Impact of pathology review of stage and margin status of radical prostatectomy specimens (EORTC trial 22911)

Pathological staging and surgical margin status of radical prostatectomy specimens are next to grading the most important prognosticators for recurrence. A central review of pathological stage and surgical margin status was performed on a series of 552 radical prostatectomy specimens of patients, participating in the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer trial 22911. Inclusion criteria of the trial were pathological stage pT3 and/or positive surgical margin at local pathology. All specimens were totally embedded. Data of the central review were compared with those of local pathologists and related to clinical follow-up. Although a high concordance between review pathology and local pathologists existed for seminal vesicle invasion (94%, κ=0.83), agreement was much less for extraprostatic extension (57.5%, κ=0.33) and for surgical margin status (69.4%, κ=0.45). Review pathology of surgical margin status was a stronger predictor of biochemical progression-free survival in univariate analysis [hazard ratio (HR)=2.16 and p=0.0002] than local pathology (HR=1.08 and p>0.1). The review pathology demonstrated a significant difference between those with and without extraprostatic extension (HR=1.83 and p=0.0017), while local pathology failed to do so (HR=1.05 and p>0.8). The observations suggest that review of pathological stage and surgical margin of radical prostatectomy strongly improves their prognostic impact in multiinstitutional studies or trials.

[1]  E. Kaplan,et al.  Nonparametric Estimation from Incomplete Observations , 1958 .

[2]  D. Cox,et al.  THE ANALYSIS OF EXPONENTIALLY DISTRIBUTED LIFE-TIMES WITH Two TYPES OF FAILURE , 1959 .

[3]  Jacob Cohen A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[4]  T. Stamey,et al.  Morphometric and clinical studies on 68 consecutive radical prostatectomies. , 1988, The Journal of urology.

[5]  P G Mulder,et al.  Histological grading of prostatic carcinoma in prostatectomy specimens. Comparison of prognostic accuracy of five grading systems. , 1990, British journal of urology.

[6]  N. Olson,et al.  Analysis of risk factors associated with prostate cancer extension to the surgical margin and pelvic node metastasis at radical prostatectomy. , 1993, The Journal of urology.

[7]  D. Bostwick,et al.  Anatomic site-specific positive margins in organ-confined prostate cancer and its impact on outcome after radical prostatectomy. , 1997, Urology.

[8]  [Do close but negative margins in radical prostatectomy specimens increase the risk of postoperative progression?]. , 1998, Der Urologe. Ausg. A.

[9]  H. Fukuda,et al.  European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) and International Society for Cutaneous Lymphoma (ISCL) consensus recommendations for the management of cutaneous B-cell lymphomas Blood 2008; 112(5):1600-9 , 2022 .

[10]  L. Egevad,et al.  Interobserver reproducibility of percent Gleason grade 4/5 in total prostatectomy specimens. , 2002, The Journal of urology.

[11]  A. Haese*,et al.  Assessment of clinical and pathologic characteristics predisposing to disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy in men with pathologically organ-confined prostate cancer. , 2002, European urology.

[12]  M. Cooperberg,et al.  Time trends in clinical risk stratification for prostate cancer: implications for outcomes (data from CaPSURE). , 2003, The Journal of urology.

[13]  M. Bakkaloğlu,et al.  The role of the pathologist in the evaluation of radical prostatectomy specimens , 2003, Scandinavian journal of urology and nephrology.

[14]  Rodolfo Montironi,et al.  Handling and pathology reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens. , 2003, European urology.

[15]  Sten Nilsson,et al.  Prognostic factors and reporting of prostate carcinoma in radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy specimens , 2005, Scandinavian journal of urology and nephrology. Supplementum.

[16]  A. Partin,et al.  Surgical margin status after radical retropubic prostatectomy , 2005, BJU international.

[17]  T. H. van der Kwast,et al.  Detection rates of high‐grade prostate cancer during subsequent screening visits. Results of the European Randomized Screening Study for Prostate Cancer , 2006, International journal of cancer.

[18]  R. Ackermann Postoperative Radiotherapy After Radical Prostatectomy: A Randomised Controlled Trial (EORTC trial 22911) , 2006 .