Ramírez-Garduño E, González-Serrano A, Cortez-Betancourt R, Alías-Melgar A, Carreño-De la Rosa F, Botello-Gómez PJ, Trujillo-Vázquez EI, Ordoñez-Campos E

Language: Spanish
References: 12
Page: 20-25
PDF size: 219.81 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: Despite international recommendations, there is a lack of standardization in the reporting of surgical margins.
Objective: To describe the characteristics of positive margins that should be reported following radical prostatectomy.
Materials and Methods: An observational, descriptive, crosssectional, and retrospective study was conducted. The medical records of patients with prostate cancer that underwent robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy within the time frame of May 2015 and May 2016 were reviewed. The variables of tumor stage, Gleason score, prostate volume, prostate-specific antigen, prostate-specific antigen density, biochemical recurrence, and the need for postoperative radiotherapy were described.
Results: Fifty-two medical records were obtained. Three patients (5.7%) had positive surgical margins and the most common location was the apex, with a mean extension of 2.6 mm. Sixty percent of those cases had a Gleason score of 7 (3+4) and pT2bR1 stage disease. Two patients received adjuvant radiotherapy and one patient underwent salvage radiotherapy.
Conclusions: The evaluation of the histopathologic features of positive surgical margins after prostatectomy can be clinically significant. Results in regard to the importance of these variables are controversial, most likely related to the lack of uniformity among pathology reports.

REFERENCES

1. Montorsi F, Gandaglia G, Briganti A. Long-term outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: where do we stand? BJU International 2015; 116: 845-846.

2. Han M, Partin AW, Pound CR, et al. Long-term biochemical disease-free and cancer-specific survival following anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy. The 15-year Johns Hopkins experience. Urol. Clin. North Am. 2001; 28; 555-565.

3. Boorjian SA, Karnes RJ, Crispen PL, et al. The Impact of Positive Surgical Margins on Mortality Following Radical Prostatectomy During the Prostate Specific Antigen Era. J Urol 2013; 183(3): 1003-1009.

4. Stephenson AJ, Eggener SE, Hernandez AV, et al. Do Margins Matter? The Influence of Positive Surgical Margins on Prostate Cancer-Specific Mortality. European Urology 2015; 65: 675 - 680.

5. Tan PH, Cheng L, Srigley JR. International society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. working group 5: surgical margins. Mod Pathol 2011; 24: 48-57.

6. Fontenot PA, Mansour AM, Reporting positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: time for standardization. BJU International 2013; 111(8); E290-E299.

7. Novara G, Ficarra V, Mocellin S, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012; 62:382-404.

8. Yossepowitch O, Briganti A, Eastham JA, et al. Positive Surgical Margins After Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Contemporary Update. European Urology 2014; 65: 303-313.

9. Suardi N, Dell'Oglio P, Gallina A, et al. Evaluation of positive surgical margins in patients undergoing robot-assisted and open radical prostatectomy according to preoperative risk groups. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations 34 (2016) 57.e1-57.e7

10. Smith JA Jr, Chan RC, Chang SS, 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(6): 2385-2390.

11. van Oort IM, Bruins HM, Kiemeney L, et al. The length of positive surgical margins correlates with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Histopathology 2010, 56, 464-471.

12. Wright JL, Dalkin BL, True LD, et al. Positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy predict prostate cancer-specific mortality: support for optimizing surgical technique and pathological evaluation at radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2010; 183(6):2213-2218.