Clinicopathological implications of histological mapping in radical prostatectomy specimens

OBJECTIVE

The present study aims to elucidate the clinicopathological implications of histological mapping in radical prostatectomy specimens.

METHODS

This study included 76 prostatic cancers with histological mapping. The examined characteristics from the histological mappings were the largest tumor dimension, distance from the tumor core to resection margin, tumor dimension from the apex to base, tumor volume, tumor surface area, and proportion of the tumor. In addition, these histological parameters from the histological mapping were compared between patients with positive surgical margin (PSM) and negative surgical margin (NSM).

RESULTS

Patients with PSM were significantly correlated with a higher Gleason score and pT stage than those with NSM. Among the histological characteristics from mappings, there were significant correlations between PSM and the largest tumor dimension, tumor volume, tumor surface area, and proportion of tumor (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, P < 0.001, and P = 0.017, respectively). The distance from the tumor core to the resection margin was significantly longer with PSM than with NSM (P = 0.024). According to the linear regression test, the tumor volume, tumor surface area, and largest tumor dimension were significantly correlated with Gleason score and grade (P = 0.019, P = 0.036, and P = 0.016, respectively). There were no significant differences in the histological factors between the apical and non-apical involved subgroups.

CONCLUSION

Various clinicopathological characteristics assessed from the histological mappings, such as the tumor volume, tumor surface area, and proportion of the tumor, can be useful for interpreting PSM after radical prostatectomy.

Evaluation of Oncological Outcomes and Data Quality in Studies Assessing Nerve-sparing Versus Non-Nerve-sparing Radical Prostatectomy in Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Surgical techniques aimed at preserving the neurovascular bundles during radical prostatectomy (RP) have been proposed to improve functional outcomes. However, it remains unclear if nerve-sparing (NS) surgery adversely affects oncological metrics.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the oncological safety of NS versus non-NS (NNS) surgery and to identify factors affecting the oncological outcomes of NS surgery.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Relevant databases were searched for English language articles published between January 1, 1990 and May 8, 2020. Comparative studies for patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer (PCa) treated with primary RP were included. NS and NNS techniques were compared. The main outcomes were side-specific positive surgical margins (ssPSM) and biochemical recurrence (BCR). Risk of bias (RoB) and confounding assessments were performed.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Out of 1573 articles identified, 18 studies recruiting a total of 21 654 patients were included. The overall RoB and confounding were high across all domains. The most common selection criteria for NS RP identified were characteristic of low-risk disease, including low core-biopsy involvement. Seven studies evaluated the link with ssPSM and showed an increase in ssPSM after adjustment for side-specific confounders, with the relative risk for NS RP ranging from 1.50 to 1.53. Thirteen papers assessing BCR showed no difference in outcomes with at least 12 mo of follow-up. Lack of data prevented any subgroup analysis for potentially important variables. The definitions of NS were heterogeneous and poorly described in most studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Current data revealed an association between NS surgery and an increase in the risk of ssPSM. This did not translate into a negative impact on BCR, although follow-up was short and many men harbored low-risk PCa. There are significant knowledge gaps in terms of how various patient, disease, and surgical factors affect outcomes. Adequately powered and well-designed prospective trials and cohort studies accounting for these issues with long-term follow-up are recommended.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Neurovascular bundles (NVBs) are structures containing nerves and blood vessels. The NVBs close to the prostate are responsible for erections. We reviewed the literature to determine if a technique to preserve the NVBs during removal of the prostate causes worse cancer outcomes. We found that NVB preservation was poorly defined but, if applied, was associated with a higher risk of cancer at the margins of the tissue removed, even in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. The long-term importance of this finding for patients is unclear. More data are needed to provide recommendations.

Prostatic capsular incision during radical prostatectomy has important oncological implications: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Prostatic capsular incision (CapI) is an iatrogenic breach of the prostatic capsule during radical prostatectomy (RP) that can cause positive surgical margins (PSMs) in organ-confined (pT2) prostate cancer, or the retention of benign prostatic tissue. We systematically interrogated the literature in order to clarify the definition of CapI, and the implications of this event for rates of PSM and biochemical recurrence (BCR).

METHODS

A literature search was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria using the search terms 'capsular incision' AND 'prostatectomy', and variations of each. In all, 18 studies were eligible for inclusion.

RESULTS

A total of 51 057 RP specimens were included. The incidence of CapI ranged from 1.3% to 54.3%. CapI definitions varied and included a breach of the prostatic capsule 'exposing both benign or malignant prostate cancer cells', 'malignant tissue only', or 'benign tissue only'. The incidence of PSMs due to CapI ranged from 2.8% to 71.7%. Our meta-analysis results found that when CapI was defined as 'exposing malignant tissue only in organ-confined prostate cancer' there was an increased risk of BCR compared to patients with pT2 disease and no CapI (relative risk 3.53, 95% confidence interval 2.82-4.41; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The absolute impact of CapI on oncological outcomes is currently unclear due to inconsistent definitions. However, the data imply an association between CapI and PSMs and BCR. Reporting of possible areas of CapI on the operation note, or marking areas of concern on the specimen, are critical to assist CapI recognition by the pathologist.

[Analysis and prognostic factors of the specimen of radical prostatectomy in prostate cancer]

OBJECTIVES

Handling and pathologic analysis of radical prostatectomy specimens are crucial to confirm the diagnosis of prostate cancer and evaluate prognostic criteria.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic review of the scientific literature was performed in the Medline database (PubMed), using different associations of the following keywords: prostate cancer; prostatectomy; specimen; handling; pathology; tumor staging; Gleason score; surgical margin; prognosis; frozen section; lymph node; biomarkers. A particular search was done on specimen management and characterization of tissue prognostic factors.

RESULTS

Handling of both radical prostatectomy specimen and lymph node dissection is standardized according to international criteria. Although the main histoprognostic factors are still Gleason score, pathologic staging and margin status, these criteria have been refined these last 10 years, allowing to improve the prediction of relapse after surgical treatment.

CONCLUSION

The standardization of handling and pathology reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens will be mandatory for treatment uniformization according to risk stratification in prostate cancer and personalization of therapeutic approaches.

[Oncological outcomes of prostate cancer surgery]

OBJECTIVE

Review of the oncological results of the radical prostatectomy as initial treatment of prostate cancer, according to the surgical approach and the risk stratification using D'Amico risk groups.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Review of literature using Medline databases and MedScience based on scientific relevance. Research focused on the oncological results of the radical prostatectomy in series and meta-analysis published since 10 years, taking into consideration the surgical approach if mentioned.

RESULTS

The characteristics of the operated tumor highly impact the local control authenticated by the pathologic stage and the rates of positive surgical margins (PSM), in addition to the survival and the biochemical recurrence. Surgical technique adapted according to the tumor treated, was a constant challenge to the urologist, who counter balance between the oncological control and the conservation of urinary and sexual function by conditioning the type of radical prostatectomy. Results of radical prostatectomy acceptable in terms of PSM and survival are not influenced by the surgical approach but by the degree of surgical experience.

CONCLUSION

Results of radical prostatectomy show the efficient local control of prostate cancer, taking into consideration the oncological rules and indications validated by multidisciplinary meetings, based on the national (CCAFU) and European oncological guidelines. Tendency is going toward considering radical prostatectomy indicated for patients with higher risk of disease progression, so integrating surgery in a multidisciplinary personalized approach.

[A prospective trial comparing consecutive series of open retropubic and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in a centre: Oncologic and functional outcomes]

OBJECTIVE

Radical prostatectomy (RP) is an oncologic and functional challenge. Few series compare prospectively the two approaches, open retropubic (ORP) and laparoscopic robot-assisted RP (LRARP). The objective was to compare the oncological and functional results of ORP and LRARP.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From January 2009 to March 2012, two practiced surgeons conducted 304 consecutive RP: respectively 129 ORP and 175 LRARP. Preoperative, perioperative and postoperative data (location and size of positive surgical margins [PSM]) were recorded prospectively and compared with oncological results (PSM, biochemical recurrence-free survival [BCR]) and functional outcomes (urinary and erectile) by self-validated questionnaires (USP, IIEF-15). The comparison was made by the Chi(2) test and Student t-test for qualitative and quantitative variables.

RESULTS

The preoperative data 2 groups were comparable. MCP rate was 13.2% for the ORP and 20% for the LRARP (ns) and was 1.4% and 29.6% (ORP) versus 9.4% and 36.7% (LRARP) for pT2 and pT3 for respectively (P=0.078). BCR was the same in both groups (95.2% at 13.1 months). At 12 months, the results of continence showed no difference (P=0.49) and about erectile function, the EF-score was significantly higher in LRARP: 22 versus 17 for the ORP (P=0.03).

CONCLUSION

Oncological results were comparable after ORP and LRARP. The recovery of continence was excellent regardless of the surgical technique, the recovery of erectile function a bit faster by LRARP.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Margini Chirurgici Positivi Dopo una Prostatectomia Radicale

Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy