Top

Published in:

01-05-2009

Assessment of low prostate weight as a determinant of a higher positive margin rate after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective pathologic study of 1,500 cases

Authors: Peiguo G. Chu, Sean K. Lau, Lawrence M. Weiss, Mark Kawachi, Jeffrey Yoshida, Christopher Ruel, Rebecca Nelson, Laura Crocitto, Timothy Wilson

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 5/2009

Abstract

Background

The assessment of prostate weight as a determinant of a high prostate margin rate after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy has not been studied.

Methods

Prospective pathologic findings of 1,500 patients who underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP, 399 cases) and da Vinci^TM prostatectomy (DVP, 1,101 cases) between December 2000 to June 2006 at City of Hope National Medical Center were evaluated. Gleason score, pathologic stage, the presence or absence of positive margins, extraprostatic tumor extension, and seminal vesicle involvement by tumor were recorded in all patients. Preoperational serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels were recorded in all but 13 cases. These parameters were then correlated with prostate weight.

Results

Of 1,500 patients, 345 had one or more positive margins (23%). Patients with low median prostate weight (49 g) had a significantly higher positive margin rate (p < 0.0001) and incidence of extraprostatic extension by tumor (p = 0.04), and were 1.523 times more likely to have positive margins [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.167–1.985].

Conclusion

We conclude that low prostate weight may be a determinant of a higher recurrence rate and more aggressive disease.

Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M, Haggman M, Andersson SO, Bratell S, Spangberg A, Busch C, Nordling S, Garmo H (2005) Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 352:1877–1984CrossRef

Lepor H (2005) Open versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Rev In Urol 7:115–127

Salomon L, Sebe P, de la Taille A, Vordos D, Hoznek A, Yiou R, Chopin D, Abbou CC (2004) Open versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: part I. BJU Int 94(2):238–243PubMedCrossRef

Sofer M, Hamilton-Nelson KL, Civantos F, Soloway MS (2002) Positive surgical margins after radical retropubic prostatectomy: the influence of site and number on progression. J Urol 167(6):2453–2456PubMedCrossRef

Humphreys MR, Gettman MT, Chow GK, Zincke H, Blute ML (2004) Minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. Mayo Clin Proc 79(9):1169–1180PubMedCrossRef

Watson RB, Civantos F, Soloway MS (1996) Positive surgical margins with radical prostatectomy: detailed pathological analysis and prognosis. Urology 48(1):80–90PubMedCrossRef

Obek C, Sadek S, Lai S, Civantos F, Rubinowicz D, Soloway MS (1999) Positive surgical margins with radical retropubic prostatectomy: anatomic site-specific pathologic analysis and impact on prognosis. Urology 54(4):682–688PubMedCrossRef

El Feel A, Davis JW, Deger S, Roigas J, Wille AH, Schnorr D, Hakiem AA, Loening S, Tuerk IA (2003) Positive margins after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective study of 100 cases performed by 4 different surgeons. Eur Urol 43(6):622–626PubMed

Chang CM, Moon D, Gianduzzo TR, Eden CG (2005) The impact of prostate size in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 48(2):285–290PubMedCrossRef

10.

Rodriguez AR, Kapoor R, Pow-Sang JM (2007) Laparoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy in complex surgical cases. J Urol 177(5):1765–1770PubMedCrossRef

11.

Boczko J, Erturk E, Golijanin D, Madeb R, Patel H, Joseph JV (2007) Impact of prostate size in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 21(2):184–188PubMedCrossRef

12.

Freedland SJ, Isaacs WB, Platz EA, Terris MK, Aronson WJ, Amling CL, Presti JC, Kane CJ (2005) Prostate size and risk of high-grade, advanced prostate cancer and biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy: a search database study. J Clin Oncol 23:7546–7554PubMed

13.

Chodak GW, Vogelzang NJ, Caplan RJ (1991) Independent prognostic factors in patients with metastatic (stage D2) prostate cancer: the Zoladex Study Group. JAMA 265:618–621PubMedCrossRef

14.

Oefelein MG, Agarwai PK, Resnick MI (2004) Survival of patients with hormone refractory prostate cancer in the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol 171:1525–1528PubMedCrossRef

15.

Massengill JC, Sun L Moul JW (2003) Pretreatment total testosterone level predicts pathological stage in patients with localized prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy. J Urol 169:1670–1675PubMedCrossRef

16.

Catalona WJ, Smith DS (1998) Cancer recurrence and survival rates after anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy for prostate cancer: intermediate-term results. J Urol 160(6 pt 2):2428–2434PubMed

17.

Huland H (2001) Radical prostatectomy: options and issues. Eur Urol 39(Suppl 1):3–9PubMedCrossRef

18.

Han M, Partin AW, Pound CR, Epstein JI, Walsh PC (2001) Long-term biochemical disease-free and cancer-specific survival following anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy. The 15-year Johns Hopkins experience. Urol Clin North Am 28(3):555–565PubMedCrossRef

19.

Hull GW, Rabbani F, Abbas F, Wheeler TM, Kattan MW, Scardino PT (2002) Cancer control with radical prostatectomy alone in 1, 000 consecutive patients. J Urol 167(2 pt 1):528–534PubMed

20.

Salomon L, Levrel O, de la Taille A, Anastasiadis AG, Saint F, Zaki S, Vordos D, Cicco A, Olsson LE, Hoznek A, Chopin D, Abbou CC (2002) Radical prostatectomy by the retropubic, perineal and laparoscopic approach: 12 years of experience in one center. Eur Urol 42(2):104–110PubMed

21.

Harris MJ (2003) Radical perineal prostatectomy: cost efficient, outcome effective, minimally invasive prostate cancer management. Eur Urol 44(3):303–308PubMedCrossRef

22.

Jones EC (1990) Resection margin status in radical retropubic prostatectomy specimens: relationship to type of operation, tumor size, tumor grade and local tumor extension. J Urol 144:89–93PubMed

23.

Rassweiler J, Seemann O, Schulze M, Teber D, Hatzinger M, Frede T (2003) Laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparative study at a single institution. J Urol 169(5):1689–1693PubMedCrossRef

24.

Blute ML, Bostwick DG, Bergstralh EJ, Slezak JM, Martin SK, Amling CL, Zincke H (1997) Anatomic site-specific positive margins in organ-confined prostate cancer and its impact on outcome after radical prostatectomy. Urol 50:733–739PubMedCrossRef

25.

Roumeguere T, Bollens R, vanden Bossche M (2003) Radical prostatectomy: a prospective comparison of oncological and functional results between open and laparoscopic approaches. World J Urol 20:360–366PubMed

26.

Guillonneau B, el-Fettouh H, Haumert H, Cathelineau X, Doublet JD, Fromont G (2003) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: oncological evaluation after 1, 000 cases at Montsouris Institute. J Urol 169:1261–1266PubMedCrossRef

27.

Stolzenburg JU, Rabenalt R, Do M, Truss MC, Burchardt M, Herrmann TR, Schwalenberg T, Kallidonis P, Liatsikos EN (2007) Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: the University of Leipzig experience of 1, 300 cases. World J Urol 25(1):45–51PubMedCrossRef

28.

Brown JA, Garlitz C, Strup SE, Hubosky SG, Gomella L (2004) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy after neoadjuvant hormonal therapy: an apparently safe and effective procedure. J Laparoendosc Adv Sur Tech A 14:335–338

29.

Aus G, Abrahamsson P, Ahlgren G (1998) Hormonal treatment before radical prostatectomy: a 3-year followup. J Urol 159:2013–2016PubMedCrossRef

30.

Schulman CC, Debruyne FMJ, Foster G, Selvaggi FP, Zlotta AR, Witjes WP (2000) 4-Year follow-up results of a european prospective randomized study on neoadjuvant hormonal therapy prior to radical prostatectomy in T3N0M0 prostate cancer. Eur Urol 38:706–713PubMedCrossRef

31.

Soloway MS, Pareek K, Sharifi R, Wajsman Z, McLeod D, Wood DP Jr, Puras-Baez A (2002) Neoadjuvant androgen ablation before radical prostatectomy in CT2bNxM0 prostate cancer: 5-year results. J Urol 167:112–116PubMedCrossRef

32.

Prezioso D, Lotti T, Polito M, Montironi R (2004) Neoadjuvant hormone treatment with leuprolide acetate depot 3.75 Mg and cyproterone acetate, before radical prostatectomy: a randomized study. Urol Int 72:189–195PubMedCrossRef

Title: Assessment of low prostate weight as a determinant of a higher positive margin rate after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective pathologic study of 1,500 cases
Authors: Peiguo G. Chu
Sean K. Lau
Lawrence M. Weiss
Mark Kawachi
Jeffrey Yoshida
Christopher Ruel
Rebecca Nelson
Laura Crocitto
Timothy Wilson
Publication date: 01-05-2009
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 5/2009
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-0131-6

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Assessment of low prostate weight as a determinant of a higher positive margin rate after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective pathologic study of 1,500 cases

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2009

Hydroxy-propyl-methyl-cellulose is a safe and effective lifting agent for endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal polyps

Informed consent-‘da Vinci code’ for our safety in empowered patient’s safety

Single-trocar cholecystectomy using a flexible endoscope and articulating laparoscopic instruments: a bridge to NOTES or the final form?

Tumor ablation therapy of liver cancers with an open magnetic resonance imaging-based navigation system

Accuracy of endoanal ultrasound in the follow-up assessment for squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal treated with radiochemotherapy

Influence of compression pressure from the hand access device on hand microcirculation during hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery