2003;62:866-871
  10. Cooperberg MR, Hilton JF, Carroll PR. The CAPRA-S score: A straightforward tool for improved prediction of outcomes after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 2011;117:5039-5046
  11. Kates M, Sopko NA, Han M, et al. Importance of Reporting the Gleason Score at the Positive Surgical Margin Site: Analysis of 4,082 Consecutive Radical Prostatectomy Cases. J Urol 2016;195:337-342
  12. Servoll E, Vlatkovic L, Saeter T, et al. The length of a positive surgical margin is of prognostic significance in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy. Urol Int 2014;93:289-295
  13. Udo K, Cronin AM, Carlino LJ, et al. Prognostic impact of subclassification of radical prostatectomy positive margins by linear extent and Gleason grade. J Urol 2013;