Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Risk factors of positive surgical margins after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in high-volume center: results in 732 cases

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of the study was to evaluate clinical, pathological and peri-operative factors associated with the risk of positive surgical margins (PSM) after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in a high-volume center. The study is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. We excluded cases who were under androgen deprivation or had prior treatments. The population included negative cases (control group) and PSM subjects (study groups). The logistic regression model assessed the independent association of factors with the risk of PSM. From January 2013 to December 2017, 732 patients underwent RARP. Extended pelvic lymph node dissection was performed in 342 cases (46.7%). Overall, 192 cases (26.3%) had PSM. Independent factors associated with the risk of focal PSM were body mass index (odds ratio, OR = 0.936; p = 0.021), percentage of biopsy-positive cores (BPC; OR = 1.012; p = 0.004), pathological extracapsular extension (OR = 2.702; p < 0.0001), seminal vesicle invasion (OR = 2.889; p < 0.0001) and high-volume surgeon (OR = 0.607; p = 0.006). In high-volume centers, features related to host, tumor biology and surgeon are independent factors associated with the risk of PSM after RARP, which are decreased by the high-volume surgeon. The inverse association between BMI and PSM risk needs further clinical research. These issues should be discussed when counseling patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1 

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2016) Cancer statistics. CA A Cancer J Clin 66:7–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schultz D, Blank K, Broderick GA, Tomaszewski JE, Renshaw AA, Kaplan I, Beard CJ, Wein A (1999) Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 161:1393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Artibani W, Porcaro Antonio B, De Marco V, Cerruto Maria A, Siracusano S (2017) Management of biochemical recurrence after primary curative treatment for prostate cancer: a review. Urologia Internationalis 100:251–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Yossepowitch O, Bjartell A, Eastham JA, Graefen M, Guillonneau BD, Karakiewicz PI, Montironi R, Montorsi F (2009) Positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy: outlining the problem and its long-term consequences. Eur Urol 55:87–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Yossepowitch O, Briganti A, Eastham JA, Epstein J, Graefen M, Montironi R, Touijer K (2014) Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and contemporary update. Eur Urol 65:303–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Sooriakumaran P, Dev HS, Skarecky D, Ahlering T (2016) The importance of surgical margins in prostate cancer. J Surg Oncol 113:310–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fontenot PA, Mansour AM (2013) Reporting positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: time for standardization. BJU Int 111:E290–E299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fleshner NE, Evans A, Chadwick K, Lawrentschuk N, Zlotta A (2010) Clinical significance of the positive surgical margin based upon location, grade, and stage. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig 28:197–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Meeks JJ, Eastham JA (2013) Radical prostatectomy: positive surgical margins matter. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig 31:974–979

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Weizer AZ, Strope S, Wood DP (2010) Margin control in robotic and laparoscopic prostatectomy: what are the REAL outcomes? Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig 28:210–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA (2016) The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol 40:244–252

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Edge SB, Compton CC (2010) The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol 17:1471–1474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Menon M, Tewari A, Peabody J (2003) Vattikuti Institute Prostatectomy: technique. J Urol 169:2289–2292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Montorsi F, Wilson TG, Rosen RC, Ahlering TE, Artibani W, Carroll PR, Costello A, Eastham JA, Ficarra V, Guazzoni G, Menon M, Novara G, Patel VR, Stolzenburg J-U, Van der Poel H, Van Poppel H, Mottrie A (2012) Best practices in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: recommendations of the Pasadena consensus panel. Eur Urol 62:368–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kumar A, Tandon S, Samavedi S, Mouraviev V, Bates AS, Patel VR (2016) Current status of various neurovascular bundle-sparing techniques in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Robot Surg 10:187–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Freire MP, Weinberg AC, Lei Y, Soukup JR, Lipsitz SR, Prasad SM, Korkes F, Lin T, Hu JC (2009) Anatomic bladder neck preservation during robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: description of technique and outcomes. Eur Urol 56:972–980

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Atug F, Castle EP, Srivastav SK, Burgess SV, Thomas R, Davis R (2006) Positive surgical margins in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: impact of learning curve on oncologic outcomes. Eur Urol 49:866–871 (discussion 871-2)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Dripps RD (1961) The role of anesthesia in surgical mortality. JAMA 178:261

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Srigley JR, Humphrey PA, Amin MB, Chang SS, Egevad L, Epstein JI, Grignon DJ, McKiernan JM, Montironi R, Renshaw AA, Reuter VE, Wheeler TM (2009) Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with carcinoma of the prostate gland. Arch Pathol Lab Med 133:1568–1576

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Briganti A, Larcher A, Abdollah F, Capitanio U, Gallina A, Suardi N, Bianchi M, Sun M, Freschi M, Salonia A, Karakiewicz PI, Rigatti P, Montorsi F (2012) Updated nomogram predicting lymph node invasion in patients with prostate cancer undergoing extended pelvic lymph node dissection: the essential importance of percentage of positive cores. Eur Urol 61:480–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Porcaro AB, Siracusano S, de Luyk N, Corsi P, Sebben M, Tafuri A, Mattevi D, Bizzotto L, Tamanini I, Cerruto MA, Martignoni G, Brunelli M, Artibani W (2017) Low-risk prostate cancer and tumor upgrading in the surgical specimen: analysis of clinical factors predicting tumor upgrading in a contemporary series of patients who were evaluated according to the modified Gleason score grading system. Curr Urol 10:118–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Porcaro AB, de Luyk N, Corsi P, Sebben M, Tafuri A, Tamanini I, Processali T, Cerruto MA, Migliorini F, Brunelli M, Siracusano S, Artibani W (2017) Bilateral lymph node micrometastases and seminal vesicle invasion associated with same clinical predictors in localized prostate cancer. Tumori 103:299–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Porcaro AB, de Luyk N, Corsi P, Sebben M, Tafuri A, Mattevi D, Processali T, Cerruto MA, Brunelli M, Zecchini Antoniolli S, Siracusano S, Artibani W (2017) Clinical factors predicting and stratifying the risk of lymph node invasion in localized prostate cancer. Urol Int 99:207–214

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Ficarra V, Novara G, Secco S, D’Elia C, Boscolo-Berto R, Gardiman M, Cavalleri S, Artibani W (2009) Predictors of positive surgical margins after laparoscopic robot assisted radical prostatectomy. J Urol 182:2682–2688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Patel VR, Coelho RF, Rocco B, Orvieto M, Sivaraman A, Palmer KJ, Kameh D, Santoro L, Coughlin GD, Liss M (2011) Positive surgical margins after robotic assisted radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional study. J Urol 186:511–517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Coelho RF, Chauhan S, Orvieto MA, Palmer KJ, Rocco B, Patel VR (2010) Predictive factors for positive surgical margins and their locations after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 57:1022–1029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Tholomier C, Bienz M, Hueber PA, Trinh QD, Hakim AE, Alhathal N, Lebeau T, Benayoun S, Valdivieso R, Liberman D, Saad F, Lattouf JB, Widmer H, Begin L, Latour M, Zorn KC (2014) Oncological and functional outcomes of 722 robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) cases: the largest Canadian 5-year experience. Can Urol Assoc J 8:195–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Rajan P, Hagman A, Sooriakumaran P, Nyberg T, Wallerstedt A, Adding C, Akre O, Carlsson S, Hosseini A, Olsson M, Egevad L, Wiklund F, Steineck G, Wiklund NP (2018) Oncologic outcomes after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a large european single-centre cohort with median 10-year follow-up. Eur Urol Focus 4:351–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Antonelli A, Sodano M, Peroni A, Mittino I, Palumbo C, Furlan M, Carobbio F, Tardanico R, Fisogni S, Simeone C (2017) Positive surgical margins and early oncological outcomes of robotic vs open radical prostatectomy at a medium case-load institution. Minerva Urol Nefrol 69:63–68

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Jo JK, Hong SK, Byun SS, Zargar H, Autorino R, Lee SE (2017) Positive surgical margin in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: correlation with pathology findings and risk of biochemical recurrence. Minerva Urol Nefrol 69:493–500

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Porcaro AB, Tafuri A, Sebben M, Corsi P, Pocessali T, Pirozzi M, Amigoni N, Rizzetto R, Mariotto A, Inverardi D, Brunelli M, Iacovelli R, Romano M, Siracusano S, Artibani W (2018) Positive association between preoperative total testosterone levels and risk of positive surgical margins by prostate cancer: results in 476 consecutive patients treated only by radical prostatectomy. Urol Int 101:38–46

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Porcaro AB, Sebben M, Tafuri A, de Luyk N, Corsi P, Processali T, Pirozzi M, Rizzetto R, Amigoni N, Mattevi D, Cerruto MA, Brunelli M, Novella G, De Marco V, Migliorini F, Artibani W (2018) Body mass index is an independent predictor of Clavien-Dindo grade 3 complications in patients undergoing robot assisted radical prostatectomy with extensive pelvic lymph node dissection. J Robot Surg 13(1):83–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Moskovic DJ, Lavery HJ, Rehman J, Nabizada-Pace F, Brajtbord J, Samadi DB (2010) High body mass index does not affect outcomes following robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Can J Urol 17:5291–5298

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Wiltz AL, Shikanov S, Eggener SE, Katz MH, Thong AE, Steinberg GD, Shalhav AL, Zagaja GP, Zorn KC (2009) Robotic radical prostatectomy in overweight and obese patients: oncological and validated-functional outcomes. Urology 73:316–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Castle EP, Atug F, Woods M, Thomas R, Davis R (2007) Impact of body mass index on outcomes after robot assisted radical prostatectomy. World J Urol 26:91–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. van Roermund JGH, Bol GH, Alfred Witjes J, Ruud Bosch JLH, Kiemeney LA, van Vulpen M (2009) Periprostatic fat measured on computed tomography as a marker for prostate cancer aggressiveness. World J Urol 28:699–704

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Leow JJ, Leong EK, Serrell EC, Chang SL, Gruen RL, Png KS, Beaule LT, Trinh Q-D, Menon MM, Sammon JD (2018) Systematic review of the volume-outcome relationship for radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol Focus 4:775–789

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Hu JC, Wang Q, Pashos CL, Lipsitz SR, Keating NL (2008) Utilization and outcomes of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 26:2278–2284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Steinsvik EAS, Axcrona K, Angelsen A, Beisland C, Dahl A, Eri LM, Haug ES, Svindland A, Fosså S (2012) Does a surgeon’s annual radical prostatectomy volume predict the risk of positive surgical margins and urinary incontinence at one-year follow-up?—Findings from a prospective national study. Scand J Urol 47:92–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors did not receive a financial support.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Antonio Benito Porcaro and Alessandro Tafuri contributed equally to this manuscript.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, University of Verona, Verona, Italy

    Antonio Benito Porcaro, Marco Sebben, Paolo Corsi, Alessandro Tafuri, Tania Processali, Marco Pirozzi, Nelia Amigoni, Riccardo Rizzetto, Giovanni Cacciamani, Arianna Mariotto, Alberto Diminutto, Vincenzo De Marco, Salvatore Siracusano & Walter Artibani

  2. Department of Pathology, University of Verona, Verona, Italy

    Matteo Brunelli

Authors
  1. Antonio Benito Porcaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marco Sebben
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paolo Corsi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alessandro Tafuri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tania Processali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Marco Pirozzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Nelia Amigoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Riccardo Rizzetto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Giovanni Cacciamani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Arianna Mariotto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Alberto Diminutto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Matteo Brunelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Vincenzo De Marco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Salvatore Siracusano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Walter Artibani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antonio Benito Porcaro.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Antonio Benito Porcaro, Marco Sebben, Paolo Corsi, Alessandro Tafuri, Tania Processali, Marco Pirozzi, Nelia Amigoni, Riccardo Rizzetto, Giovanni Cacciamani, Arianna Mariotto, Alberto Diminutto, Matteo Brunelli, Vincenzo De Marco, Salvatore Siracusano and Walter Artibani declare that they have not conflict of interest.

Informed consent

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Porcaro, A.B., Sebben, M., Corsi, P. et al. Risk factors of positive surgical margins after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in high-volume center: results in 732 cases. J Robotic Surg 14, 167–175 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-019-00954-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-019-00954-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation