Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Clinical Research

Long-term oncological outcomes of apical positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy in the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital cohort

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases volume 19, pages 423–428 (2016)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Background:

Approximately 29–38% of all positive surgical margins (PSMs) at radical prostatectomy (RP) involve the apex. The prognostic significance of apical PSM remains unclear. We therefore compared the long-term oncologic outcomes of men with apical PSMs to those with negative PSMs, apical and other PSMs, and other PSMs at RP.

Methods:

The SEARCH (Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital) database was used to identify 4031 men with prostate cancer (PCa) managed with RP with complete pathologic grade and stage data. Margin status was categorized as negative, apex only, or other positive. Multivariable Cox regression models adjusted for pathologic stage and grade were developed to test the relationship between margin status and biochemical recurrence (BCR), metastases and PCa death.

Results:

In the final cohort, 34.3% had PSMs, whereas 65.7% had negative margins. Univariable analysis showed that compared with negative margins, apex-only PSM was associated with BCR (hazard ratio (HR): 1.4 [1.1–1.8]), but not metastases or PCa death, whereas apex and other PSMs were associated with BCR (HR: 3.3 [2.8–4]) and metastases (HR: 1.8 [1.02–3.1]) but not PCa death. Nonapical PSMs were associated with BCR (HR: 2.7 [2.4–3.1]), metastases (1.7 [1.2–2.5)] and PCa death (1.8 [1.05–3]). On multivariable analysis, apex-only, apex and other, and nonapical PSMs were associated with BCR but margin status was not associated with metastases or PCa death.

Conclusions:

In a large cohort of men undergoing RP, those with PSMs at the prostatic apex had lower BCR, metastases, or PCa death compared with those with PSMs at other locations. When adjusted for pathologic stage and grade, however, PSMs were associated with BCR but not long-term oncologic outcomes. These data confirm that men with apex-only PSMs may not be ideal candidates for adjuvant therapy after RP.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Haas GP, Delongchamps N, Brawley OW, Wang CY, de la Roza G . The worldwide epidemiology of prostate cancer: perspectives from autopsy studies. Can J Urol 2008; 15: 3866–3871.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A . Cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin 2013; 63: 11–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ward JF, Zincke H, Bergstralh EJ, Slezak JM, Myers RP, Blute ML . The impact of surgical approach (nerve bundle preservation versus wide local excision) on surgical margins and biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2004; 172 (4 Pt 1): 1328–1332.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wright JL, Dalkin BL, True LD, Ellis WJ, Stanford JL, Lange PH et al. Positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy predict prostate cancer specific mortality. J Urol 2010; 183: 2213–2218.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Izard JP, Salazar MA, Chatterjee S, Lin DW, Wright JL . Positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy: population-based averages within PSA and Gleason strata. Can Urol Assoc J 2013; 7: E561–E566.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Eastham JA, Kuroiwa K, Ohori M, Serio AM, Gorbonos A, Maru N et al. Prognostic significance of location of positive margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology 2007; 70: 965–969.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mithal P, Howard LE, Aronson WJ, Terris MK, Cooperberg MR, Kane CJ et al. Positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy patients do not predict long-term oncological outcomes: results from the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital (SEARCH) cohort. BJU Int 2016; 117: 244–248.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Chalfin HJ, Dinizo M, Trock BJ, Feng Z, Partin AW, Walsh PC et al. Impact of surgical margin status on prostate-cancer-specific mortality. BJU Int 2012; 110: 1684–1689.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rouanne M, Rode J, Campeggi A, Allory Y, Vordos D, Hoznek A et al. Long-term impact of positive surgical margins on biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: ten years of follow-up. Scand J Urol 2014; 48: 131–137.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Secin FP, Serio A, Bianco FJ Jr, Karanikolas NT, Kuroiwa K, Vickers A et al. Preoperative and intraoperative risk factors for side-specific positive surgical margins in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2007; 51: 764–771.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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 (6, Part 1): 2292–2295.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Atug F, Castle EP, Srivastav SK, Burgess SV, Thomas R, Davis R . Positive surgical margins in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: impact of learning curve on oncologic outcomes. Eur Urol 2006; 49: 866–871.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Vickers A, Bianco F, Cronin A, Eastham J, Klein E, Kattan M et al. The learning curve for surgical margins after open radical prostatectomy: implications for margin status as an oncological end point. J Urol 2010; 183: 1360–1365.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tan PH, Cheng L, Srigley JR, Griffiths D, Humphrey PA, van der Kwast TH et al. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Karakiewicz PI, Eastham JA, Graefen M, Cagiannos I, Stricker PD, Klein E et al. Prognostic impact of positive surgical margins in surgically treated prostate cancer: multi-institutional assessment of 5831 patients. Urology 2005; 66: 1245–1250.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Pfitzenmaier J, Pahernik S, Tremmel T, Haferkamp A, Buse S, Hohenfellner M . Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: do they have an impact on biochemical or clinical progression? BJU Int 2008; 102: 1413–1418.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Boorjian SA, Karnes RJ, Crispen PL, Carlson RE, Rangel LJ, Bergstralh EJ et al. The impact of positive surgical margins on mortality following radical prostatectomy during the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol 2010; 183: 1003–1009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hong YM, Hu JC, Paciorek AT, Knight SJ, Carroll PR . Impact of radical prostatectomy positive surgical margins on fear of cancer recurrence: Results from CaPSURE™. Urol Oncol 2010; 28: 268–273.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Grossfeld GD, Chang JJ, Broering JM, Miller DP, Yu J, Flanders SC et al. Impact of positive surgical margins on prostate cancer recurrence and the use of secondary cancer treatment: data from the CaPSURE database. J Urol 2000; 163: 1171–1177.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cao D, Humphrey PA, Gao F, Tao Y, Kibel AS . Ability of linear length of positive margin in radical prostatectomy specimens to predict biochemical recurrence. Urology 2011; 77: 1409–1414.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Stephenson AJ, Wood DP, Kattan MW, Klein EA, Scardino PT, Eastham JA et al. Location, extent and number of positive surgical margins do not improve accuracy of predicting prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2009; 182: 1357–1363.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Fesseha T, Sakr W, Grignon D, Banerjee M, Wood DP Jr, Pontes JE . Prognostic implications of a positive apical margin in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 1997; 158: 2176–2179.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kausik SJ, Blute ML, Sebo TJ, Leibovich BC, Bergstralh EJ, Slezak J et al. Prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in patients with extraprostatic carcinoma after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 2002; 95: 1215–1219.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Pettus JA, Weight CJ, Thompson CJ, Middleton RG, Stephenson RA . Biochemical failure in men following radical retropubic prostatectomy: impact of surgical margin status and location. J Urol 2004; 172: 129–132.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Vis AN, Schröder FH, van der Kwast TH . The actual value of the surgical margin status as a predictor of disease progression in men with early prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2006; 50: 258–265.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. May M, Brookman-May S, Weissbach L, Herbst H, Gilfrich C, Papadopoulos T et al. Solitary and small (</=3 mm) apical positive surgical margins are related to biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Int J Urol 2011; 18: 282–289.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Shikanov S, Song J, Royce C, Al-Ahmadie H, Zorn K, Steinberg G et al. Length of positive surgical margin after radical prostatectomy as a predictor of biochemical recurrence. J Urol 2009; 182: 139–144.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Emerson RE, Koch MO, Jones TD, Daggy JK, Juliar BE, Cheng L . The influence of extent of surgical margin positivity on prostate specific antigen recurrence. J Clin Pathol 2005; 58: 1028–1032.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Marks RA, Koch MO, Lopez-Beltran A, Montironi R, Juliar BE, Cheng L . The relationship between the extent of surgical margin positivity and prostate specific antigen recurrence in radical prostatectomy specimens. Hum Pathol 2007; 38: 1207–1211.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Shikanov S, Marchetti P, Desai V, Razmaria A, Antic T, Al-Ahmadie H et al. Short (=1 mm) positive surgical margin and risk of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2013; 111: 559–563.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Udo K, Cronin AM, Carlino LJ, Savage CJ, Maschino AC, Al-Ahmadie HA et al. Prognostic impact of subclassification of radical prostatectomy positive margins by linear extent and Gleason grade. J Urol 2013; 189: 1302–1307.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Katz R, Salomon L, Hoznek A, de la Taille A, Antiphon P, Abbou CC . Positive surgical margins in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the impact of apical dissection, bladder neck remodeling and nerve preservation. J Urol 2003; 169: 2049–2052.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ploussard G, Drouin SJ, Rode J, Allory Y, Vordos D, Hoznek A et al. Location, extent, and multifocality of positive surgical margins for biochemical recurrence prediction after radical prostatectomy. World J Urol 2014; 32: 1393–1400.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Roder MA, Kawa S, Scheike T, Toft BG, Hansen JB, Brasso K et al. Non-apical positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy for pT2 prostate cancer is associated with the highest risk of recurrence. J Surg Oncol 2014; 109: 818–822.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Ohori M, Abbas F, Wheeler TM, Kattan MW, Scardino PT, Lerner SP . Pathological features and prognostic significance of prostate cancer in the apical section determined by whole mount histology. J Urol 1999; 161: 500–504.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Ayala AG, Ro JY, Babaian R, Troncoso P, Grignon DJ . The prostatic capsule: does it exist? Its importance in the staging and treatment of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 1989; 13: 21–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kordan Y, Salem S, Chang SS, Clark PE, Cookson MS, Davis R et al. Impact of positive apical surgical margins on likelihood of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2009; 182: 2695–2701.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Stephenson AJ, Eggener SE, Hernandez AV, Klein EA, Kattan MW, Wood DP Jr et al. Do margins matter? The influence of positive surgical margins on prostate cancer-specific mortality. Eur Urol 2014; 65: 675–680.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Boorjian SA, Tollefson MK, Rangel LJ, Bergstralh EJ, Karnes RJ . Clinicopathological predictors of systemic progression and prostate cancer mortality in patients with a positive surgical margin at radical prostatectomy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2012; 15: 56–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Thompson IM, Valicenti RK, Albertsen P, Davis BJ, Goldenberg SL, Hahn C et al. Adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy after prostatectomy: AUA/ASTRO Guideline. J Urol 2013; 190: 441–449.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Bolla M, van Poppel H, Tombal B, Vekemans K, Da Pozzo L, de Reijke TM et al. Postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer: long-term results of a randomised controlled trial (EORTC trial 22911). Lancet 2012; 380: 2018–2027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Thompson IM, Tangen CM, Paradelo J, Lucia MS, Miller G, Troyer D et al. Adjuvant radiotherapy for pathological T3N0M0 prostate cancer significantly reduces risk of metastases and improves survival: long-term followup of a randomized clinical trial. J Urol 2009; 181: 956–962.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Wiegel T, Bartkowiak D, Bottke D, Bronner C, Steiner U, Siegmann A et al. Adjuvant radiotherapy versus wait-and-see after radical prostatectomy: 10-year follow-up of the ARO 96-02/AUO AP 09/95 trial. Eur Urol 2014; 66: 243–250.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Cao D, Kibel AS, Gao F, Tao Y, Humphrey PA . The gleason score of tumor at the margin in radical prostatectomy is predictive of biochemical recurrence. Am J Surg Pathol 2010; 34: 994–1001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Choo MS, Cho SY, Ko K, Jeong CW, Lee SB, Ku JH et al. Impact of positive surgical margins and their locations after radical prostatectomy: comparison of biochemical recurrence according to risk stratification and surgical modality. World J Urol 2014; 32: 1401–1409.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Sammon JD, Trinh QD, Sukumar S, Ravi P, Friedman A, Sun M et al. Risk factors for biochemical recurrence following radical perineal prostatectomy in a large contemporary series: a detailed assessment of margin extent and location. Urol Oncol 2013; 31: 1470–1476.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Vrang ML, Roder MA, Vainer B, Christensen IJ, Gruschy L, Brasso K et al. First Danish single-institution experience with radical prostatectomy: impact of surgical margins on biochemical outcome. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2012; 46: 172–179.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Blute ML, Bostwick DG, Bergstralh EJ, Slezak JM, Martin SK, Amling CL et al. Anatomic site-specific positive margins in organ-confined prostate cancer and its impact on outcome after radical prostatectomy. Urology 1997; 50: 733–739.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

    H Wadhwa & M R Abern

  2. Section of Urology, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Augusta, GA, USA

    M K Terris

  3. Section of Urology, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA, USA

    M K Terris

  4. Department of Surgery, Urology Section, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    W J Aronson

  5. Department of Urology, University of California at Los Angeles School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    W J Aronson

  6. Division of Urology, University of California at San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA

    C J Kane

  7. Department of Urology, Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland, OR, USA

    C L Amling

  8. Department of Urology, University of California at San Francisco Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA, USA

    M R Cooperberg

  9. Department of Surgery, Urology Section, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, USA

    M R Cooperberg

  10. Section of Urology, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA

    S J Freedland

  11. Division of Urologic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    S J Freedland

Authors
  1. H Wadhwa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M K Terris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. W J Aronson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C J Kane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. C L Amling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. M R Cooperberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. S J Freedland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. M R Abern
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M R Abern.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wadhwa, H., Terris, M., Aronson, W. et al. Long-term oncological outcomes of apical positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy in the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital cohort. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 19, 423–428 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2016.45

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2016.45

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links