Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations
Original articleInfluence of pathologist experience on positive surgical margins following radical prostatectomy☆
Introduction
Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most commonly diagnosed nonskin cancer in the United States and radical prostatectomy (RP) is the most common treatment option for men with localized disease [1]. Analysis of the surgical margin following RP, defined as tumor cells present at the inked margin of a resected specimen [2], is frequently used to assist in risk stratification and guide subsequent therapies. Over several decades, there has been continued downward stage migration due to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening [3]. Consequently, the rates of positive surgical margins (PSM) after RP have been decreasing over the last 25 years and contemporary rates range from 10% to 30% [4], [5].
PSMs following RP can be a significant source of anxiety for patients and increases the risk of biochemical recurrence [6], [7] and secondary therapies [8]. Although some data suggest PSMs to independently predict PCa-specific mortality [9], most adjusted analyses do not show similar observations [10], [11]. Some expert guidelines (American Society of Clinical Oncology/American Urological Association/European Association of Urology) suggest that men with PSMs should consider adjuvant radiation therapy [12], [13]; however, this is not commonly done [14], [15]. For these reasons, accurate interpretation of the surgical margin has a critical role for patient counseling, prognosis, and treatment decisions [16].
PSA, clinical stage, pathologic stage, and volume of tumor are consistently associated with a higher PSM rate [5], [17], [18], [19]. The role of the pathologist on PSMs has also been examined. Interpretation of surgical margins is subject to interobserver variability with multiple studies suggesting 8% to 26% rates of discordance among pathologists [20], [21].
We hypothesize that the individual pathologist and pathologist experience are associated with PSMs following RP.
Section snippets
Study design and data collection
We performed a retrospective, single-center, observational cohort study on 3,557 men who were treated with robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy for localized PCa at the University of Chicago Medical Center and Weiss Hospital between April 2003 and January 2015. Men were excluded if surgery was aborted (n = 38, 1%), most often due to intraoperative positive lymph nodes, or if they received neoadjuvant therapy (n = 57, 1.5%).
All patients provided informed consent. Data were collected and
Cohort description
The mean age was 60 years (SD = 7.1) and median PSA was 5.2 ng/ml (interquartile range: 4.1–7.2; Table 1). Following surgery, Gleason score 6 was identified in 1,088 (31%), Gleason 7 in 2,213 (62%), Gleason 8 in 131 (4%), and Gleason 9 in 124 (3%). Pathologic stage was pT2a in 320 (9%), pT2b in 304 (9%), pT2c in 2,099 (57%), pT3a in 728 (20%), and pT3b in 193 (5%). PSM was identified in 672 (18.9%). PSM rates by pathologist varied from 8.3% to 27.5% (Fig. 1). Among the 29 pathologists examined,
Discussion
We demonstrate that the individual pathologist’s experience is independently associated with the rate of PSMs following RP. There appears to be a learning curve among pathologists for identifying PSMs with increasing odds of finding PSMs as experience is accrued. The relationship was most pronounced for the pathologists with the greatest caseload.
These findings illustrate that surgical margin status can be significantly influenced by individual pathologists. Strategies to standardize the
Conclusion
We demonstrate that pathologist’s experience is an independent factor for PSM, even when controlling for fellowship training, surgeon experience, pathologic stage, Gleason score, PSA, and BMI. Based on these findings, pathologists with less experience reviewing RP specimens may consider requesting rereview by a dedicated GU pathologist.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in these studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional or national research committee or both, and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study, formal consent is not required.
Authors contributions
J.E. Tallman: protocol/project development, data collection or management, data analysis, and manuscript writing/editing.
V.T. Packiam: protocol/project development, data collection or management, data analysis, and manuscript writing/editing.
K.E. Wroblewski: data collection or management, data analysis, and manuscript writing/editing.
G.P. Paner: data collection or management, data analysis, and manuscript writing/editing.
S.E. Eggener: protocol/project development, data collection or management,
Acknowledgments
This study was supported in part by the National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive, and Kidney Diseases, United States, Grant no. 5T35DK062719-28 and in part by National Institutes of Health, United States CTSA, Grant no. UL1 TR000430.
References (33)
- et al.
Prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens
J Urol
(1995) - et al.
Ongoing Gleason grade migration in localized prostate cancer and implications for use of active surveillance
Eur Urol
(2014) - et al.
An evaluation of the decreasing incidence of positive surgical margins in a large retropubic prostatectomy series
J Urol
(2004) - et al.
Impact of radical prostatectomy positive surgical margins on fear of cancer recurrence: results from CaPSURE?
Urol Oncol
(2010) - et al.
Positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy predict prostate cancer specific mortality
J Urol
(2010) - et al.
Do margins matter? The influence of positive surgical margins on prostate cancer-specific mortality
Eur Urol
(2014) - et al.
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) - et al.
Low utilization of immediate and delayed postoperative radiation for prostate cancer with adverse pathologic features
J Urol
(2015) - et al.
Predictive factors for positive surgical margins and their locations after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy
Eur Urol
(2010) - et al.
Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and contemporary update
Eur Urol
(2014)
Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support
J Biomed Inform
International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 3: extraprostatic extension, lymphovascular invasion and locally advanced disease
Mod Pathol
Preoperative and intraoperative risk factors for side-specific positive surgical margins in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer
Eur Urol
Interobserver variability in histologic evaluation of radical prostatectomy between central and local pathologists: findings of TAX 3501 multinational clinical trial
Urology
Discrepancy between local and central pathological review of radical prostatectomy specimens
J Urol
Age is associated with upgrading at confirmatory biopsy among men with prostate cancer treated with active surveillance
J Urol
Cited by (7)
“Real-time” Assessment of Surgical Margins During Radical Prostatectomy: State-of-the-Art
2020, Clinical Genitourinary CancerCitation Excerpt :The high inter-observer variability in the assessment of surgical margins (SMs) between pathologists during RP (κ = 0.45) is among the main factors causing this controversy.7,8 Furthermore, the PSM rate is greatly affected by the experience of the surgeons and pathologists, which in turn, can result in highly variable rates of PSMs between different studies.9 Thus, the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) published their recommendation about SM assessment to standardize the pathologic reporting of SM status.10
Impact of Multifocality and Multilocation of Positive Surgical Margin After Radical Prostatectomy on Predicting Oncological Outcome
2019, Clinical Genitourinary CancerCitation Excerpt :Recently, a close surgical margin, defined as cancer cells coming within 0.1 mm from surgical margin, was also found to increase the BCR rate significantly when compared with pure negative surgical margin.3 Risk factors for PSM included PSA level, GS, tumor volume, pT stage, surgical approach, and the surgeon's experience, as well as the pathologist's interpretation.4-8 Previously, extensive discussions on PSM have been mainly focused on its location, number, length, and GS.4,5
Long-term Oncologic Impact of Positive Anterior and Posterior Surgical Margins after Radical Prostatectomy
2020, American Journal of Clinical Oncology: Cancer Clinical Trials
- ☆
Dr. Paner receives textbook publication royalties from Amirsys, Inc. Dr. Eggener’s work is funded by the NIH. The remaining authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.