A side-specific nomogram for extraprostatic extension may reduce the positive surgical margin rate in radical prostatectomy.
Nerve-sparing
Nomogram
Prostate cancer
Prostatectomy
Journal
World journal of urology
ISSN: 1433-8726
Titre abrégé: World J Urol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8307716
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2022
Dec 2022
Historique:
received:
07
04
2022
accepted:
08
10
2022
pubmed:
8
11
2022
medline:
3
12
2022
entrez:
7
11
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Nomograms predicting side-specific extraprostatic extension (EPE) may be applied to reduce positive surgical margin (PSM) rates in patients planned for radical prostatectomy (RP). This study evaluates the impact of implementing an externally validated nomogram for side-specific EPE on PSM rate and degree of nerve-sparing. In patients planned for RP, the side-specific nomogram predictions (based on MRI, ISUP grade group, and PSA density), with an advised threshold of 20% for safe nerve-sparing, were presented preoperatively to the urological surgeon. The surgeon completed a survey before RP about the planning with respect to side-specific nerve-sparing and change of management due to the result of the nomogram. PSM rates and degree of nerve-sparing were compared to a retrospective control group treated in the months prior to the introduction of the nomogram. A total of 100 patients were included, 50 patients in both groups representing 200 prostate lobes. Of the patients, 37% had histologically confirmed EPE, and 40% a PSM. In 12% of the 100 lobes planned after nomogram presentation, a change in management due to the nomogram was reported. A per-prostate lobe analysis of all the lobes showed comparable rates of full nerve-sparing (45% vs. 30%; p = 0.083) and lower rates of PSM on the lobes with histological EPE (45% vs. 85%; p < 0.05) in the intervention (nomogram) group versus the control group. Implementing a predictive nomogram for side-specific EPE in the surgical planning for nerve-sparing leads to lower rates PSM on the side of the histological EPE without compromising nerve-sparing.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36344738
doi: 10.1007/s00345-022-04191-0
pii: 10.1007/s00345-022-04191-0
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2919-2924Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H et al (2018) Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in prostate cancer—29-year follow-up. N Engl J Med 379:2319–2329. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1807801
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1807801
pubmed: 30575473
Holze S, Bräunlich M, Mende M et al (2022) Age-stratified outcomes after radical prostatectomy in a randomized setting (LAP-01): do younger patients have more to lose? World J Urol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-022-03945-0
doi: 10.1007/s00345-022-03945-0
pubmed: 35124734
pmcid: 9085667
Walsh PC (2007) The discovery of the cavernous nerves and development of nerve sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 177:1632–1635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.01.012
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.01.012
pubmed: 17437775
Nguyen LN, Head L, Witiuk K et al (2017) The risks and benefits of cavernous neurovascular bundle sparing during radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol 198:760–769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.02.3344
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.02.3344
pubmed: 28286069
Soeterik TFW, van Melick HHE, Dijksman LM et al (2020) Nerve sparing during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy increases the risk of ipsilateral positive surgical margins. J Urol 204:91–95. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000760
doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000760
pubmed: 31971494
Morizane S, Yumioka T, Makishima K et al (2021) Impact of positive surgical margin status in predicting early biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Int J Clin Oncol 26:1961–1967. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-021-01977-x
doi: 10.1007/s10147-021-01977-x
pubmed: 34313905
Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E et al (2021) EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer-2020 update. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 79:243–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042
pubmed: 33172724
Ohori M, Kattan MW, Koh H et al (2004) Predicting the presence and side of extracapsular extension: a nomogram for staging prostate cancer. J Urol 171:1844–1849. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000121693.05077.3d (discussion 1849)
doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000121693.05077.3d
pubmed: 15076291
Tosoian JJ, Chappidi M, Feng Z et al (2017) Prediction of pathological stage based on clinical stage, serum prostate-specific antigen, and biopsy Gleason score: Partin Tables in the contemporary era. BJU Int 119:676–683. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13573
doi: 10.1111/bju.13573
pubmed: 27367645
Prostate Cancer Nomograms: Pre-Radical Prostatectomy. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. https://www.mskcc.org/nomograms/prostate/pre_op . Accessed 21 Jan 2022
de Rooij M, Hamoen EHJ, Witjes JA et al (2016) Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for local staging of prostate cancer: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol 70:233–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.029
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.029
pubmed: 26215604
Sighinolfi MC, Rocco B (2019) Re: EAU guidelines: prostate cancer 2019. Eur Urol 76:871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.07.014
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.07.014
pubmed: 31350067
Soeterik TFW, van Melick HHE, Dijksman LM et al (2020) Development and external validation of a novel nomogram to predict side-specific extraprostatic extension in patients with prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol Oncol S2588–9311(20):30133–30134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2020.08.008
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2020.08.008
Martini A, Gupta A, Lewis SC et al (2018) Development and internal validation of a side-specific, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-based nomogram for the prediction of extracapsular extension of prostate cancer. BJU Int 122:1025–1033. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14353
doi: 10.1111/bju.14353
pubmed: 29676063
Diamand R, Ploussard G, Roumiguié M et al (2021) External validation of a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-based nomogram for the prediction of extracapsular extension and seminal vesicle invasion in prostate cancer patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 79:180–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.037
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.037
pubmed: 33023770
Nyarangi-Dix J, Wiesenfarth M, Bonekamp D et al (2020) Combined clinical parameters and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the prediction of extraprostatic disease-a risk model for patient-tailored risk stratification when planning radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol Focus 6:1205–1212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2018.11.004
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2018.11.004
pubmed: 30477971
Wibmer AG, Kattan MW, Alessandrino F et al (2021) International multi-site initiative to develop an MRI-inclusive nomogram for side-specific prediction of extraprostatic extension of prostate cancer. Cancers 13:2627. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13112627
doi: 10.3390/cancers13112627
pubmed: 34071842
pmcid: 8198352
Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA et al (2019) Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. Eur Urol 76:340–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033
pubmed: 30898406
Wegelin O, Exterkate L, van der Leest M et al (2019) The FUTURE trial: a multicenter randomised controlled trial on target biopsy techniques based on magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer in patients with prior negative biopsies. Eur Urol 75:582–590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.040
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.040
pubmed: 30522912
Montorsi F, Wilson TG, Rosen RC et al (2012) Best practices in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: recommendations of the Pasadena Consensus Panel. Eur Urol 62:368–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.057
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.057
pubmed: 22763081
van Leenders GJLH, van der Kwast TH, Grignon DJ et al (2020) The 2019 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 44:e87–e99. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000001497
doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000001497
pubmed: 32459716
pmcid: 7382533
Fine SW, Amin MB, Berney DM et al (2012) A contemporary update on pathology reporting for prostate cancer: biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Eur Urol 62:20–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.02.055
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.02.055
pubmed: 22421083
Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL et al (2019) The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform 95:103208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208
doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208
pubmed: 31078660
pmcid: 7254481
Randolph J, Falbe K, Manuel A, Balloun J (2019) A step-by-step guide to propensity score matching in R. Pract Assess Res Eval. https://doi.org/10.7275/n3pv-tx27
doi: 10.7275/n3pv-tx27
Zeileis A (2006) Object-oriented computation of sandwich estimators. J Stat Softw. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v016.i09
doi: 10.18637/jss.v016.i09
Hou Y, Zhang Y-H, Bao J et al (2021) Artificial intelligence is a promising prospect for the detection of prostate cancer extracapsular extension with mpMRI: a two-center comparative study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 48:3805–3816. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-021-05381-5
doi: 10.1007/s00259-021-05381-5
pubmed: 34018011
Woo S, Ghafoor S, Becker AS et al (2020) Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET) for local staging of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Hybrid Imaging 4:16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41824-020-00085-9
doi: 10.1186/s41824-020-00085-9
pubmed: 34191215
pmcid: 8218057
Schlomm T, Tennstedt P, Huxhold C et al (2012) Neurovascular structure-adjacent frozen-section examination (NeuroSAFE) increases nerve-sparing frequency and reduces positive surgical margins in open and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: experience after 11,069 consecutive patients. Eur Urol 62:333–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.04.057
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.04.057
pubmed: 22591631
Dinneen E, Haider A, Grierson J et al (2021) NeuroSAFE frozen section during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: peri-operative and histopathological outcomes from the NeuroSAFE PROOF feasibility randomized controlled trial. BJU Int 127:676–686. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15256
doi: 10.1111/bju.15256
pubmed: 32985121
Anceschi U, Galfano A, Luciani L et al (2022) Analysis of predictors of early trifecta achievement after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for trainers and expert surgeons: the learning curve never ends. Minerva Urol Nephrol 74:133–136. https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-6051.22.04805-4
doi: 10.23736/S2724-6051.22.04805-4
pubmed: 35345386