Predictive factors associated with biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy for pathological T2 prostate cancer with negative surgical margins

References

• Global Burden of Disease Cancer Collaboration, Fitzmaurice C, Dicker D, Pain A, Hamavid H, Moradi-Lakeh M, MacIntyre MF, et al. The Global Burden of Cancer 2013. JAMA Oncol 2015;1:505–27.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, van der Kwast T, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II: treatment of advanced, relapsing, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2014;65:467–79.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H, Rider JR, Taari K, Busch C, et al. Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2014;370:932–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, Barry MJ, Aronson WJ, Fox F, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2012;367:203–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Briers E, van den Bergh RCH, Bolla M, van Casteren NJ, et al. Guidelines on prostate cancer. European Association of Urology; 2015. Available from http://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/EAU-Guidelines-Prostate-Cancer-2015-v2.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Budaus L, Isbarn H, Eichelberg C, Lughezzani G, Sun M, Perrotte P, et al. Biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: multiplicative interaction between surgical margin status and pathological stage. J Urol 2010;184:1341–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ravery V, de la Taille A, Toublanc M, Boccon-Gibod L, Delmas V, Boccon-Gibod L. [Anatomopathologic reassessment of prostatic tumors exclusively affecting the organ with biologic progression and survival study of prostatectomized patients, in terms of the histologic characteristics of the tumour]. Prog Urol 1995;5:968–73. [Article in French]
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cookson MS, Aus G, Burnett AL, Canby-Hagino ED, D’Amico AV, Dmochowski RR, et al. Variation in the definition of biochemical recurrence in patients treated for localized prostate cancer: the American Urological Association Prostate Guidelines for Localized Prostate Cancer Update Panel report and recommendations for a standard in the reporting of surgical outcomes. J Urol 2007;177:540–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanimoto R, Fashola Y, Scotland KB, Calvaresi AE, Gomella LG, Trabulsi EJ, et al. Risk factors for biochemical recurrence after robotic assisted radical prostatectomy: a single surgeon experience. BMC Urol 2015;15:27.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ploussard G, Agamy MA, Alenda O, Allory Y, Mouracade P, Vordos D, et al. Impact of positive surgical margins on prostate-specific antigen failure after radical prostatectomy in adjuvant treatment-naive patients. BJU Int 2011;107:1748–54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng L, Bergstralh EJ, Scherer BG, Neumann RM, Blute ML, Zincke H, et al. Predictors of cancer progression in T1a prostate adenocarcinoma. Cancer 1999;85:1300–4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fine SW, Amin MB, Berney DM, Bjartell A, Egevad L, Epstein JI, et al. A contemporary update on pathology reporting for prostate cancer: biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Eur Urol 2012;62:20–39.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samaratunga H, Montironi R, True L, Epstein JI, Griffiths DF, Humphrey PA, et al. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 1: specimen handling. Mod Pathol 2011;24:6–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egevad L. Handling of radical prostatectomy specimens. Histopathology 2012;60:118–24.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall GS, Kramer CE, Epstein JI. Evaluation of radical prostatectomy specimens. A comparative analysis of sampling methods. Am J Surg Pathol 1992;16:315–24.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans AJ, Henry PC, Van der Kwast TH, Tkachuk DC, Watson K, Lockwood GA, et al. Interobserver variability between expert urologic pathologists for extraprostatic extension and surgical margin status in radical prostatectomy specimens. Am J Surg Pathol 2008;32:1503–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu J, Wirth GJ, Wu S, Chen J, Dahl DM, Olumi AF, et al. A close surgical margin after radical prostatectomy is an independent predictor of recurrence. J Urol 2012;188:91–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Izard JP, True LD, May P, Ellis WJ, Lange PH, Dalkin B, et al. Prostate cancer that is within 0.1 mm of the surgical margin of a radical prostatectomy predicts greater likelihood of recurrence. Am J Surg Pathol 2014;38:333–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koulikov D, Mohler MC, Mehedint DC, Attwood K, Wilding GE, Mohler JL. Low detectable prostate specific antigen after radical prostatectomy – treat or watch? J Urol 2014;192:1390–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lecouvet FE, El Mouedden J, Collette L, Coche E, Danse E, Jamar F, et al. Can whole-body magnetic resonance imaging with diffusion-weighted imaging replace Tc 99m bone scanning and computed tomography for single-step detection of metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer? Eur Urol 2012;62:68–75.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palisaar RJ, Graefen M, Karakiewicz PI, Hammerer PG, Huland E, Haese A, et al. Assessment of clinical and pathologic characteristics predisposing to disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy in men with pathologically organ-confined prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2002;41:155–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chun FK, Briganti A, Graefen M, Erbersdobler A, Walz J, Schlomm T, et al. Body mass index does not improve the ability to predict biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Eur J Cancer 2007;43:375–82.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeLancey JO, Wood DP, Jr., He C, Montgomery JS, Weizer AZ, Miller DC, et al. Evidence of perineural invasion on prostate biopsy specimen and survival after radical prostatectomy. Urology 2013;81:354–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miyake H, Sakai I, Harada K, Eto H, Hara I. Limited value of perineural invasion in radical prostatectomy specimens as a predictor of biochemical recurrence in Japanese men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Hinyokika Kiyo 2005;51:241–6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Maru N, Ohori M, Kattan MW, Scardino PT, Wheeler TM. Prognostic significance of the diameter of perineural invasion in radical prostatectomy specimens. Hum Pathol 2001;32:828–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sooriakumaran P, Ploumidis A, Nyberg T, Olsson M, Akre O, Haendler L, et al. The impact of length and location of positive margins in predicting biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. BJU Int 2015;115:106–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitsuzuka K, Narita S, Koie T, Kaiho Y, Tsuchiya N, Yoneyama T, et al. Lymphovascular invasion is significantly associated with biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy even in patients with pT2N0 negative resection margin. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2015;18:25–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Savdie R, Horvath LG, Benito RP, Rasiah KK, Haynes A-M, Chatfield M, et al. High Gleason grade carcinoma at a positive surgical margin predicts biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy and may guide adjuvant radiotherapy. BJU Int 2012;109:1794–800.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar