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

The clinical significance of in-depth pathological assessment of extraprostatic extension and margin status in radical prostatectomies for prostate cancer

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases volume 14, pages 307–312 (2011)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Despite recent Level 1 evidence on the benefits of adjuvant radiotherapy for locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa), the timing and decision to administer adjuvant radiotherapy post-radical prostatectomy (post-RP) remains debatable, particularly for patients with focal extraprostatic extension (EPE) and/or focal positive surgical margins (PSMs). In this study, we assess the utility of detailed pathological assessment of EPE and PSM, as this may influence the criteria for instituting adjuvant radiotherapy. A total of 148 RP cases (1993–2001) were identified retrospectively as having EPE and/or PSM. All slides were re-reviewed, incorporating recent proposals by the Collage of American Pathologists (CAP) for the reporting of EPE and PSM, and correlated with clinical data. Both EPE and PSM were found to be independent predictors of biochemical failure (BCF); however, only EPE was associated with metastasis and death. BCF was also more likely to be associated with cases that had non-focal EPE than focal EPE. Similarly, non-focal PSM cases had a significantly higher risk of BCF than focal cases. Our study confirms the value of detailed pathological assessment of EPE and PSM post-RP. The results support the concept of selective adjuvant radiotherapy in patients with EPE and PSM, based on focality and extent.

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. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Bolla M van Poppel H, Collette L, van Cangh P, Vekemans K, Da Pozzo L et al. Postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy: a randomised controlled trial (EORTC trial 22911). Lancet 2005; 366: 572–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Thompson IM, Tangen CM, Paradelo J, Lucia MS, Miller G, Troyer D et al. Adjuvant radiotherapy for pathologically advanced prostate cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2006; 296: 2329–2335.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wiegel T, Bottke D, Steiner U, Siegmann A, Golz R, Storkel S et al. Phase III postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy compared with radical prostatectomy alone in pT3 prostate cancer with postoperative undetectable prostate-specific antigen: ARO 96-02/AUO AP 09/95. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 2924–2930.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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 

  5. Catton C . The role of radiation therapy in prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: when and why? Curr Opin Support Palliat Care 2010; 4: 135–140.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Srigley JR, Humphrey PA, Amin MB, Chang SS, Egevad L, Epstein JI et al. Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with carcinoma of the prostate gland. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2009; 133: 1568–1576.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Epstein JI, Amin M, Boccon-Gibod L, Egevad L, Humphrey PA, Mikuz G et al. Prognostic factors and reporting of prostate carcinoma in radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy specimens. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl 2005; 216: 34–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Epstein JI, Carmichael MJ, Pizov G, Walsh PC . Influence of capsular penetration on progression following radical prostatectomy: A study of 196 cases with long-term followup. J Urol 1993; 150: 135–141.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wheeler TM, Dillioglugil O, Kattan MW, Arakawa A, Soh S, Suyama K et al. Clinical and pathological significance of the level and extent of capsular invasion in clinical stage T1-2 prostate cancer. Hum Pathol 1998; 29: 856–862.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chuang AY, Nielsen ME, Hernandez DJ, Walsh PC, Epstein JI . The significance of positive surgical margin in areas of capsular incision in otherwise organ confined disease at radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2007; 178: 1306–1310.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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 

  12. Epstein JI, Sauvageot J . Do close but negative margins in radical prostatectomy specimens increase the risk of postoperative progression? J Urol 1997; 157: 241–243.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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 

  14. 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 

  15. 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 

  16. Babaian RJ, Troncoso P, Bhadkamkar VA, Johnston DA . Analysis of clinicopathologic factors predicting outcome after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 2001; 91: 1414–1422.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ochiai A, Sotelo T, Troncoso P, Bhadkamkar V, Babaian RJ . Natural history of biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy based on length of a positive margin. Urology 2008; 71: 308–312.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Saether T, Sorlien LT, Viset T, Lydersen S, Angelsen A . Are positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens an independent prognostic marker? Scand J Urol Nephrol 2008; 42: 514–521.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. van Oort IM, Bruins HM, Kiemeney LA, 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: 464–471.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Epstein JI, Pizov G, Walsh PC . Correlation of pathologic findings with progression after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Cancer 1993; 71: 3582–3593.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cheng L, Darson MF, Bergstralh EJ, Slezak J, Myers RP, Bostwick DG . Correlation of margin status and extraprostatic extension with progression of prostate carcinoma. Cancer 1999; 86: 1775–1782.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC, Amin MB, Egevad LL . The 2005 international society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005; 29: 1228–1242.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Nielsen ME, Trock BJ, Walsh PC . Salvage or adjuvant radiation therapy: counseling patients on the benefits. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2010; 8: 228–237.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lake AM, He C, Wood Jr DP . Focal positive surgical margins decrease disease-free survival after radical prostatectomy even in organ-confined disease. Urology 2010; 76: 1212–1216.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Swindle P, Eastham JA, Ohori M, Kattan MW, Wheeler T, Maru N et al. Do margins matter? the prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 2008; 179: S47–S51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pathology, London Health Sciences Centre and University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada

    S M Chan, M Moussa & M Y Gabril

  2. Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, London Health Sciences Centre and University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada

    F J Garcia & J L Chin

Authors
  1. S M Chan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. F J Garcia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J L Chin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M Moussa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M Y Gabril
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to M Moussa or M Y Gabril.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chan, S., Garcia, F., Chin, J. et al. The clinical significance of in-depth pathological assessment of extraprostatic extension and margin status in radical prostatectomies for prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 14, 307–312 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2011.15

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2011.15

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links