Development of risk-score model in patients with negative surgical margin after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.
Negative surgical margin
Non-metastatic
Prostate cancer
RARP
Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
31 Mar 2024
31 Mar 2024
Historique:
received:
08
10
2023
accepted:
27
03
2024
medline:
1
4
2024
pubmed:
1
4
2024
entrez:
31
3
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
A total of 739 patients underwent RARP as initial treatment for PCa from November 2011 to October 2018. Data on BCR status, clinical and pathological parameters were collected from the clinical records. After excluding cases with neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant therapies, presence of lymph node or distant metastasis, and positive SM, a total of 537 cases were eligible for the final analysis. The median follow-up of experimental cohort was 28.0 (interquartile: 18.0-43.0) months. We identified the presence of International Society of Urological Pathology grade group (ISUP-GG) ≥ 4 (Hazard ratio (HR) 3.20, 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) 1.70-6.03, P < 0.001), lymphovascular invasion (HR 2.03, 95% CI 1.00-4.12, P = 0.049), perineural invasion (HR 10.7, 95% CI 1.45-79.9, P = 0.020), and maximum tumor diameter (MTD) > 20 mm (HR 1.9, 95% CI 1.01-3.70, P = 0.047) as significant factors of BCR in the multivariate analysis. We further developed a risk model according to these factors. Based on this model, 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year BCR-free survival were 100%, 98.9%, 98.9% in the low-risk group; 99.1%, 94.1%, 86.5% in the intermediate-risk group; 93.9%, 84.6%, 58.1% in the high-risk group. Internal validation using the bootstrap method showed a c-index of 0.742 and an optimism-corrected c-index level of 0.731. External validation was also carried out using an integrated database derived from 3 other independent institutions including a total of 387 patients for the final analysis. External validation showed a c-index of 0.655. In conclusion, we identified risk factors of biochemical failure in patients showing negative surgical margin after RARP and further developed a risk model using these risk factors.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38556562
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-58279-1
pii: 10.1038/s41598-024-58279-1
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
7607Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Zhou, C. K. et al. Prostate cancer incidence in 43 populations worldwide: An analysis of time trends overall and by age group. Int. J. Cancer 138, 1388–1400. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.29894 (2016).
doi: 10.1002/ijc.29894
pubmed: 26488767
Menon, M. et al. Biochemical recurrence following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Analysis of 1384 patients with a median 5-year follow-up. Eur. Urol. 58, 838–846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.09.010 (2010).
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.09.010
pubmed: 20869162
Hashimoto, T. et al. Prediction of biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Analysis of 784 Japanese patients. Int. J. Urol. 22, 188–193. https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.12624 (2015).
doi: 10.1111/iju.12624
pubmed: 25339062
Sooriakumaran, P. et al. Biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in a European single-centre cohort with a minimum follow-up time of 5 years. Eur. Urol. 62, 768–774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.024 (2012).
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.024
pubmed: 22633365
Zhang, L. et al. Surgical margin status and its impact on prostate cancer prognosis after radical prostatectomy: A meta-analysis. World J. Urol. 36, 1803–1815. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2333-4 (2018).
doi: 10.1007/s00345-018-2333-4
pubmed: 29766319
pmcid: 6208659
https://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/ .
Yamada, Y. et al. Overactive bladder is a negative predictor of achieving continence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Int. J. Urol. 24, 749–756. https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.13411 (2017).
doi: 10.1111/iju.13411
pubmed: 28697538
Rocco, F. & Rocco, B. Anatomical reconstruction of the rhabdosphincter after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 104, 274–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08751.x (2009).
doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08751.x
pubmed: 19594519
Van Velthoven, R. F., Ahlering, T. E., Peltier, A., Skarecky, D. W. & Clayman, R. V. Technique for laparoscopic running urethrovesical anastomosis: The single knot method. Urology 61, 699–702. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(02)02543-8 (2003).
doi: 10.1016/S0090-4295(02)02543-8
pubmed: 12670546
Novara, G. et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur. Urol. 62, 382–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.047 (2012).
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.047
pubmed: 22749851
Porcaro, A. B. et al. Linear extent of positive surgical margin impacts biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in a high-volume center. J. Robot. Surg. 14, 663–675. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-019-01039-5 (2020).
doi: 10.1007/s11701-019-01039-5
pubmed: 31893344
Choo, M. S. et al. Predictors of positive surgical margins and their location in Korean men undergoing radical prostatectomy. Int. J. Urol. 21, 894–898. https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.12465 (2014).
doi: 10.1111/iju.12465
pubmed: 24807736
Di Pierro, G. B. et al. A prospective trial comparing consecutive series of open retropubic and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in a centre with a limited caseload. Eur. Urol. 59, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.10.026 (2011).
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.10.026
pubmed: 21035248
Brockman, J. A. et al. Nomogram predicting prostate cancer-specific mortality for men with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Eur. Urol. 67, 1160–1167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.09.019 (2015).
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.09.019
pubmed: 25301759
Jung, J. H. et al. Significance of perineural invasion, lymphovascular invasion, and high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia in robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 18, 3828–3832. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-011-1790-4 (2011).
doi: 10.1245/s10434-011-1790-4
pubmed: 21660497
Kang, M. et al. Perineural invasion and lymphovascular invasion are associated with increased risk of biochemical recurrence in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 23, 2699–2706. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5153-z (2016).
doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5153-z
pubmed: 26965702
Chen, S. H. et al. Perineural invasion of cancer: A complex crosstalk between cells and molecules in the perineural niche. Am. J. Cancer Res. 1(9), 1–21 (2019).
Fromont, G. et al. Biological significance of perineural invasion (PNI) in prostate cancer. Prostate 72, 542–548. https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.21456 (2012).
doi: 10.1002/pros.21456
pubmed: 21748758
Olar, A. et al. Biological correlates of prostate cancer perineural invasion diameter. Hum. Pathol. 45, 1365–1369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2014.02.011 (2014).
doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2014.02.011
pubmed: 24768607
pmcid: 4492300
https://www.nccn.org/guidelines/category_1 .
Hansen, J. et al. Percentage of high-grade tumour volume does not meaningfully improve prediction of early biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy compared with Gleason score. BJU Int. 113, 399–407. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12424 (2014).
doi: 10.1111/bju.12424
pubmed: 24053339
van Oort, I. M. et al. Maximum tumor diameter is not an independent prognostic factor in high-risk localized prostate cancer. World J. Urol. 26, 237–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-008-0242-7 (2008).
doi: 10.1007/s00345-008-0242-7
pubmed: 18265988
pmcid: 2413091
Meyer, C. P. et al. Tumor volume improves the long-term prediction of biochemical recurrence-free survival after radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer with positive surgical margins. World J. Urol. 35, 199–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-016-1861-z (2017).
doi: 10.1007/s00345-016-1861-z
pubmed: 27260503
Castiglione, F. et al. Tumor volume and clinical failure in high-risk prostate cancer patients treated with radical prostatectomy. Prostate 77, 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.23242 (2017).
doi: 10.1002/pros.23242
pubmed: 27527377
You, D. et al. High percent tumor volume predicts biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy in pathological stage T3a prostate cancer with a negative surgical margin. Int. J. Urol. 21, 484–489. https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.12348 (2014).
doi: 10.1111/iju.12348
pubmed: 24256352
Eichelberger, L. E. et al. Predicting tumor volume in radical prostatectomy specimens from patients with prostate cancer. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 120, 386–391. https://doi.org/10.1309/82U1089XLQGKMMN1 (2003).
doi: 10.1309/82U1089XLQGKMMN1
pubmed: 14502802
Fukuhara, H. et al. Maximum tumor diameter: A simple independent predictor for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 13, 244–247. https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2010.17 (2010).
doi: 10.1038/pcan.2010.17
pubmed: 20567255
Rose, B. S. et al. Maximum tumor diameter and the risk of prostate-specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Clin. Genitourin Cancer 12, e173–e179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2014.03.008 (2014).
doi: 10.1016/j.clgc.2014.03.008
pubmed: 24787967
Hashimoto, T. et al. The significance of micro-lymphatic invasion and pathological Gleason score in prostate cancer patients with pathologically organ-confined disease and negative surgical margins after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Int. J. Clin. Oncol. 25, 377–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-019-01561-4 (2020).
doi: 10.1007/s10147-019-01561-4
pubmed: 31673831
Niu, Y., Förster, S. & Muders, M. The role of perineural invasion in prostate cancer and its prognostic significance. Cancers 14, 4065. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14174065 (2022).
doi: 10.3390/cancers14174065
pubmed: 36077602
pmcid: 9454778