Review article
Radical prostatectomy: Positive surgical margins matter

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2011.12.011Get rights and content

Abstract

Objective

A positive surgical margin (PSM) in the radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen is associated with biochemical recurrence (BCR) and the need for adjuvant radiation therapy, and is a surrogate for surgical quality. We review the available data describing the identification, anatomy, and management of PSM after RP.

Methods

A PubMed search (using English language as a filter) was performed to identify factors affecting PSMs and their management.

Results

PSMs are associated with an increased likelihood of BCR after RP. The most common location for a PSM is the apex, followed by the posterolateral edge of the prostate. The risk of recurrence in a patient with a PSM is associated with the location, length, and Gleason score of the PSM. The management of a patient with a PSM remains controversial, with some recommending adjuvant radiation therapy for all PSMs and others suggesting only salvage radiation therapy for men who experience BCR.

Conclusions

PSMs are associated with an increased likelihood of BCR and often result in initiation of adjuvant treatment. Therefore, the goal of surgery should be to minimize the likelihood of a PSM.

Introduction

Surgical margin status at radical prostatectomy (RP) has many implications for the patient. Aggressive or advanced disease may be cured in men with negative surgical margins. Positive surgical margins (PSMs), however, even with organ-confined cancers, are associated with higher rates of biochemical recurrence (BCR) and result in the increased burden of further treatment [1]. In this review, we discuss the incidence, anatomy, and management of PSMs after RP.

Section snippets

Definition of PSM

In prostate cancer (CaP), a PSM is defined as tumor cells at the inked surgical margin of the RP specimen [2]. The cause of a PSM is often multifactorial. In cases with extracapsular extension (EPE), a PSM is more likely to occur if the surgeon does not resect widely enough around the prostate, often the result of an overzealous attempt at preserving the neurovascular bundles. A PSM can also occur in cases of organ-confined disease if the surgeon resects too close to the prostate (often

Incidence of PSM

The reported overall rates of PSM vary tremendously, reflecting differences in pathology (e.g., specimen processing, diligence of the pathologist in reviewing the tissue), patient selection, and surgical technique (Table 1). Analysis of the national Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program database identified a median PSM rate of 21.2% for all 13 regional SEER registries participating from 1998 to 2006 [4]. There was a 2-fold variance in the recorded rates of PSMs among

The apex

A number of series have shown that PSMs are most common at the apex (Table 2). For the surgeon, the apex is challenging because of the broad extent of the dorsal venous complex and its location under the pubic bone and proximity to the neurovascular bundles. Anatomically, the apex has the least capsule, and even benign glands are admixed with skeletal muscles [7]. Anatomical studies using preoperative MRI have demonstrated that the depth of the prostatic apex within the pelvis is an independent

Size of the PSM

Are all PSMs equivalent? This question has been addressed by multiple studies. Cao et al. evaluated almost 300 PSMs and found a mean length of 3.90 mm [23]. The authors stratified the length of PSMs into 3 groups: ≤1 mm, 1 mm to 3 mm, and >3 mm, but were unable to establish a length at which a PSM did not affect BCR. While there was no difference in rates of BCR in patients with PSMs 3 mm, patients with PSMs > 3 mm had a significantly shorter time to BCR and higher overall rates of BCR. In an

Oncologic outcomes

A man with a PSM after RP is more likely to develop BCR [25]. In a large multi-institutional study of almost 6,000 men undergoing RP, PSM was associated with a 3.7-fold risk of BCR [1]. Often associated with aggressive disease, PSMs are not independent of other clinical and pathologic features. Stephenson et al., using a multivariate model that included age, Gleason score, PSA, EPE, and SVI, followed more than 7,000 patients in a large multi-institutional study and found that PSMs were

Management of PSMs

Men with a PSM are almost twice as likely to receive radiotherapy (XRT) after RP than men with a negative margin, even after adjusting for cancer grade, stage, and EPE [30]. Three randomized controlled trials have attempted to address the need for adjuvant XRT after RP. The Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) 8794 trial began in 1988 and randomized 425 men with pT3 cancer after RP to either 60–64 Gy of external beam radiation to the prostatic fossa or observation [31]. Men had at least 1 adverse

Role of the surgeon

One of the most important predictors of a PSM and subsequent BCR is the surgeon. An evaluation of the surgical learning curve of 72 surgeons operating on 7,765 patients at 4 major institutions found that PSMs significantly decreased from 40% after 10 cases to 25% after 250 cases [39]. As witnessed by most surgeons who originally performed open or laparoscopic prostatectomy and are now performing robotic prostatectomy, PSMs decrease over time with increased experience. In a review of their first

Conclusion

We describe the incidence, anatomy, and management of PSM after RP. While the management of PSM is controversial, the surgical margin remains one of the surgeon's most important contributions to patient outcome by preventing the need for further treatment and, potentially, disease recurrence.

References (43)

  • F.J. Bianco et al.

    Radical prostatectomy with bladder neck preservation: Impact of a positive margin

    Eur Urol

    (2003)
  • M.R. Licht et al.

    Impact of bladder neck preservation during radical prostatectomy on continence and cancer control

    Urology

    (1994)
  • H. Lepor et al.

    The role of bladder neck biopsy in men undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy with preservation of the bladder neck

    J Urol

    (1998)
  • P.M. Pierorazio et al.

    A contemporary analysis of outcomes of adenocarcinoma of the prostate with seminal vesicle invasion (pT3b) after radical prostatectomy

    J Urol

    (2011)
  • D. Cao et al.

    Ability of linear length of positive margin in radical prostatectomy specimens to predict biochemical recurrence

    Urology

    (2011)
  • S. Shikanov et al.

    Length of positive surgical margin after radical prostatectomy as a predictor of biochemical recurrence

    J Urol

    (2009)
  • R.B. Watson et al.

    Positive surgical margins with radical prostatectomy: Detailed pathological analysis and prognosis

    Urology

    (1996)
  • A.J. Stephenson 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)
  • M.A. Preston et al.

    The prognostic significance of capsular incision into tumor during radical prostatectomy

    Eur Urol

    (2011)
  • M.A. Simon et al.

    Prostate specific antigen recurrence rates are low after radical retropubic prostatectomy and positive margins

    J Urol

    (2006)
  • G.D. Grossfeld 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)
  • Cited by (0)

    This work was supported by the Sidney Kimmel Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers.

    View full text