Original Study| Volume 14, ISSUE 4, e313-e319, August 2016

Prognostic Value of Focal Positive Surgical Margins After Radical Prostatectomy

Published:December 29, 2015DOI:



      The significance of focal positive margins (FPMs) after radical prostatectomy (RP) is unclear. Our objective was to investigate the prognostic value of FPMs in patients undergoing RP.

      Materials and Methods

      The data were analyzed retrospectively for 1733 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer who had undergone RP at our institution from December 2003 to March 2014 without neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy. Positive surgical margins were characterized as FPMs (≤ 3 mm long) or non-FPMs (> 3 mm long). Multivariate analysis of the clinicopathologic factors, including FPMs, was performed with respect to biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival.


      Of the 1733 patients, 1260 (72.7%) had negative margins, 114 (6.6%) had a FPM, 218 (12.6%) had a nonfocal single positive margin (NFSPM), and 141 (8.1%) had nonfocal multiple positive margins (NFMPMs). Of the patients with pathologic T2 prostate cancer, 1065 (84.3%) had negative margins, 62 (4.9%) had 1 FPM, 104 (8.2%) had 1 NFSPM, and 33 (2.6%) had NFMPMs. The 5-year BCR-free survival for patients with negative margins and FPMs was 90% and 83.4%, respectively. On multivariate analysis, the presence of a FPM was not a significant prognostic factor for BCR-free survival in all the patients or in the patients with pathologic T2 disease (P = .458 and P = .512, respectively).


      FPMs after RP do not significantly affect BCR-free survival in patients with prostate cancer.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Clinical Genitourinary Cancer
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Grossfeld G.D.
        • Chang J.J.
        • Broering J.M.
        • et al.
        Impact of positive surgical margins on prostate cancer recurrence and the use of secondary cancer treatment: data from the CaPSURE database.
        J Urol. 2000; 163 (quiz 1295): 1171-1177
        • Swindle P.
        • Eastham J.A.
        • Ohori M.
        • et al.
        Do margins matter? The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens.
        J Urol. 2008; 179: S47-S51
        • Sammon J.D.
        • Trinh Q.D.
        • Sukumar S.
        • et al.
        Risk factors for biochemical recurrence following radical perineal prostatectomy in a large contemporary series: a detailed assessment of margin extent and location.
        Urol Oncol. 2013; 31: 1470-1476
        • Fontenot P.A.
        • Mansour A.M.
        Reporting positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: time for standardization.
        BJU Int. 2013; 111: E290-E299
        • Han M.
        • Partin A.W.
        • Chan D.Y.
        • et al.
        An evaluation of the decreasing incidence of positive surgical margins in a large retropubic prostatectomy series.
        J Urol. 2004; 171: 23-26
        • Stephenson A.J.
        • Wood D.P.
        • Kattan M.W.
        • et al.
        Location, extent and number of positive surgical margins do not improve accuracy of predicting prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy.
        J Urol. 2009; 182: 1357-1363
        • Lake A.M.
        • He C.
        • Wood Jr., D.P.
        Focal positive surgical margins decrease disease-free survival after radical prostatectomy even in organ-confined disease.
        Urology. 2010; 76: 1212-1216
        • Billis A.
        • Meirelles L.L.
        • Freitas L.L.
        • et al.
        Influence of focal and diffuse extraprostatic extension and positive surgical margins on biochemical progression following radical prostatectomy.
        Int Braz J Urol. 2012; 38: 175-184
        • Pettenati C.
        • Neuzillet Y.
        • Radulescu C.
        • et al.
        Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: what should we care about?.
        World J Urol. 2015; 33: 1973-1978
        • Shikanov S.
        • Marchetti P.
        • Desai V.
        • et al.
        Short (</= 1 mm) positive surgical margin and risk of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy.
        BJU Int. 2013; 111: 559-563
        • Marks R.A.
        • Koch M.O.
        • Lopez-Beltran A.
        • et al.
        The relationship between the extent of surgical margin positivity and prostate specific antigen recurrence in radical prostatectomy specimens.
        Hum Pathol. 2007; 38: 1207-1211
        • Leite K.R.
        • Hartmann C.
        • Reis S.T.
        • et al.
        Biochemical recurrence rates are similar for pT2-positive surgical margins and pT3a.
        Int Braz J Urol. 2014; 40: 146-153
        • Marks R.A.
        • Koch M.O.
        • Lopez-Beltran A.
        • Montironi R.
        • Juliar B.E.
        • Cheng L.
        The relationship between the extent of surgical margin positivity and prostate specific antigen recurrence in radical prostatectomy specimens.
        Hum Pathol. 2007; 38: 1207-1211
        • Evans A.J.
        • Henry P.C.
        • Van der Kwast T.H.
        • et al.
        Interobserver variability between expert urologic pathologists for extraprostatic extension and surgical margin status in radical prostatectomy specimens.
        Am J Surg Pathol. 2008; 32: 1503-1512
        • Epstein J.I.
        • Pizov G.
        • Walsh P.C.
        Correlation of pathologic findings with progression after radical retropubic prostatectomy.
        Cancer. 1993; 71: 3582-3593
        • Babaian R.J.
        • Troncoso P.
        • Bhadkamkar V.A.
        • et al.
        Analysis of clinicopathologic factors predicting outcome after radical prostatectomy.
        Cancer. 2001; 91: 1414-1422
        • Tan P.H.
        • Cheng L.
        • Srigley J.R.
        • et al.
        International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 5: surgical margins.
        Mod Pathol. 2011; 24: 48-57
        • Simon M.A.
        • Kim S.
        • Soloway M.S.
        Prostate specific antigen recurrence rates are low after radical retropubic prostatectomy and positive margins.
        J Urol. 2006; 175: 140-145
        • Ginzburg S.
        • Nevers T.
        • Staff I.
        • et al.
        Prostate cancer biochemical recurrence rates after robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.
        JSLS. 2012; 16: 443-450
        • Eastham J.A.
        • Kuroiwa K.
        • Ohori M.
        • et al.
        Prognostic significance of location of positive margins in radical prostatectomy specimens.
        Urology. 2007; 70: 965-969
        • Sofer M.
        • Hamilton-Nelson K.L.
        • Civantos F.
        • et al.
        Positive surgical margins after radical retropubic prostatectomy: the influence of site and number on progression.
        J Urol. 2002; 167: 2453-2456
        • Epstein J.I.
        • Allsbrook Jr., W.C.
        • Amin M.B.
        • Egevad L.L.
        • ISUP Grading Committee
        The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma.
        Am J Surg Pathol. 2005; 29: 1228-1242