Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The impact of surgical margin status on prostate cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Clinical and Translational Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Until now, there is no clear conclusion on the relationship between the surgical margin status after radical prostatectomy (RP) and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM). Therefore, we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis based on all eligible case–control studies.

Methods

A systematic and comprehensive literature search was performed based on PUBMED and EMBASE to identify all of the potentially relevant publications which were published before September 2019. Hazard ratio (HR) for PCSM was independently extracted by two reviewers from all eligible studies. Pooled HR estimates with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were computed by Stata12.0.

Results

Total 15 eligible studies were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled results showed that patients with positive surgical margin (PSM) after RP may have higher PCSM than those who had a negative surgical margin (HR 1.44, P = 0.043). In the subgroup analysis, we found that no matter whether the pathological stage of the patients is T2 or T3, PSM is indicative of a high PCSM and that the PCSM of T3 is higher than T2 (Pathological stage T3, HR 1.77, P = 0.032; Pathological stage T2, HR 1.56, P = 0.003). In addition, by performing the subgroup analysis of Gleason score, we concluded that both Gleason score 8–10 and Gleason score ≤ 7 would increase the risk of PCSM, and the former was more significant than the latter (Gleason score 8–10, HR 1.88, P < 0.001; Gleason score ≤ 7, HR 1.38, P = 0.039). Moreover, PSM increased PCSM regardless of whether the patients received radiation therapy or not (radiation therapy, HR 1.92, P < 0.001; no radiation therapy, HR 1.42, P < 0.001).

Conclusions

This meta-analysis demonstrated that patients with PSM after RP may have an elevated PCSM. However, to evaluate these correlations in more details, it is necessary to conduct further studies on a larger sample size.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics. CA. 2019;69(1).

  2. Mehralivand S, van der Poel H, Winter A, Choyke PL, Pinto PA, Turkbey B. Sentinel lymph node imaging in urologic oncology. Transl Androl Urol. 2018;7(5):887–902.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Yossepowitch O, Bjartell A, Eastham JA, Graefen M, Guillonneau BD, Karakiewicz PI, Montironi R, Montorsi F. Positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy: outlining the problem and its long-term consequences. Eur Urol. 2009;55(1):87–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chalfin HJ, Dinizo M, Trock BJ, Feng Z, Partin AW, Walsh PC, Humphreys E, Han M. Impact of surgical margin status on prostate-cancer-specific mortality. BJU Int. 2012;110(11):1684–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hashimoto T, Yoshioka K, Horiguchi Y, Inoue R, Yoshio O, Nakashima J, Tachibana M. Clinical effect of a positive surgical margin without extraprostatic extension after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol. 2015;33(12):503.e501–.e506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Sammon JD, Trinh Q-D, Sukumar S, Ravi P, Friedman A, Sun M, Schmitges J, Jeldres C, Jeong W, Mander N, 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(8):1470–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mithal P, Howard LE, Aronson WJ, Terris MK, Cooperberg MR, Kane CJ, Amling C, Freedland SJ. 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(2):244–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Simon RM, Howard LE, Freedland SJ, Aronson WJ, Terris MK, Kane CJ, Amling CL, Cooperberg MR, Vidal AC. Adverse pathology and undetectable ultrasensitive prostate-specific antigen after radical prostatectomy: Is adjuvant radiation warranted? BJU Int. 2016;117(6):897–903.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Heering M, Berg KD, Brasso K, Iversen P, Røder MA. Radical prostatectomy in Denmark: survival analysis and temporal trends in clinicopathological parameters with up to 20 years of follow-up. Surg Oncol. 2017;26(1):21–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Herforth C, Stroup SP, Chen Z, Howard LE, Freedland SJ, Moreira DM, Terris MK, Aronson WJ, Cooperberg MR, Amling CL, et al. Radical prostatectomy and the effect of close surgical margins: results from the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital (SEARCH) database. BJU Int. 2018;122(4):592–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Knoedler JJ, Karnes RJ, Thompson RH, Rangel LJ, Bergstralh EJ, Boorjian SA. The association of tumor volume with mortality following radical prostatectomy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2014;17(2):144–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lewinshtein D, Teng B, Valencia A, Gibbons R, Porter CR. The long-term outcomes after radical prostatectomy of patients with pathologic Gleason 8–10 disease. Adv Urol. 2012;2012:428098.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mauermann J, Fradet V, Lacombe L, Dujardin T, Tiguert R, Tetu B, Fradet Y. The impact of solitary and multiple positive surgical margins on hard clinical end points in 1712 adjuvant treatment-naive pT2-4 N0 radical prostatectomy patients. Eur Urol. 2013;64(1):19–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mitchell CR, Boorjian SA, Umbreit EC, Rangel LJ, Carlson RE, Karnes RJ. 20-Year survival after radical prostatectomy as initial treatment for cT3 prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2012;110(11):1709–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Moschini M, Sharma V, Zattoni F, Boorjian SA, Frank I, Gettman MT, Thompson RH, Tollefson MK, Kwon ED, Karnes RJ. Risk stratification of pN+ prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy from a large single institutional series with long-term followup. J Urol. 2016;195(6):1773–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ploussard G, Agamy MA, Alenda O, Allory Y, Mouracade P, Vordos D, Hoznek A, Abbou C-C, de la Taille A, Salomon L. Impact of positive surgical margins on prostate-specific antigen failure after radical prostatectomy in adjuvant treatment-naïve patients. BJU Int. 2011;107(11):1748–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Preisser F, Mazzone E, Knipper S, Nazzani S, Bandini M, Shariat SF, Tian Z, Saad F, Montorsi F, Zorn KC, et al. Rates of positive surgical margins and their effect on cancer-specific mortality at radical prostatectomy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2019;17(1):e130–e139139.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Retèl VP, Bouchardy C, Usel M, Neyroud-Caspar I, Schmidlin F, Wirth G, Iselin C, Miralbell R, Rapiti E. Determinants and effects of positive surgical margins after prostatectomy on prostate cancer mortality: a population-based study. BMC Urol. 2014;14:86.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Stephenson AJ, Eggener SE, Hernandez AV, Klein EA, Kattan MW, Wood DP, Rabah DM, Eastham JA, Scardino PT. Do margins matter? The influence of positive surgical margins on prostate cancer-specific mortality. Eur Urol. 2014;65(4):675–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Touijer KA, Mazzola CR, Sjoberg DD, Scardino PT, Eastham JA. Long-term outcomes of patients with lymph node metastasis treated with radical prostatectomy without adjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy. Eur Urol. 2014;65(1):20–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Viers BR, Sukov WR, Gettman MT, Rangel LJ, Bergstralh EJ, Frank I, Tollefson MK, Thompson RH, Boorjian SA, Karnes RJ. Primary Gleason grade 4 at the positive margin is associated with metastasis and death among patients with Gleason 7 prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2014;66(6):1116–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wright JL, Dalkin BL, True LD, Ellis WJ, Stanford JL, Lange PH, Lin DW. Positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy predict prostate cancer specific mortality. J Urol. 2010;183(6):2213–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Tan PH, Cheng L, Srigley JR, Griffiths D, Humphrey PA, van der Kwast TH, Montironi R, Wheeler TM, Delahunt B, Egevad L, 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(1):48–57.

  25. Hsu M, Chang SL, Ferrari M, Nolley R, Presti JC, Brooks JD. Length of site-specific positive surgical margins as a risk factor for biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy. Int J Urol. 2011;18(4):272–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bong GW, Ritenour CWM, Osunkoya AO, Smith MT, Keane TE. Evaluation of modern pathological criteria for positive margins in radical prostatectomy specimens and their use for predicting biochemical recurrence. BJU Int. 2009;103(3):327–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lu J, Wirth GJ, Wu S, Chen J, Dahl DM, Olumi AF, Young RH, McDougal WS, Wu C-L. A close surgical margin after radical prostatectomy is an independent predictor of recurrence. J Urol. 2012;188(1):91–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. May M, Brookman-May S, Weißbach L, Herbst H, Gilfrich C, Papadopoulos T, Roigas J, Hofstädter F, Wieland WF, Burger M. Solitary and small (≤3 mm) apical positive surgical margins are related to biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Int J Urol. 2011;18(4):282–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Psutka SP, Feldman AS, Rodin D, Olumi AF, Wu C-L, McDougal WS. Men with organ-confined prostate cancer and positive surgical margins develop biochemical failure at a similar rate to men with extracapsular extension. Urology. 2011;78(1):121–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Shikanov S, Marchetti P, Desai V, Razmaria A, Antic T, Al-Ahmadie H, Zagaja G, Eggener S, Brendler C, Shalhav A. Short (≤1 mm) positive surgical margin and risk of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2013;111(4):559–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Beauval J-B, Roumiguié M, Filleron T, Benoit T, de la Taille A, Malavaud B, Salomon L, Soulié M, Ploussard G. Biochemical recurrence-free survival and pathological outcomes after radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer. BMC Urol. 2016;16(1):26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Fontenot PA, Mansour AM. Reporting positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: time for standardization. BJU Int. 2013;111(8):E290–E299299.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Huang JG, Pedersen J, Hong MKH, Harewood LM, Peters J, Costello AJ, Hovens CM, Corcoran NM. Presence or absence of a positive pathological margin outperforms any other margin-associated variable in predicting clinically relevant biochemical recurrence in Gleason 7 prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2013;111(6):921–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kanehira M, Takata R, Ishii S, Ito A, Ikarashi D, Matsuura T, Kato Y, Obara W. Predictive factors for short-term biochemical recurrence-free survival after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in high-risk prostate cancer patients. Int J Clin Oncol. 2019;24(9):1099–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. van Oort IM, Bruins HM, Kiemeney LALM, Knipscheer BC, Witjes JA. Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA: the length of positive surgical margins correlates with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Histopathology. 2010;56(4):464–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Zhang L, Wu B, Zha Z, Zhao H, Jiang Y, Yuan J. Positive surgical margin is associated with biochemical recurrence risk following radical prostatectomy: a meta-analysis from high-quality retrospective cohort studies. World J Surg Oncol. 2018;16(1):124.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Yossepowitch O, Briganti A, Eastham JA, Epstein J, Graefen M, Montironi R, Touijer K. Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and contemporary update. Eur Urol. 2014;65(2):303–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Zhang L, Wu B, Zha Z, Zhao H, Yuan J, Jiang Y, Yang W. Surgical margin status and its impact on prostate cancer prognosis after radical prostatectomy: a meta-analysis. World J Urol. 2018;36(11):1803–15.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Bolton DM, Papa N, Ta AD, Millar J, Davidson AJ, Pedersen J, Syme R, Patel MI, Giles GG. Predictors of prostate cancer specific mortality after radical prostatectomy: 10 year oncologic outcomes from the Victorian Radical Prostatectomy Registry. BJU Int. 2015;116(Suppl 3):66–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Fleshner NE, Evans A, Chadwick K, Lawrentschuk N, Zlotta A. Clinical significance of the positive surgical margin based upon location, grade, and stage. Urol Oncol. 2010;28(2):197–204.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Jang WS, Kim LHC, Yoon CY, Rha KH, Choi YD, Hong SJ, Ham WS. Effect of Preoperative Risk Group stratification on oncologic outcomes of patients with adverse pathologic findings at radical prostatectomy. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(10):e0164497.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Mithal P, Howard LE, Aronson WJ, Kane CJ, Cooperberg MR, Terris MK, Amling CL, Freedland SJ. Prostate-specific antigen level, stage or Gleason score: which is best for predicting outcomes after radical prostatectomy, and does it vary by the outcome being measured? Results from Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital database. Int J Urol. 2015;22(4):362–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Atsushi K, Shintaro N, Taketoshi N, Koichiro T, Sohei K, Kazuyuki N, Hiroshi T, Atsushi M, Mingguo H, Mitsuru S. Incidence and location of positive surgical margin among open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in prostate cancer patients: a single institutional analysis. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2018.

  44. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TLJ, Auvinen A. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized european study. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(13):1320–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Baack Kukreja J, Bathala TK, Reichard CA, Troncoso P, Delacroix S, Davies B, Eggener S, Smaldone M, Minhaj Siddiqui M, Tollefson M, et al. Impact of preoperative prostate magnetic resonance imaging on the surgical management of high-risk prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2020;23(1):172–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Kozikowski M, Zagożdżon B, Gola M, Dobruch J. Prostate imaging reporting and data system in prostate cancer staging and planning for radical prostatectomy. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne. 2019;14(2):262–70.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Lee T, Hoogenes J, Wright I, Matsumoto ED, Shayegan B. Utility of preoperative 3 Tesla pelvic phased-array multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in prediction of extracapsular extension and seminal vesicle invasion of prostate cancer and its impact on surgical margin status: Experience at a Canadian academic tertiary care centre. Can Urol Assoc J. 2017;11(5):E174-8.

  48. Schiavina R, Bianchi L, Borghesi M, Dababneh H, Chessa F, Pultrone CV, Angiolini A, Gaudiano C, Porreca A, Fiorentino M, et al. MRI displays the prostatic cancer anatomy and improves the bundles management before robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2018;32(4):315–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Schieda N, Lim CS, Idris M, Lim RS, Morash C, Breau RH, Flood TA, McInnes MDF. MRI assessment of pathological stage and surgical margins in anterior prostate cancer (APC) using subjective and quantitative analysis. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017;45(5):1296–303.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Silberstein JL, Eastham JA. Significance and management of positive surgical margins at the time of radical prostatectomy. Indian J Urol. 2014;30(4):423–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Tianjin science and technology plan project (19ZXDBSY00050).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, The Second Hospital of Tianjin Medical University, No. 23 Pingjiang Road, Hexi District, Tianjin, People’s Republic of China

    B. Zhang, J. Zhou, S. Wu, M. Guo, Y. Zhang & R. Liu

Authors
  1. B. Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Y. Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. R. Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. Liu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors state that there are no potential competing interests in this manuscript.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Consent for publication

All authors agree to publish this article.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, B., Zhou, J., Wu, S. et al. The impact of surgical margin status on prostate cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Transl Oncol 22, 2087–2096 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-020-02358-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-020-02358-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation