PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptHHS Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
 
BJU Int. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 December 31.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC3876479
NIHMSID: NIHMS524072

Impact of surgical margin status on prostate-cancer-specific mortality

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

  • To examine the relative impact of a positive surgical margin (PSM) and other clinicopathological variables on prostate-cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) in a large retrospective cohort of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

  • Between 1982 and 2011, 4569 men underwent RP performed by a single surgeon.
  • Of the patient population, 4461 (97.6%) met all the inclusion criteria.
  • The median (range) age was 58 (33–75) years and the median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was 5.4 ng/mL; RP Gleason score was ≤6 in 2834 (63.7%), 7 in 1351 (30.3%), and 8–10 in 260 (6.0%) patients; PSMs were found in 462 (10.4%) patients.
  • Cox proportional hazards models were used to determine the impact of a PSM on PCSM.

RESULTS

  • At a median (range) follow-up of 10 years (1–29), 187 men (4.3%) had died from prostate cancer.
  • The 20-year prostate-cancer-specific survival rate was 75% for those with a PSM and 93% for those without.
  • Compared with those with a negative surgical margin, men with a PSM were more likely to be older (median age 60 vs 58 years) and to have undergone RP in the pre-PSA era (36.6% vs 11.8%). Additionally, they were more likely to have a higher PSA level (median 7.6 vs 5.2 ng/mL), a Gleason score of ≥7 (58.7% vs 33.7%), and a non-organ-confined tumour (90.9% vs 30.6% [P < 0.001 for all]).
  • In a univariate model for PCSM, PSM was highly significant (hazard ratio [HR] 5.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.7–6.7, P < 0.001).
  • In a multivariable model, adjusting for pathological variables and RP year, PSM remained an independent predictor of PCSM (HR 1.4, 95% CI 1.0–1.9, P = 0.036) with a modest effect relative to RP Gleason score (HR 5.7–12.6) and pathological stage (HR 2.2–11.0 [P < 0.001]).

CONCLUSION

  • Although a PSM has a statistically significant adverse effect on prostate-cancer-specific survival in multivariable analysis, Gleason grade and pathological stage were stronger predictors.
Keywords: surgical margin, prostatectomy, prostate cancer, survival

INTRODUCTION

There is no better way to cure a cancer that is confined to the prostate than total surgical removal, but the surgical procedure must remove all of the tumour. Surgical margin status at radical prostatectomy (RP) is shown to be a predictor of disease progression [1,2] and can be useful in deciding if adjuvant therapy is necessary. The positive surgical margin (PSM) rate varies greatly according to many factors such as surgical technique [3,4]. More importantly, the PSM rate is dependent on the pathological stage of the cancer [5].

While PSM status increases the risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR) after RP [2,6,7], a nomogram that predicts BCR has shown that Gleason grade and pathological stage were much stronger predictors of recurrence-free survival after surgery compared with surgical margin status [8]. Also, BCR does not necessarily translate into systemic progression and prostate-cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), so it is important to study PCSM directly [911]. At this time it is not well understood whether a PSM has prognostic value for PCSM. Even less is understood about the relative importance of a PSM compared with established prognostic variables such as Gleason grade and pathological stage.

In the present study, we evaluated the impact of surgical margin status on long-term PCSM using a large cohort of patients who underwent RP by a single surgeon with standardized pathological examination of surgical specimens. The independent predictive value of a PSM on PCSM was investigated in a multivariable model with commonly available perioperative variables.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

STUDY POPULATION

We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of 4569 patients who underwent RP for clinically localized prostate cancer between 1982 and 2011. RP was performed by a single experienced surgeon (P.C.W.) using the retropubic approach as described [12]. RP specimens were inked and examined microscopically by experienced urological pathologists to determine surgical margin status. Surgical margins were considered positive if tumour cells extended to the inked surface of the prostate. Mortality status and cause of death information were updated using medical records after RP. Death was considered to be attributable to prostate cancer if prostate cancer was listed as the underlying cause of death or the patient had hormone refractory metastatic disease at the time of death. Cause-of-death information was sourced from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Death Index (NDI). Neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy were not commonly performed in this series and 62 men who received adjuvant therapy and 29 men who received neoadjuvant therapy were excluded from the analysis, as previously described (Mullins et al. submitted).

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Patients with and without PSMs were compared using Student’s t-test or Wilcoxon rank-sum test for continuous variables, and a chi-squared test for categorical variables. The log-rank test was used to compare Kaplan–Meier estimates of PCSM by PSM status. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to evaluate the effect of PSM while adjusting for other prognostic factors. All analyses were performed using Stata version 11 software (College Station, TX, USA) and SAS (Cary, NC, USA).

RESULTS

Of the 4569 patients who underwent RP, 4461 (97.6%) met the inclusion criteria of available surgical margin status and no adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy. The median PSA level was 5.4 ng/mL and the median (range) age at time of surgery was 58 (33–75) years. RP Gleason score was ≤6 in 2834 (63.7%), 7 in 1351 (30.3%) and 8–10 in 260 (6.0%) patients. The median (range) follow-up time was 10 (1–29) years. In all, 187 patients (4.3%) had died from prostate cancer. Overall, PSMs were identified in 462 patients (10.4%).

Several significant differences were found between the PSM and negative surgical margin (NSM) subgroups (Table 1). Compared with those with a NSM, men with a PSM were more likely to be older (median age 60 vs 58 years) and to have undergone RP in the pre-PSA era (36.6% vs 11.8%). Additionally, they were more likely to have a higher PSA level (median 7.6 vs 5.2 ng/mL), a Gleason score of ≥7 (58.7% vs 33.7%), and a non-organ-confined tumour (90.9% vs 30.6%; P < 0.001 for all).

TABLE 1
Clinical and pathological characteristics of the RP study cohort

Kaplan–Meier estimates of PCSM were compared between patients with and without PSMs; survival was significantly lower among patients with PSMs, P < 0.001 (log-rank chi-squared 143.2, 1 degree of freedom; Fig. 1 ). In the univariate proportional hazards model a PSM was significantly associated with PCSM (hazard ratio [HR] 5.0, 95% CI 3.7–6.7, P < 0.001). In a multivariable model adjusting for RP Gleason score, pathological stage and year of RP, PSM remained an independent predictor of PCSM (HR 1.4, 95% CI 1.0–1.9, P = 0.036) with a modest effect relative to RP Gleason score (HR 5.7–12.6, P < 0.001) and pathological stage (HR 2.2–11.0, P = 0.011–< 0.001). Year of surgery was also a significant predictor of PCSM (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.88–0.95, P < 0.001 [Table 2]).

FIG. 1
Prostate-cancer-specific survival by surgical margin status.
TABLE 2
Cox proportional hazard model predicting PCSM

DISCUSSION

The presence of a PSM is an independent predictor of BCR after RP [2,13]; however, BCR does not always lead to PCSM. In one study, only 34% of patients with BCR eventually had metastatic disease [14] and in another, the difference in 10-year overall survival between those with and without BCR was only 5% [15]. Given this information, it may be more clinically relevant to study PCSM as the primary endpoint, rather than BCR after definitive treatment.

We performed a retrospective analysis of the association of PSMs with long-term PCSM. A single surgeon performed all prostatectomies using a uniform technique and all surgical specimens were examined in a standardized fashion by experienced urological pathologists at a single institution, minimizing the variation in surgical technique and the risk of misclassification. This is an important detail as surgical artifacts and varying pathologist methods can lead to false-positive or false-negative margins for prostatectomy specimens [1618].

We found a significant difference in long-term PCSM by surgical margin status on univariate analysis (HR 5.0, 95% CI 3.7–6.7, P < 0.001); however, there are many factors that correlate with PSM, such as pathological grade, stage and tumour size [19]. To determine the independent prognostic contribution of a PSM, multivariable regression analysis was performed while controlling for clinicopathological covariates that are known to be associated with an increased risk of PCSM. After adjustment for RP Gleason grade and pathological stage as well as year of surgery, PSM remained an independent predictor of PCSM (HR 1.4, 95% CI 1.0–1.9), P = 0.036) with a modest effect relative to RP Gleason score (HR 5.7–12.6, P < 0.001) and pathological stage (HR 2.2–11.0, P = 0.011–<0.001).

A nomogram that predicts BCR has already shown that Gleason grade and pathological stage were much stronger predictors of recurrence-free survival after surgery than surgical margin status [8]. Boorjian et al. [13] found that PSM was not an independent predictor of PCSM at their institution but did not report on the prognostic value of Gleason grade and pathological stage. In a recent nomogram for 15-year PCSM after RP, PSM status was not significantly associated with PCSM, while Gleason score and pathological stage were the only significant predictors [20]. As the nomogram was generated using multi-institutional data, potentially introducing variability in evaluation of margin status, it was important to evaluate PSM as a prognostic indicator in a standardized fashion.

The present analysis is the only study of the PSM–PCSM interaction in a single surgeon’s cohort. The surgeon variable has been linked to the rate of PSM, and the elimination of this variability may have allowed us to appreciate the modest independent prognostic value of a PSM [21]. Furthermore, men routinely did not receive adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy in the present cohort. The very few exceptions were a priori eliminated from the analysis, allowing the unique opportunity to study the long-term meaning of a PSM. In other cohorts the decision to give adjuvant therapy was probably influenced by the presence of a PSM [22]. Finally, other authors have used salvage therapy as a variable in their multivariable analysis, and in the present study we did not. By definition, all men who receive salvage therapy have experienced BCR. Thus the salvage therapy variable acts as a surrogate marker of BCR, producing a biased analysis of outcomes in any model that includes all patients who have undergone surgery [23,24].

As many patients undergo surgery for prostate cancer, it is necessary to determine the implications of a PSM. The clinical significance of a PSM depends on the context in which it is being considered. When discussing long-term prognosis, the present analysis and other nomograms suggest that Gleason grade and pathological stage are the best predictors of PCSM, while PSM provides limited additional insight. Conversely, when determining a management plan for the individual patient, the finding of a PSM is very important. In fact, Van der Kwast et al. [22] showed that PSM was the strongest predictor of benefit from immediate postoperative radiotherapy, where benefit was measured as recurrence-free survival.

Potential limitations of the present study should be mentioned. The present analysis treated surgical margin as a binary variable, being either positive or negative. Neither the number, extent, location, nor cancer grade at PSM were considered, all of which have been associated with recurrence [9,2528]. Also, in the present analysis the independent predictive value of PSM for PCSM was determined for the entire cohort, which included men with pT3b and lymph node involvement. It is possible that there exists a stratification based on perioperative variables where PSM attains a stronger prognostic value for some subgroups of patients. In fact, in patients in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database, limited to pT2/pT3a tumours, Wright et al. [23] found that a PSM was an independent predictive variable (HR 1.70, 95% CI 1.32–2.18) and, for comparison, in their subgroup with pT3 and high grade disease the association was 2.72. Similarly, in a subset of patients in the high D’Amico risk group, Boorjian et al. [29] found the HR for PSM (HR 2.1, 95% CI 1.2–3.6, P < 0.008) to be of similar magnitude to pathological stage (HR 1.8–2.3). It will be interesting to further stratify the cohort as well as different measures of PSM in future studies.

In conclusion, overall prostate-cancer-specific survival is excellent in a large cohort of men who underwent RP by a single surgeon. Univariate analysis of this cohort determined that PSM was a significant predictor of PCSM. Upon adjustment for clinicopathological variables in a multivariable model, surgical margin status remained modestly associated with increased PCSM, while RP Gleason score and pathological stage were strong predictors of PCSM. The present results are consistent with established multicentre nomograms for BCR and PCSM.

What’s known on the subject? and What does the study add?

Surgical margin status at radical prostatectomy (RP) has been shown to be a predictor of disease progression and the strongest predictor of benefit from adjuvant therapy, but the impact of a positive surgical margin (PSM) on long-term prostate-cancer-specific survival is unknown. The PSM rate is dependent on the pathological stage of the cancer. In a recent multicentre nomogram for 15-year prostate-cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) after RP, PSM was not significantly associated with PCSM, while Gleason score and pathological stage were the only significant predictors. This has not been validated in a single centre, and PSM has been shown to vary greatly with surgical technique.

This is the first study on the impact of PSM on PCSM in a single surgeon’s cohort.

In other centres, the decision to administer adjuvant therapy may be influenced by surgical margin status. In this cohort, men routinely did not receive adjuvant therapy, affording the unique opportunity to study the long-term implications of a PSM.

Acknowledgments

SOURCE OF FUNDING The Persky Family and NIH Prostate SPORE.

Abbreviations

PSM
positive surgical margin
PCSM
prostate-cancer-specific mortality
RP
radical prostatectomy
HR
hazard ratio
BCR
biochemical recurrence

Footnotes

CONFLICT OF INTEREST None declared.

REFERENCES

1. Epstein JI. Incidence and significance of positive margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urol Clin North Am. 1996;23:651–63. [PubMed]
2. Alkhateeb S, Alibhai S, Fleshner N, et al. Impact of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy differs by disease risk group. J Urol. 2010;183:145–50. [PubMed]
3. 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):2292–5. [PubMed]
4. Chun FK, Briganti A, Antebi E, et al. Surgical volume is related to the rate of positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy in european patients. BJU Int. 2006;98:1204–9. [PubMed]
5. Marcovich R, Wojno KJ, Wei JT, Rubin MA, Montie JE, Sanda MG. Bladder neck-sparing modification of radical prostatectomy adversely affects surgical margins in pathologic T3a prostate cancer. Urology. 2000;55:904–8. [PubMed]
6. 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;66:1245–50. [PubMed]
7. Pettus JA, Weight CJ, Thompson CJ, Middleton RG, Stephenson RA. Biochemical failure in men following radical retropubic prostatectomy: impact of surgical margin status and location. J Urol. 2004;172:129–32. [PubMed]
8. Stephenson AJ, Scardino PT, Eastham JA, et al. Postoperative nomogram predicting the 10-year probability of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:7005–12. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
9. Blute ML, Bostwick DG, Bergstralh EJ, et al. Anatomic site-specific positive margins in organ-confined prostate cancer and its impact on outcome after radical prostatectomy. Urology. 1997;50:733–9. [PubMed]
10. Khan MA, Partin AW, Mangold LA, Epstein JI, Walsh PC. Probability of biochemical recurrence by analysis of pathologic stage, gleason score, and margin status for localized prostate cancer. Urology. 2003;62:866–71. [PubMed]
11. Freedland SJ, Humphreys EB, Mangold LA, et al. Risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality following biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. JAMA. 2005;294:433–9. [PubMed]
12. Schaeffer EM, Partin AW, Lepor H, et al. Radical retropubic and perineal prostaectomy. In: Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Novick AC, et al., editors. Campbell-Walsh Urology. 10th edn. Vol. 3. Elsevier Inc.; Philadelphia: 2012. pp. 2801–29. ch. 102.
13. Boorjian SA, Karnes RJ, Crispen PL, et al. The impact of positive surgical margins on mortality following radical prostatectomy during the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol. 2010;183:1003–9. [PubMed]
14. Pound CR, Partin AW, Eisenberger MA, Chan DW, Pearson JD, Walsh PC. Natural history of progression after PSA elevation following radical prostatectomy. JAMA. 1999;281:1591–7. [PubMed]
15. Jhaveri FM, Zippe CD, Klein EA, Kupelian PA. Biochemical failure does not predict overall survival after radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer: 10-year results. Urology. 1999;54:884–90. [PubMed]
16. Sehdev AE, Pan CC, Epstein JI. Comparative analysis of sampling methods for grossing radical prostatectomy specimens performed for nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostatic adenocarcinoma. Hum Pathol. 2001;32:494–9. [PubMed]
17. 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;32:1503–12. [PubMed]
18. Garcia JJ, Al-Ahmadie HA, Gopalan A, et al. Do prostatic transition zone tumors have a distinct morphology? Am J Surg Pathol. 2008;32:1709–14. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
19. Fleshner NE, Evans A, Chadwick K, Lawrentschuk N, Zlotta A. Clinical significance of the positive surgical margin based upon location, grade, and stage. Urol Oncol. 2010;28:197–204. [PubMed]
20. Eggener SE, Scardino PT, Walsh PC, et al. Predicting 15-year prostate cancer specific mortality after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2011;185:869–75. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
21. Eastham JA, Kattan MW, Riedel E, et al. Variations among individual surgeons in the rate of positive surigal margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol. 2003;170(6 Pt 1):2292–5. [PubMed]
22. Van der Kwast TH, Bolla M, Van Poppel H, et al. Identification of patients with prostate cancer who benefit from immediate postoperative radiotherapy: EORTC 22911. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:4178–86. [PubMed]
23. Wright JL, Dalkin BL, True LD, et al. Positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy predict prostate cancer specific mortality. J Urol. 2010;183:2213–8. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
24. Porter CR, Kodama K, Gibbons RP, Correa R, Jr, Chun FK, Perrotte P. Karakiewicz et al. 25-year prostate cancer control and survival outcomes: a 40-year radical prostatectomy single institution series. J Urol. 2006;176:569–74. [PubMed]
25. Sofer M, Hamilton-Nelson KL, Civantos F, Soloway MS. Positive surgical margins after radical retropubic prostatectomy: the influence of site and number on progression. J Urol. 2002;167:2453–6. [PubMed]
26. van Oort IM, Bruins HM, Kiemeney LA, Knipscheer BC, Witjes JA, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA. The length of positive surgical margins correlates with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Histopathology. 2010;56:464–71. [PubMed]
27. Resnick MJ, Canter DJ, Guzzo TJ, et al. Defining pathological variables to predict biochemical failure in patients with positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy: implications for adjuvant radiotherapy. BJU Int. 2010;105:1377–80. [PubMed]
28. Cao D, Kibel AS, Gao F, Tao Y, Humphrey PA. The Gleason score of tumor at the margin in radical prostatectomy is predictive of biochemical recurrence. Am J Surg Pathol. 2010;34:994–1001. [PubMed]
29. Boorjian SA, Karnes RJ, Rangel LJ, Bergstralh EJ, Blute ML. Mayo Clinic validation of the D’amico risk group classification for predicting survival following radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2008;179:1354–60. [PubMed]