The Significance of a Positive Bladder Neck Margin After Radical Prostatectomy: The American Joint Committee on Cancer Pathological Stage T4 Designation is Not Warranted

No AccessJournal of UrologyAdult Urology1 Jan 2010The Significance of a Positive Bladder Neck Margin After Radical Prostatectomy: The American Joint Committee on Cancer Pathological Stage T4 Designation is Not Warranted Phillip M. Pierorazio, Jonathan I. Epstein, Elizabeth Humphreys, Misop Han, Patrick C. Walsh, and Alan W. Partin Phillip M. PierorazioPhillip M. Pierorazio , Jonathan I. EpsteinJonathan I. Epstein , Elizabeth HumphreysElizabeth Humphreys , Misop HanMisop Han , Patrick C. WalshPatrick C. Walsh , and Alan W. PartinAlan W. Partin View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.08.138AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: The American Joint Committee on Cancer currently designates invasion of the bladder neck as a pT4 lesion. However, retrospective analyses have not demonstrated biochemical recurrence-free survival after radical prostatectomy to be consistent with other T4 lesions. We examined biochemical recurrence-free survival and cancer specific survival in men with a positive bladder neck margin. Materials and Methods: Of nearly 17,000 patients in the Johns Hopkins Institutional radical prostatectomy database (1982 to 2008) 198 (1.2%) were identified with a positive bladder neck margin. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to evaluate biochemical recurrence-free survival and cancer specific survival. A multivariate proportional hazards model predicting biochemical recurrence-free survival and cancer specific survival was fit with prostate specific antigen, Gleason sum and pathological stage to determine the significance of a positive bladder neck margin. Results: Of the 198 men with a positive bladder neck margin 79 had an isolated bladder neck margin without seminal vesicle or lymph node involvement. The 12-year biochemical recurrence-free survival of men with organ confined disease, extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle invasion and lymph node involvement without a positive bladder neck margin was 91.1%, 61.1%, 24.5% and 8.1%, respectively. For men with a positive bladder neck margin and those with an isolated positive bladder neck margin biochemical recurrence-free survival was 16.8% and 37.1%, respectively. The 12-year cancer specific survival for men with organ confined disease, extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle invasion and lymph node involvement without a positive bladder neck margin was 93.5%, 89.0%, 77.0% and 66.8%, respectively. For men with a positive bladder neck margin and those with an isolated positive bladder neck margin cancer specific survival was 78.2% and 92.5%, respectively. A positive bladder neck margin was not a significant predictor of outcome (p = 0.4) on multivariable analysis. Conclusions: The incidence of an isolated positive bladder neck margin is low. Men with an isolated positive bladder neck margin after radical prostatectomy experienced a 12-year biochemical recurrence-free survival of 37% and cancer specific survival of 92%, similar to patients with seminal vesicle invasion (pT3b) and extraprostatic extension (pT3a), respectively. The existing American Joint Committee on Cancer classification for prostate cancer should be reconsidered. References 1 : Prognostic impact of positive surgical margins in surgically treated prostate cancer: multi-institutional assessment of 5831 patients. Urology2005; 66: 1245. Google Scholar 2 : Do margins matter?: The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol2005; 174: 903. Link, Google Scholar 3 : Anatomical analysis of the neurovascular bundle supplying penile cavernous tissue to ensure a reliable nerve graft after radical prostatectomy. J Urol2004; 172: 1032. Link, Google Scholar 4 : Incidence and significance of positive margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urol Clin North Am1996; 23: 651. Google Scholar 5 : Correlation of pathologic findings with progression after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Cancer1993; 71: 3582. Google Scholar 6 : Prognostic significance of location of positive margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology2007; 70: 965. Google Scholar 7 : Positive surgical margins with radical retropubic prostatectomy: anatomic site-specific pathologic analysis and impact on prognosis. Urology1999; 54: 682. Google Scholar 8 : Positive surgical margins with radical prostatectomy: detailed pathological analysis and prognosis. Urology1996; 48: 80. Google Scholar 9 : Bladder neck invasion is an independent predictor of prostate-specific antigen recurrence. Cancer2004; 101: 1563. Google Scholar 10 : Anatomic site-specific positive margins in organ-confined prostate cancer and its impact on outcome after radical prostatectomy. Urology1997; 50: 733. Google Scholar 11 : Bladder neck involvement in pathological stage pT4 radical prostatectomy specimens is not an independent prognostic factor. J Urol2002; 168: 2011. Link, Google Scholar 12 : Is a positive bladder neck margin truly a T4 lesion in the prostate specific antigen era?: Results from the SEARCH Database. J Urol2008; 179: 124. Link, Google Scholar 13 : Prostate cancer involving the bladder neck: recurrence-free survival and implications for AJCC staging modification: American Joint Committee on Cancer. Urology2002; 60: 276. Google Scholar 14 : Prognostic significance of microscopic bladder neck invasion in prostate cancer. BJU Int2009; 103: 758. Google Scholar 15 : Microscopic bladder neck involvement by prostate carcinoma in radical prostatectomy specimens is not a significant independent prognostic factor. Mod Pathol2009; 22: 385. Google Scholar 16 : Positive proximal (bladder neck) margin at radical prostatectomy confers greater risk of biochemical progression. Urology2004; 64: 551. Google Scholar 17 : Anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy. In: . Edited by . Philadelphia: WB Saunders2007: 2956. Google Scholar 18 : Laparoscopic and robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy. In: . Edited by . Philadelphia: WB Saunders2007: 2985. Google Scholar 19 : Era specific biochemical recurrence-free survival following radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol2001; 166: 416. Link, Google Scholar 20 : The use of prostate specific antigen, clinical stage and Gleason score to predict pathological stage in men with localized prostate cancer. J Urol1993; 150: 110. Abstract, Google Scholar 21 : Anatomy of the lower urinary tract and male genitalia. In: Campbell-Walsh Urology. Edited by . Philadelphia: WB Saunders2007: 56. chapt 2. Google Scholar 22 : The prostate and seminal vesicles. In: Diagnostic and Surgical Pathology. Edited by . New York: Raven1989: 1393. Google Scholar 23 : Bladder neck involvement at radical prostatectomy: positive margins or advanced T4 disease?. Urology2000; 56: 448. Google Scholar 24 : 25-Year prostate cancer control and survival outcomes: a 40-year radical prostatectomy single institution series. J Urol2006; 176: 569. Link, Google Scholar 25 : AJCC Cancer Staging Handbook. New York: Springer2002. Google Scholar James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland© 2010 by American Urological AssociationFiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 183Issue 1January 2010Page: 151-157 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2010 by American Urological AssociationKeywordsprostatic neoplasmsbladderresidualneoplasmMetricsAuthor Information Phillip M. Pierorazio More articles by this author Jonathan I. Epstein More articles by this author Elizabeth Humphreys More articles by this author Misop Han More articles by this author Patrick C. Walsh More articles by this author Alan W. Partin More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF DownloadLoading ...