The impact of positive surgical margins on salvage radiation or androgen deprivation therapy following radical prostatectomy – a nationwide study

References

• Compérat E, Camparo P, Srigley J, et al. Prise en charge de la pièce de prostatectomie radicale. Résultats de la conférence de consensus de la Société internationale d’uropathologie (ISUP). Ann Pathol. 2013;33(3):155–161.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Eastham JA, Kattan MW, Riedel E, et al. Variations among individual surgeons in the rate of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol. 2003;170(6 Pt 1):2292–2295.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tosoian JJ, Chappidi M, Feng Z, et al. Prediction of pathological stage based on clinical stage, serum prostate-specific antigen, and biopsy Gleason score: Partin Tables in the contemporary era. BJU Int. 2017;119(5):676–683.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahlering TE, Skarecky D, Lee D, et al. Successful transfer of open surgical skills to a laparoscopic environment using a robotic interface: initial experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2003;170(5):1738–1741.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans AJ, Henry PC, Van Der Kwast TH, et al. Interobserver variability between expert urologic pathologists for extraprostatic extension and surgical margin status in radical prostatectomy specimens. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008;32(10):1503–1512.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Der Kwast TH, Collette L, Van Poppel H, et al. Impact of pathology review of stage and margin status of radical prostatectomy specimens (EORTC trial 22911). Virchows Arch. 2006;449(4):428–434.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swindle P, Eastham JA, Ohori M, et al. Do margins matter? The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol. 2005;179(5 Suppl):S47–S51.
   Google Scholar
• Eastham JA, Kuroiwa K, Ohori M, et al. Prognostic significance of location of positive margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology. 2007;70(5):965–969.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stephenson AJ, Wood DP, Kattan MW, 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;182(4):1357–1363.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Røder MA, Berg KD, Loft MD, et al. The CPC risk calculator: a new app to predict prostate-specific antigen recurrence during follow-up after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol Focus. 2018;4(3):360–368.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Karakiewicz PI, Eastham JA, Graefen M, et al. Prognostic impact of positive surgical margins in surgically treated prostate cancer: multi-institutional assessment of 5831 patients. Urology. 2005;66(6):1245–1250.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H, et al. Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in prostate cancer – 29-year follow-up. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(24):2319–2329.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang L, Wu B, Zha Z, et al. Surgical margin status and its impact on prostate cancer prognosis after radical prostatectomy: a meta-analysis. World J Urol. 2018;36(11):1803–1815.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helgstrand JT, Klemann N, Røder MA, et al. Danish Prostate Cancer Registry - methodology and early results from a novel national database. Clin Epidemiol. 2016;8:351–360.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker C, Clarke NW, Cook A, et al. Timing of radiotherapy (RT) after radical prostatectomy (RP): first results from the RADICALS RT randomised controlled trial (RCT) [NCT00541047]. Ann Oncol. 2019;30:v883–v884.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DaProCa. Gaeldende kliniske retningslinjer. Dansk Urol Cancer Grup 2015. https://ducg.dk/daproca-prostatacancer/kliniske-retningslinjer/. [cited 2020 Sept 3].
   Google Scholar
• Shipley WU, Seiferheld W, Lukka HR, et al. Radiation with or without antiandrogen therapy in recurrent prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(5):417–428.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steyerberg EW, Vickers AJ, Cook NR, et al. Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for traditional and novel measures. Epidemiology. 2010;21(1):128–138.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cortese G, Gerds TA, Andersen PK. Comparing predictions among competing risks models with time-dependent covariates. Stat Med. 2013;32(18):3089–3101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mogensen UB, Ishwaran H, Gerds TA. Evaluating random forests for survival analysis using prediction error curves. J Stat Softw. 2012;50(11):1–23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein JI. Incidence and significance of positive margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urol Clin North Am. 1996;23(4):651–663.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Novara G, Ficarra V, Mocellin S, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62(3):382–404.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pound CR, Partin AW, Eisenberger MA, et al. Natural history of progression after PSA elevation following radical prostatectomy. J Am Med Assoc. 1999;281(17):1591.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amling CL, Bergstralh EJ, Blute ML, et al. Defining prostate specific antigen progression after radical prostatectomy: what is the most appropriate cut point? J Urol. 2001;165(4):1146–1151.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cary KC, Paciorek A, Fuldeore MJ, et al. Temporal trends and predictors of salvage cancer treatment after failure following radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy: an analysis from the CaPSURE registry. Cancer. 2014;120(4):507–512.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yossepowitch O, Briganti A, Eastham JA, et al. Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: A systematic review and contemporary update. Eur Urol. 2014;65(2):303–313.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yaxley JW, Coughlin GD, Chambers SK, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study. Lancet. 2016;388(10049):1057–1066.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vickers A, Bianco F, Cronin A, et al. The learning curve for surgical margins after open radical prostatectomy: implications for margin status as an oncological end point. J Urol. 2010;183(4):1360–1365.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vainer B, Toft BG, Olsen KE, et al. Handling of radical prostatectomy specimens: total or partial embedding? Histopathology. 2011;58(2):211–216.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tan WS, Krimphove MJ, Cole AP, et al. Variation in positive surgical margin status after radical prostatectomy for pT2 prostate cancer. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2019;17(5):e1060–e1068.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar