Editorial Comment from Drs Brookman-May, May and Burger to Length of site-specific positive surgical margins as a risk factor for biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomyPositive surgical margins (PSM) are well-validated and established prognosticators regarding biochemical recurrences (BCR) after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer (PCa). As a matter of fact, PSM is the only key factor in oncological outcome of locally confined PCa that is directly and actively influenced by a decisive human factor: the surgeon. Accordingly, PSM has been the focus of many studies, and novel surgical approaches have to stand the test of low PSM rates compared with established methods. For quite some time now, it has been a matter of debate whether the prognostic value of PSM can be enhanced by integration of information on extent, localization and universus multifocality. Despite multiple justified rationales for assessment of these additional parameters, which can be easily obtained in routine histopathology, we are far from seeing them established in a standardized way. Presently, the Stanford group, which successfully promoted standardizations in histopathological processing in the past, suggests a well-structured protocol, including the aspect of PSM.
1From their well and concisely designed study, the authors draw two conclusions: first, the extent of PSM is decisive for prognosis (increase in BCR rate by 14% per mm PSM, P = 0.049); and second , the extent of PSM in the anterior segment is highly relevant for prognosis (increase in BCR rate by 17% per mm PSM, P = 0.027).These findings seem contradictory to the recent results from our group; 2 however, contrariety vanishes if one is looking more closely. The study sets and methodologies vary tremendously. Hsu et al. refer their main message of a high impact of anterior PSM to 15 patients (7 with solitary anterior PSM) assessed within 21 years at Stanford University Medical Center.1 In contrast, our series does not contain patients with anterior PSM. Our series, however, has a different focus, as inclusion criteria restricted analysis to patients staged pT2-3a,pN0,M0 void of adjuvant therapy.
2In such patients, systemic progression per se is considerably less likely and , accordingly, PSM will have a greater impact. In contrast, roughly one-third of patients were staged pT3b, 10% pT4 and 20% pN1.1 A multivariable Cox model will not level out these differences and will be unable to render these prognosticators of BCR comparable. In the study by Hsu et al., apical PSM was not independently significant as compared with other localisations, and multifocal PSM was significantly related to reduced BCR (57%; HR = 0.43, P = 0.002) as compared with solitary PSM in univariate analysis.1 In accordance with the aforementioned illustrated findings, our results did not show significant differences in BCR rate of apical versus non-apical PSM in univariate analysis; however, we did note a significant difference in BCR of apical PSM versus absent PSM.2 This is remarkable M ...