Management of a positive surgical margin after radical prostatectomy: decision analysis.

PURPOSE: We created and tested a decision analysis model to help determine the preferred management of a positive surgical margin(s) after radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We constructed a decision tree modeling surveillance versus immediate prophylactic adjuvant radiation in patients with a positive surgical margin(s) after radical prostatectomy. Literature and institution based estimates were determined for certain factors, including the probability of undetectable prostate specific antigen (PSA) in patients followed expectantly postoperatively and those treated with immediate adjuvant radiotherapy, complications of radiotherapy after prostatectomy and probability of undetectable PSA in those treated with therapeutic radiation for detectable PSA postoperatively. A panel of experts assigned utilities to the various outcomes. Sensitivity analysis was performed to determine threshold values required to change the model outcome. RESULTS: Using average probability estimates from a literature review the decision model recommended initial surveillance. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the model depended on the probability of disease recurrence in men followed expectantly after surgery as well as the efficacy of therapeutic radiation. We tested the decision model again for patient groups based on tumor grade, pathological stage, preoperative PSA and number of positive margins. The model recommended initial radiation for patients with low to intermediate grade disease, no evidence of seminal vesicle invasion and multiple positive margins. CONCLUSIONS: The results of our decision analysis imply that immediate radiation may be appropriate for patients with a positive surgical margin(s) and a high likelihood of recurrent local rather than distant disease. This model may be useful to physicians and patients who use individual probability estimates and utility values to determine the preferred course of management after surgery.

Potential role of nephrectomy in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a retrospective analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the outcomes of patients with newly diagnosed metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) who underwent initial nephrectomy as a component of therapy, because the role of nephrectomy in the treatment of patients with metastatic RCC is uncertain. METHODS: A retrospective review of 63 patients who underwent radical nephrectomy with or without additional surgical procedures in the setting of metastatic RCC was performed. Pretreatment characteristics and the type of surgery were examined as predictors of outcome, and the type of systemic therapy received (if any) and overall survival were determined. RESULTS: The median patient age was 59 years (range 39 to 79). Thirty-two patients had a single metastatic site, with the most common sites being the lung (n = 33), lymphatics (n = 32), and bone (n = 19). Seventeen patients (27%) also underwent vena cavotomy during surgery. Two patients died perioperatively. Thirty-nine (62%) patients underwent systemic therapy after surgery, and 6 patients (9.5%) were rendered free of disease and elected not to receive systemic treatment. The median survival was 17.8 months. CONCLUSIONS: Primary renal surgery may be beneficial for selected patients with metastatic RCC, and most patients will be able to receive postoperative systemic therapy.

Number of positive systematic sextant biopsies predicts surgical margin status at radical prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the number of positive sextant biopsies contributes to the prediction of positive surgical margins, as the value of systematic prostate biopsies in predicting margin status at radical prostatectomy is unclear. METHODS: Consecutive patients (n = 108) who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy and systematic sextant biopsies were retrospectively evaluated. Serum prostate-specific antigen, digital rectal examination, primary Gleason grade, Gleason score, and the number and location of positive sextant biopsies were recorded for each patient. Radical prostatectomy specimens were evaluated by step-section techniques at 3 to 5-mm intervals. Univariate comparisons for each of these variables was performed between the positive and negative margin groups using the Mann-Whitney U test or chi-square analysis. Logistic regression analysis was performed for these variables. RESULTS: Twenty-two (20.4%) of 108 patients had a positive surgical margin because of extension of the tumor through the capsule. Patients with three or more positive biopsies were at higher risk of having a positive surgical margin (P = 0.009). Patients with bilaterally positive biopsies at either the base or midprostate were more likely to have a positive surgical margin. The risk of a positive surgical margin was not significantly determined by the primary Gleason grade, Gleason score, or prostate-specific antigen. Multivariate logistic regression models were created that consistently demonstrate that the number of positive biopsies was the best predictor of margin status. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the number of positive sextant biopsies contributes to the prediction of margin status at radical prostatectomy.