Preoperative Factors Predictive of Posterolateral Extracapsular Extension After Radical Prostatectomy

In 2012, Jung et al. [1] announced that an estimated 11,016 new cases of prostate cancer-9.3% of the total cancers in men-would be diagnosed in Korea and that approximately 1,540 men (3.4%) were expected to die from this disease [2]. Radical prostatectomy (RP) is a major treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer. Since Quinlan et al. [3] detailed the anatomy of the pelvic cavity and nerve-sparing RP, the maintenance of potency after RP has greatly improved [4-6]. However, sparing the neurovascular bundles (NVBs) adjacent to the posterolateral aspect of the prostatic fascia has often been suggested as a possible risk factor for positive surgical margins (PSMs) [7].

A PSM has been shown to be associated with higher rates of biochemical recurrence and disease progression [8-10]. In most studies, NVB sparing had no significant impact on PSMs [11-15]. Nonetheless, in several robotic prostatectomy series, increased PSM rates in pathological T3 tumors were found to be related to nerve sparing [16-19].

Many nomograms and guidelines for nerve-sparing RP have been reported previously [20-23]. The designs of these earlier studies were mostly based on the likelihood of extracapsular extension (ECE). ECE is associated with a greater risk of a PSM. In general, NVB sparing is not recommended if the chance of ECE is high. However, ECE is often not in the region of the NVB [23].

Our current study was specifically aimed at quantifying the probability of ECE at the posterolateral side of the prostate. We developed a risk-stratification scoring system for the prediction of posterolateral ECE to help in nerve-sparing decision making.

A total of 944 lobes were analyzed. ECE was observed in 194 prostate lobes (20.6%). Table 1 summarizes patient characteristics, subdivided by the side-specific posterolateral ECE status. There were no significant differences between the two groups with regard to age, BMI, or prostate volume. The patient group with posterolateral ECE, however, had a higher PSA level and clinical stage than did the patient group without posterolateral ECE (p<0.001 and p=0.001, respectively). In the TRUS-guided prostate biopsy findings, the patient group with posterolateral ECE had a higher Gleason score (GS) and percentage of side-specific cores with a tumor than did the patient group without posterolateral ECE (all p<0.001). In the side-specific MRI findings, a higher proportion of positive findings of ECE was shown in the patient group with posterolateral ECE (p<0.001). Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy was performed in 359 patients (76.1%) and NVBs were preserved in 765 lobes (81.0%). Overall, PSMs were identified in 80 lobes (8.5%) and posterolateral PSMs were seen in 51 lobes (5.4%). When ECE was present in the lobe, a posterolateral area was the most common PSM site (16.5%).

TABLE 1
Patient characteristics subdivided by side-specific posterolateral ECE status

• Click for larger image

Table 2 lists the predictive factors identified by multivariate logistic regression analysis for posterolateral ECE after RP. We found that PSA (odds ratio [OR], 1.039; p<0.001), biopsy GS≥7 (OR, 2.057; p=0.050), side-specific cores with tumor (OR, 1.018; p<0.001), and posterolateral ECE on MRI (OR, 3.047; p=0.001) were independent predictors of posterolateral ECE.

TABLE 2
Multivariate logistic analysis for the prediction of posterolateral ECE

• Click for larger image

To quantify the risk of side-specific posterolateral ECE after RP, we developed a risk-stratification scoring system based on a logistic regression model (Table 3). We selected the preoperative variables with p<0.05 in the univariate analysis. The model included PSA, biopsy GS, percentage of side-specific cores with tumor, and posterolateral ECE on MRI. All factors had 0 to 4 points each. The predicted risk estimation by the scoring system is shown in Table 4. A total score ranged from 0 to 14 points and the risk of posterolateral ECE ranged from 4.1% to 91.7%.

TABLE 3
Scoring system for the prediction of posterolateral ECE

• Click for larger image

TABLE 4
Predicted risk estimation by the scoring system

• Click for larger image

To assess the accuracy of predicting posterolateral ECE, we performed internal and external validation and calculated the area under the ROC curve. Fig. 1 and Table 5 show the discrimination ability and calibration ability of the scoring system. Figs. 2 and 3 show the calibration curve of the scoring system.

FIG. 1
Receiver operating characteristic curves for the development set (AUC=0.810) and external validation set (AUC=0.830). AUC, area under the curve.

• Click for larger image

FIG. 2
Calibration curves for the development set.

• Click for larger image

FIG. 3
Calibration curves for the external validation set.

• Click for larger image

TABLE 5
Discrimination and calibration ability of the scoring system

• Click for larger image

Patient selection for nerve-sparing RP is important to best balance functional and oncological outcomes. A PSM after RP is defined as cancer at the inked surface of the specimen. This result can either be due to surgical incision into the capsule of an organ-confined prostate cancer or be associated with ECE beyond the limits of surgical resection. In particular, a posterolateral PSM in nerve-sparing RP is a critical issue because of its anatomical location. PSMs were most commonly seen at the apex in this study. However, in patients with pT3a tumors, PSMs were most commonly located at the posterolateral site. Although a recent multicenter study found no significant difference in the risk of biochemical recurrence according to location of the PSM [24], a careful dissection of the posterolateral prostate after RP is required if there is any suspicion of ECE. In general, nerve sparing is not recommended when ECE is suspected.

Many algorithms and nomograms have been developed to predict the risk of ECE. Shah et al. [21] introduced the New York University nerve-sparing algorithm, which is based on biopsy GS, tumor volume on biopsy, and perineural invasion. This algorithm was developed by using the likelihood of ECE. Tsuzuki et al. [23] also developed an algorithm for the prediction of ECE in the region of the NVB. This model combines the biopsy GS, preoperative PSA, palpable nodules on DRE, percentage of side-specific cores with tumor, and average percentage involvement of each positive core. Tewari et al. [22] reported a risk-stratified approach to nerve sparing in robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. This Cornell algorithm included the clinical T stage, biopsy Gleason grade, preoperative PSA, percentage of tumor in any biopsy core, and MRI findings. However, it is still unclear whether all men with ECE should undergo excision of the NVB. Patients at high risk of ECE are presumably at higher risk of harboring preexisting occult metastasis [25], and the ECE is often not in the region of the NVB [23]. In this study, however, we focused on quantifying the probability of posterolateral ECE at the NVB, rather than overall ECE. Significant independent predictors of posterolateral ECE on nerve sparing were PSA, biopsy GS≥7, percentage of side-specific cores with tumor, and posterolateral ECE on MRI. The scoring system was constructed on the basis of a logistic regression model.

According to the scoring system, the predicted risk of ECE is 91.1% when all factors are positive and 4.1% when all factors are negative. For example, the risk of ECE is predicted to be 49.2% when a prostate lobe has 8 points.

In this study, we found that MRI findings were important factors for the prediction of ECE and for planning nerve-sparing RP. Positive findings of posterolateral ECE on MRI was one of the independent risk factors (OR, 3.047; p=0.001) for posterolateral PSMs, and it had the second highest score (3 points) for the predictive model. McClure et al. [26] reported that preoperative prostate MRI data modified the decision to use a nerve-sparing technique during robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy in 27% of patients. Furthermore, in patients whose surgical plan was changed to a nerve-sparing technique, there were no PSMs on the side of the prostate. In that study, the nerve-sparing technique was reserved for patients without intermediate or high probability of ECE. Several studies also examined the prediction of ECE on MRI [26-28]. In general, the diagnostic criteria for determining ECE on MRI included an irregular capsular bulge, periprostatic fat infiltration, obliteration of the rectoprostatic angle, and asymmetry or direct involvement of the NVB. Findings in studies in which MRI was used for prostate cancer staging and prediction of ECE have yielded a range of values for accuracy (56.88%), sensitivity (51.89%), and specificity (67.87%). Reader expertise, MRI equipment, and study protocols may have influenced this variability.

Our study had several limitations. First, although we attempted to carefully select our study population, the problems inherent in a retrospective study are unavoidable and may have affected the results. Second, we cannot show any evidence that applying this model truly decreases posterolateral PSM after RP. Last, four different uroradiologists analyzed the MRI findings and, although many MRI criteria are used when staging prostate cancer, interobserver variability was not considered.

The present study, however, is of value because our study is the first report of a risk-stratification scoring system for ECE. In addition, no other studies have, to our knowledge, used nomograms or scoring systems that included MRI findings as factors. Our study has an advantage because it was a large single-center series. Finally, the current work is the first study of predicting ECE in Korean prostate cancer patients. We believe that the scoring system derived from this study will help to predict the individual risk of posterolateral ECE and will help surgeons to decide whether to perform nerve-sparing RP. Nonetheless, future efforts to decrease the PSM in nerve-sparing RP require more specific predictors and better imaging and surgical techniques.

We found that PSA, biopsy GS≥7, percentage of side-specific cores with tumor, and posterolateral ECE on MRI are independent predictors of posterolateral ECE. We developed a scoring system to predict the risk of side-specific posterolateral ECE. The use of the scoring system derived from this study will provide objective parameters when determining whether the NVB can be safely spared.