Positive resection margins may not reflect the true margin in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy

Furubayashi,Nobuki; Negishi,Takahito; Hirata,Yu; Taguchi,Kenichi; Shimokawa,Mototsugu; Nakamura,Motonobu

doi:10.3892/ol.2014.2491

Positive resection margins may not reflect the true margin in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy

Authors:
- Nobuki Furubayashi
- Takahito Negishi
- Yu Hirata
- Kenichi Taguchi
- Mototsugu Shimokawa
- Motonobu Nakamura
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Urology, National Kyushu Cancer Center, Fukuoka 811‑1395, Japan, Department of Pathology, National Kyushu Cancer Center, Fukuoka 811‑1395, Japan, Institute for Clinical Research, National Kyushu Cancer Center, Fukuoka 811‑1395, Japan
Published online on: September 1, 2014 https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2014.2491
Pages: 2237-2242

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the hypothesis that a positive resection margin (RM1) of an excised specimen may not reflect the true margin in patients that have undergone radical prostatectomy (RP). Between September 2003 and March 2011, 370 Japanese patients underwent an antegrade RP at the National Kyushu Cancer Center (Fukuoka, Japan), however, 95 of these patients were excluded from the study due to a history of receiving hormonal therapy or insufficient preoperative clinical data. The incidence of biochemical failure (BCF) was evaluated using multivariate analysis, which revealed that the preoperative prostate‑specific antigen (PSA) level, pathological tumor stage, RP Gleason score and a PSA nadir <0.008 ng/ml were significant predictors (P=0.0065, 0.0006, 0.0002 and <0.0001, respectively). By contrast, an RM1 was not found to be a significant predictor of BCF, while the parameter with the highest hazard ratio (HR) was a PSA nadir <0.008 ng/ml (HR, 10.055; 95% confidence interval, 5.005‑20.200). From the 56 cases that were RM1, 41 cases (73.2%) exhibited a PSA nadir <0.008 ng/ml. There were 42 cases (75.0%) in which only one site was identified to be RM1; among these cases, no significant difference was observed between a PSA level <0.008 ng/ml and a PSA level ≥0.008 ng/ml at the RM1 site (apex, P=0.1460; base, P=0.1384; anterior, P=0.3870; and posterolateral, P=0.5040). There were 14 cases (25.0%) in which multiple sites were RM1; these cases were classified by the number of sites that were RM1 (one vs. multiple) and no significant difference was observed between a PSA level <0.008 ng/ml and a PSA level ≥0.008 ng/ml (P=0.6090). Based on these results, an RM1 of an excised specimen may not reflect the true margin in patients that are treated with RP, specifically in cases where the PSA level is identified to decrease to below the postoperative measurement threshold value (PSA nadir <0.008 ng/ml).

View Figures

View References

1	Yu H, Diamandis EP, Prestigiacomo AF and Stamey TA: Ultrasensitive assay of prostate-specific antigen used for early detection of prostate cancer relapse and estimation of tumor-doubling time after radical prostatectomy. Clin Chem. 41:430–434. 1995.
2	Blute ML, Bergstralh EJ, Iocca A, Scherer B and Zincke H: Use of Gleason score, prostate specific antigen, seminal vesicle and margin status to predict biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 165:119–125. 2001.
3	Freedland SJ, Aronson WJ, Terris MK, et al; SEARCH Database Study Group. Percent of prostate needle biopsy cores with cancer is significant independent predictor of prostate specific antigen recurrence following radical prostatectomy: results from SEARCH database. J Urol. 169:2136–2141. 2003.
4	Gretzer MB, Epstein JI, Pound CR, Walsh PC and Partin AW: Substratification of stage T1C prostate cancer based on the probability of biochemical recurrence. Urology. 60:1034–1039. 2002.
5	Epstein JI, Amin M, Boccon-Gibod L, et al: Prognostic factors and reporting of prostate carcinoma in radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadectomy specimens. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl. 216:34–63. 2005.
6	Tan PH, Cheng L, Srigley JR, et al; ISUP Prostate Cancer Group. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 5: surgical margins. Mod Pathol. 24:48–57. 2011.
7	Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB and Egevad LL; ISUP Grading Committee. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 29:1228–1242. 2005.
8	Leslie HS, Mary KG and Christian W: TNM Classification of Malignant Tumors. 7th edition. Wiley-Blackwell; Oxford: 2009
9	European Association of Urology. Guidelines on prostate cancer. http://www.uroweb.org/guidelines/online-guidelines/. Accessed February 1, 2014
10	Yu H, Diamandis EP, Levesque M, et al: Ectopic production of prostate specific antigen by a breast tumor metastatic to the ovary. J Clin Lab Anal. 8:251–253. 1994.
11	Monne M, Croce CM, Yu H and Diamandis EP: Molecular characterization of prostate-specific antigen messenger RNA expressed in breast tumors. Cancer Res. 54:6344–6347. 1994.
12	Yu H, Diamandis EP, Levesque M, et al: Expression of the prostate-specific antigen gene by a primary ovarian carcinoma. Cancer Res. 55:1603–1606. 1995.
13	Yu H and Diamandis EP: Prostate-specific antigen in milk of lactating women. Clin Chem. 41:54–58. 1995.
14	Levesque M, Hu H, D’Costa M and Diamandis EP: Prostate-specific antigen expression by various tumors. J Clin Lab Anal. 9:123–128. 1995.
15	Levesque M, Yu H, D’Costa M, et al: Immunoreactive prostate-specific antigen in lung tumors. J Clin Lab Anal. 9:375–379. 1995.
16	Diamandis EP, Yousef GM, Luo LY, et al: The new human kallikrein gene family: implications in carcinogenesis. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 11:54–60. 2000.
17	Oesterling JE, Chan DW, Epstein JI, et al: Prostate specific antigen in the preoperative and postoperative evaluation of localized prostatic cancer treated with radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 139:766–772. 1988.
18	Partin AW, Carter HB, Chan DW, et al: Prostate specific antigen in the staging of localized prostate cancer: influence of tumor differentiation, tumor volume and benign hyperplasia. J Urol. 143:747–752. 1990.
19	Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Novick AC, Partin AW, Peters CA and Ramchandani P: Prostate cancer tumor markers. Campbell-Walsh Urology Tenth Edition Review. McDougal SW: 10th edition. Elsevier Saunders; Philadelphia, PA: pp. 2748–2762. 2011
20	Stamey TA, Kabalin JN, McNeal JE, et al: Prostate specific antigen in the diagnosis and treatment of adenocarcinoma of the prostate. II. Radical prostatectomy treated patients. J Urol. 141:1076–1083. 1989.
21	Ellis WJ, Vessella RL, Noteboom JL, Lange PH, Wolfert RL and Rittenhouse HG: Early detection of recurrent prostate cancer with an ultrasensitive chemiluminescent prostate-specific antigen assay. Urology. 50:573–579. 1997.
22	Khalifeh A, Kaouk JH, Bhayani S, et al: Positive surgical margins in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a multi-institutional analysis of oncologic outcomes (leave no tumor behind). J Urol. 190:1674–1679. 2013.
23	Epstein JI, Pizov G and Walsh PC: Correlation of pathologic findings with progression after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Cancer. 71:3582–3593. 1993.
24	Kinoshita H, Kamoto T, Nishiyama H, Nakamura E, Matsuda T and Ogawa O: Prostate specific antigen nadir determined using ultra-sensitive prostate specific antigen as a predictor of biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy in Japanese males. Int J Urol. 14:930–934. 2007.
25	Schmidt H, DeAngelis G, Eltze E, Gockel I, Semjonow A and Brandt B: Asynchronous growth of prostate cancer is reflected by circulating tumor cells delivered from distinct, even small foci, harboring loss of heterozygosity of the PTEN gene. Cancer Res. 66:8959–8965. 2006.
26	Arora R, Koch MO, Eble JN, Ulbright TM, Li L and Cheng L: Heterogeneity of Gleason grade in multifocal adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Cancer. 100:2362–2366. 2004.