Predictive Factors for Positive Surgical Margins in Patients With Prostate Cancer After Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

被引:13
|
作者
Zhang, Lijin [1 ]
Zhao, Hu [1 ]
Wu, Bin [1 ]
Zha, Zhenlei [1 ]
Yuan, Jun [1 ]
Feng, Yejun [1 ]
机构
[1] Southeast Univ, Med Coll, Affiliated Jiangyin Hosp, Dept Urol, Jiangyin, Peoples R China
来源
FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY | 2021年 / 10卷
关键词
prostate cancer; radical prostatectomy; positive surgical margins; risk factors; meta-analysis; BIOCHEMICAL RECURRENCE;
D O I
10.3389/fonc.2020.539592
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Background and Objectives Previous studies have demonstrated that positive surgical margins (PSMs) were independent predictive factors for biochemical and oncologic outcomes in patients with prostate cancer (PCa). This study aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to identify the predictive factors for PSMs after radical prostatectomy (RP). Methods We selected eligible studies via the electronic databases, such as PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE, from inception to December 2020. The risk factors for PSMs following RP were identified. The pooled estimates of standardized mean differences (SMDs)/odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. A fixed effect or random effect was used to pool the estimates. Subgroup analyses were performed to explore the reasons for heterogeneity. Results Twenty-seven studies including 50,014 patients with PCa were eligible for further analysis. The results showed that PSMs were significantly associated with preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) (pooled SMD = 0.37; 95% CI: 0.31-0.43; P < 0.001), biopsy Gleason Score (<6/>= 7) (pooled OR = 1.53; 95% CI:1.31-1.79; P < 0.001), pathological Gleason Score (<6/>= 7) (pooled OR = 2.49; 95% CI: 2.19-2.83; P < 0.001), pathological stage (<T2/>= T3) (pooled OR = 3.90; 95% CI: 3.18-4.79; P < 0.001), positive lymph node (PLN) (pooled OR = 3.12; 95% CI: 2.28-4.27; P < 0.001), extraprostatic extension (EPE) (pooled OR = 4.44; 95% CI: 3.25-6.09; P < 0.001), and seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) (pooled OR = 4.19; 95% CI: 2,87-6.13; P < 0.001). However, we found that age (pooled SMD = 0.01; 95% CI: -0.07-0.10; P = 0.735), body mass index (BMI) (pooled SMD = 0.12; 95% CI: -0.05-0.30; P = 0.162), prostate volume (pooled SMD = -0.28; 95% CI: -0.62-0.05; P = 0.097), and nerve sparing (pooled OR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.71-1.14; P = 0.388) had no effect on PSMs after RP. Besides, the findings in this study were found to be reliable by our sensitivity and subgroup analyses. Conclusions Preoperative PSA, biopsy Gleason Score, pathological Gleason Score, pathological stage, positive lymph node, extraprostatic extension, and seminal vesicle invasion are independent predictors of PSMs after RP. These results may helpful for risk stratification and individualized therapy in PCa patients.
引用
收藏
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Location of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy- A systematic review and network meta-analysis
    John, Athul
    Milton, Thomas
    Gupta, Aashray
    Stretton, Brendon
    Hewitt, Joseph
    Catteerwell, Rick
    Selth, Luke
    O'Callaghan, Michael
    [J]. BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2022, 129 : 26 - 27
  • [2] Does size matter? Extension of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy - a systematic review and meta-analysis
    John, A.
    Lim, A.
    Catterwell, R.
    Seth, L.
    O'Callaghan, M.
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2022, 81 : S258 - S258
  • [4] Extension of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: Does size matter? - A systematic review and meta-analysis
    John, Athul
    Catterwell, Rick
    Lim, Alicia
    Selth, Luke
    O'Callaghan, Michael
    [J]. BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2022, 129 : 139 - 139
  • [5] Does location of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy matter?-A systematic review and network meta-analysis
    John, Athul
    Milton, Thomas
    Gupta, Aashray
    Nguyen, Mau
    Stretton, Brandon
    Hewitt, Joseph
    Catterwell, Rick
    Selth, Luke
    O'Callaghan, Michael
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2022, 29 : 13 - 14
  • [6] Length of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: Does size matter? – A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Athul John
    Alicia Lim
    Rick Catterwell
    Luke Selth
    Michael O’Callaghan
    [J]. Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, 2023, 26 : 673 - 680
  • [7] Length of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: Does size matter? - A systematic review and meta-analysis
    John, Athul
    Lim, Alicia
    Catterwell, Rick
    Selth, Luke
    O'Callaghan, Michael
    [J]. PROSTATE CANCER AND PROSTATIC DISEASES, 2023, 26 (04) : 673 - 680
  • [8] Predictive Factors for Gleason Score Upgrading in Patients with Prostate Cancer after Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta- Analysis
    Wang, Yang
    Chen, Xiaoke
    Liu, Kun
    Liu, Ruijuan
    Li, Liangliang
    Yin, Chaoshan
    Song, Peixing
    [J]. UROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS, 2023, 107 (05) : 460 - 479
  • [9] Risk factors associated with positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer
    Roder, M. A.
    Christensen, I. J.
    Toft, B. G.
    Berg, K. D.
    Vainer, B.
    Brasso, K.
    Iversen, P.
    [J]. APMIS, 2012, 120 : 33 - 33
  • [10] PROGNOSTIC SIGNIFICANCE OF POSITIVE SURGICAL MARGINS AFTER RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY FOR PROSTATE CANCER
    Schiavina, R.
    Birgatti, F.
    Guidi, M.
    Pernetti, R.
    Salama, A.
    Zukerman, Z.
    Diazzi, D.
    Borghesi, M.
    Vagnoni, V.
    Rocca, C.
    Manferrari, F.
    Concetti, S.
    Brunocilla, E.
    Bertaccini, A.
    Martorana, G.
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY SUPPLEMENTS, 2011, 10 (02) : 283 - 283