Prognostic Value of Gleason Score at Positive Surgical Margin in Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria;2. Department of Urology, Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan;3. Research Center for Evidence Based Medicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran;4. Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia;5. Division of Urology, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, QC, Canada;6. Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany;7. Department of Urology, Vita Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy;8. King Fahad Specialist Hospital, Dammam, Saudi Arabia;9. Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY;10. Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, TX;11. Karl Landsteiner Institute of Urology and Andrology, Vienna, Austria;12. Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic;1. Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN;2. Department of Health Policy, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN;3. Geriatric, Research, and Educational Center, Veterans Affairs Tennessee Valley Health Care System, Nashville, TN;1. Department of Surgery and Science, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan;2. Center for Integration of Advanced Medicine, Life Science and Innovative Technology, Kyushu University Hospital, Fukuoka, Japan;3. Center of Endoscopy and Endoscopic Surgery, Medical and Dental Hospital, Fukuoka Dental College, Fukuoka, Japan;4. Institute for Datability Science, Osaka University, Osaka, Japan;1. Department of Urology, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands;2. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands;1. Unit of Urology/Department of Oncology, URI, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy;2. Department of Urology, The Christie and Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trusts, Manchester, UK;3. Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA;4. Martini-Clinic, Prostate Cancer Center, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany;5. Department of Radiation Oncology and Experimental Cancer Research, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium;6. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA;7. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA;1. Department of Urology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA;2. Department of Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital, General Campus, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada;3. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada;4. Department of Urology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada;5. Research Methods Unit, Capital Health Authority, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada;6. Department of Urology, Urology Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY |
| |
| Abstract: | The individual clinical significance of a positive surgical margin (PSM) after radical prostatectomy has remained controversial. Studies have suggested that the Gleason grade (GG) at the PSM could improve predictive accuracy and decision making. Our objective was to systematically review the reported data to determine the effect of the GG at the PSM on the prognosis after radical prostatectomy. A systematic review was conducted by searching MEDLINE/PubMed for studies reported by June 2019 in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review statement. The keywords used included prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy, positive surgical margin, Gleason score, and/or Gleason grade. After a systematic literature review, 10 studies were included, comprising 14,108 patients, of whom 2454 (17.4%) had a PSM and 428 (14%) eventually experienced biochemical recurrence (BCR) within a median follow-up of 18 to 156 months. Data on neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy were not estimable. In a meta-analysis, GG4 at PSM was significantly associated with BCR compared with GG3 (pooled hazard ratio, 1.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.53-2.28; z = 6.16). The Cochrane Q test (χ2 = 5.88; P = .318) and I2 test (I2 = 15.0%) showed that no significant heterogeneity was present. GG4 at a PSM is a feature of biologically and clinically aggressive prostate cancer that is associated with a significant increase risk of BCR. GG at PSM should be recorded in each pathological report. Given this adverse prognostic value patients with GG4 at the PSM should be considered for multimodal therapy such as radiotherapy. |
| |
| Keywords: | Biochemical recurrence Gleason grade PCa PSM Radical prostatectomy |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
