1474 PT3-PROSTATE CANCER-POSITIVE SURGICAL MARGIN AT BLADDER NECK IS AN INDEPENDANT PREDICTOR OF LOCAL FAILURE AND PROSTATE CANCER MORTALITY: RESULTS OF A PROSPECTIVE SINGLE INSTITUTION SERIES

Context.— Seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) by prostate cancer (pT3b disease) has been considered as a key prognostic factor. Objective.— To assess the clinical impact of T3a lesions (ie, extraprostatic extension other than bladder neck invasion [BNI] or SVI [EPE], microscopic bladder neck invasion [mBNI]) in pT3b disease. Design.— We compared radical prostatectomy findings and long-term oncologic outcomes in 248 patients with pT3b disease, with versus without EPE/mBNI. Results.— Extraprostatic extension/mBNI was found in 219 (88.3%)/48 (19.4%) cases, respectively. Extraprostatic extension was significantly associated with higher preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, higher rates of positive surgical margin (pSM) and lymphovascular invasion (LVI), and larger tumor volume. Similarly, mBNI was significantly associated with higher PSA level, higher rates of Grade Group(s) 4-5 or 5, pSM, LVI, and pN1, and larger tumor volume. Significant differences in all of these clinicopathologic features (except lymph node metastasis) between EPE−/mBNI+ or EPE+/mBNI− and EPE+/mBNI+ cases were also observed. Outcome analysis revealed that patients with EPE (P < .001) or mBNI (P < .001) had a significantly higher risk of disease progression than respective controls. Notably, there were significant differences in progression-free survival between EPE−/mBNI+ or EPE+/mBNI− cases and EPE−/mBNI− (P = .001) or EPE+/mBNI+ (P < .001) cases. In multivariate analysis, EPE (hazard ratio [HR] = 6.53, P = .009) and mBNI (HR = 2.33, P = .003), as well as EPE−/mBNI+ or EPE+/mBNI− (HR = 11.7, P = .01) and EPE+/mBNI+ (HR = 25.9, P = .002) (versus EPE−/mBNI−), showed significance for progression. Conclusions.— From these significant findings, we propose a novel pT3b subclassification: pT3b1 (SVI alone without EPE or mBNI), pT3b2 (SVI with either EPE or mBNI), and pT3b3 (SVI with both EPE and mBNI).

Download Full-text

Is “extreme” bladder neck preservation in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy a safe procedure?

Urologia Journal ◽

10.1177/0391560319899253 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 87 (3) ◽

pp. 149-154

Author(s):

Fabrizio Dal Moro ◽

Michele Zazzara ◽

Alessandro Morlacco ◽

Marina Paola Gardiman ◽

Giovanni Costa ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Radical Prostatectomy ◽

Bladder Neck ◽

Surgical Margin ◽

Positive Surgical Margin ◽

Safe Procedure ◽

Robotic Radical Prostatectomy ◽

Pathologic Findings ◽

Expert Surgeon ◽

Neck Preservation

Introduction: The aim was to investigate the surgical and pathological outcomes of an “extreme” bladder neck preservation in prostate cancer patients treated with robotic radical prostatectomy. The greatest concern about the “extreme” bladder neck preservation is the potential risk of creating a positive surgical margin at the level of bladder neck. Materials and methods: We prospectively collected data from 88 patients with diagnosed prostate cancer who underwent robotic radical prostatectomy with “‘extreme’ bladder neck preservation.” All surgical procedures were performed by the same expert surgeon (F.D.M.). In this study, “‘extreme’ bladder neck preservation” was considered when the length of the spared intraprostatic segment of bladder neck was ⩾1 cm. We compared the histopathologic data with those of a homogeneous similar cohort of 88 consecutive patients who underwent robotic radical prostatectomy without bladder neck preservation. Results: The two groups analyzed were comparable according to clinical and pathological characteristics. A positive surgical margin at the level of bladder neck was found in five (5.7%) cases in the “extreme” bladder neck preservation group and in six cases (6.8%) in the no–bladder neck preservation group. The prostatic base was involved by neoplasia in 14 and 19 patients (15.9% and 21.6%, respectively); of these, five (35.7%) and six (31.6%) had positive surgical margin at the level of bladder neck, respectively. The pathological staging in positive surgical margin at the level of bladder neck patients was pT3 in five (100%) cases in the “extreme” bladder neck preservation group and in four (66.7%) cases when we decided not to preserve the bladder neck. Conclusion: We demonstrated that “extreme” bladder neck preservation is a safe oncological procedure with similar pathologic findings of a comparable no–bladder neck preservation series. Positive surgical margins at the level of bladder neck are linked to neoplasia with adverse pathological features, rather than the “extreme” bladder neck preservation procedure.

Download Full-text