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.

  • Article
  • Published:

Positive margin length and highest Gleason grade of tumor at the margin predict for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy in patients with organ-confined prostate cancer

Abstract

Background

To evaluate the pathologic features after radical prostatectomy to determine if the length of positive surgical margin (PSM) and the highest Gleason grade within the tumor at the PSM could risk stratify patients for biochemical recurrence (BCR).

Methods

We performed a retrospective, matched, cohort study to identify patients with pathologically organ-confined (pT2) tumors and negative nodes (pN0/Nx), receiving no adjuvant therapy. Specimens underwent single pathologist review. BCR-free survival was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method and compared between subgroups using two-sided log-rank test. Using Classification and Regression Tree analysis (CART), we identified an optimal cutoff for the PSM length which differentiated risk for BCR. Cox proportional hazards regression models were fit to assess the association between variables and BCR-free survival.

Results

Two-hundred PSM patients were matched to 200 patients with negative surgical margins (NSM). Median follow-up was 64 months. 5 year BCR-free survival was 90% (95% CI 84–97%) in the NSM group and 70% (95% CI 63–79%) in the PSM group. There was an increased risk of BCR with any PSM. Multivariable analysis demonstrated an association with length of PSM ( > 1 mm vs. ≤ 1 mm, HR 2.29; 95% CI 1.2–4.5) and having a highest Gleason grade of the cancer focus at the margin ≥ 4 (HR 6.8; 95% CI 1.6–29).

Conclusions

We demonstrated that patients with pathologic T2 tumors with PSM > 1 mm or a Gleason grade of tumor focus at the margin ≥ 4 are at elevated risk for BCR. However, this study suggests that patients with pT2 tumors with positive surgical margins have a relatively low risk of biochemical recurrence and adjuvant radiation may be over treating this sub population. The subsets at greatest risk for BCR may benefit from more frequent PSA monitoring to direct salvage therapies.

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

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Litwin MS, Lubeck DP, Mehta SS, Henning JM, et al. The contemporary management of prostate cancer in the United States: lessons from the cancer of the prostate strategic urologic research endeavor (CapSURE), a national disease registry. J Urol. 2004;171:1393–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Stephenson AJ, Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Dotan ZA, Bianco FJ Jr., Lilja H, et al. Defining biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: a proposal for a standardized definition. J. Clin. Oncol. 2006;24:3973–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Trock BJ, Han M, Freedland SJ, Humphreys EB, DeWeese TL, Partin AW, et al. Prostate cancer-specific survival following salvage radiotherapy vs observation in men with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. JAMA. 2008;299:2760–9.

    Article  CAS  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;181:956–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Choueiri TK, Chen MH, D’Amico AV, Sun L, Nguyen PL, Hayes JH, et al. Impact of postoperative prostate-specific antigen disease recurrence and the use of salvage therapy on the risk of death. Cancer. 2010;116:1887–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 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;27:2924–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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;380:2018–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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;190:441–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Schreiber D, Rineer J, Yu JB, Olsheski M, Nwokedi E, Schwartz D, et al. Analysis of pathologic extent of disease for clinically localized prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy and subsequent use of adjuvant radiation in a national cohort. Cancer. 2010;116:5757–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Briganti A, Wiegel T, Joniau S, Cozzarini C, Bianchi M, Sun M, et al. Early salvage radiation therapy does not compromise cancer control in patients with pT3N0 prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: results of a match-controlled multi-institutional analysis. Eur Urol. 2012;62:472–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Van der Kwast TH, Bolla M, Van Poppel H, Van Cangh P, Vekemans K, Da Pozzo L, et al. Identification of patients with prostate cancer who benefit from immediate postoperative radiotherapy: EORTC 22911. J. Clin. Oncol. 2007;25:4178–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Babaian RJ, Troncoso P, Bhadkamkar VA, Johnston DA. Analysis of clinicopathologic factors predicting outcome after radical prostatectomy. Cancer. 2001;91:1414–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 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;66:1245–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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. 2005;174:903–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sooriakumaran P, Ploumidis A, Nyberg T, Olsson M, Akre O, Haendler L, et al. The impact of length and location of positive margins in predicting biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. BJU Int.2015;115:106–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kates M, Sopko NA, Han M, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Importance of reporting the Gleason score at the positive surgical margin site: Analysis of 4,082 consecutive radical prostatectomy cases. J Urol. 2016;195:337–42.

    Article  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;71:308–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 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;178:1306–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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;189:1302–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sanchez-Ortiz RF, Troncoso P, Babaian RJ, Lloreta J, Johnston DA, Pettaway CA. African-American men with nonpalpable prostate cancer exhibit greater tumor volume than matched white men. Cancer. 2006;107:75–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Chen ME, Johnston D, Reyes AO, Soto CP, Babaian RJ, Troncoso P. A streamlined three-dimensional volume estimation method accurately classifies prostate tumors by volume. Am J Surg Pathol. 2003;27:1291–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimator from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc. 1958;53:457–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mantel N. Evaluation of survival data and two new rank order statistics arising in its consideration. Cancer Chemother Rep. 1966;50:163–70.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Breiman L, Friedman JH, Olshen RA, Stone CJ. Calssification and regression trees. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth; 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Cox DR. Regression models and life-tables. J R Stat Soc Series B (Methodol). 1972;34:187–220.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Brimo F, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Tumor grade at margins of resection in radical prostatectomy specimens is an independent predictor of prognosis. Urology. 2010;76:1206–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 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;77:1409–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 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;182:139–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Barocas DA, Han M, Epstein JI, Chan DY, Trock BJ, Walsh PC, et al. Does capsular incision at radical retropubic prostatectomy affect disease-free survival in otherwise organ-confined prostate cancer? Urology. 2001;58:746–51.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Ohori M, Wheeler TM, Kattan MW, Goto Y, Scardino PT. Prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol. 1995;154:1818–24.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Srigley JR, Allan R, Amin MB, Chang SS, Brett D, Epstein JI, Grignon DJ, Humphrey PA, McKiernan JM, Pettus J, Reuter VE, Wheeler TM. Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with carcinoma of the prostate gland: College of American pathologists; 2017 [June 2017]. Available from: www.cap.org.

  32. Porten SP, Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR. The independent value of tumour volume in a contemporary cohort of men treated with radical prostatectomy for clinically localized disease. BJU Int. 2010;105:472–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Wadhwa H, Terris MK, Aronson WJ, Kane CJ, Amling CL, Cooperberg MR, 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. 2016;19:423–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Sofer M, Hamilton-Nelson KL, Civantos F, Soloway MS. Positive surgical margins after radical retropubic prostatectomy: the influence of site and number on progression. J Urol. 2002;167:2453–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Thompson B, Nguyen Q, Ho B, Emmett L, Glass AG, Leo MC, et al. Validation of a genomic classifier for predicting post-prostatectomy recurrence in a community based health care setting. BJU Int. 2016;195:1748–53.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian F. Chapin.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chapin, B.F., Nguyen, J.N., Achim, M.F. et al. Positive margin length and highest Gleason grade of tumor at the margin predict for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy in patients with organ-confined prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 21, 221–227 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-017-0019-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-017-0019-4

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links