Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Robotic Radical Prostatectomy: Margins Positivity and Implications on Cancer Control

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Robotics in Genitourinary Surgery

  • 1019 Accesses

Abstract

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is the standard surgical treatment for localized prostate cancer in the United States. After more than a decade of experience with the robotic approach, its oncological safety has been confirmed with margins positivity comparable to the open approach. Large scale RARP series yielded positive surgical margin (PSM) rates between 9 and 19%. PSM rates are strongly associated with preoperative disease characteristics (i.e., PSA, Gleason score, and clinical stage). As more patients with intermediate and high risk disease undergo RARP, the overall rates of PSM may potentially increase. While PSMs have been repeatedly shown to predict biochemical recurrence (BCR), their impact on more meaningful outcomes, such as the development of metastatic disease and cancer-specific mortality is not completely clear. Gleason score at PSM and PSM margins length are important features of PSM that seems to have influence on the long term impact of PSM. Various surgical techniques and tailoring nerve preservation based on disease severity appear to improve cancer control during RARP. Post radical prostatectomy radiation therapy (RT) also improves oncological outcomes. Level I evidence from open radical prostatectomy literature, demonstrated improved biochemical recurrence-free, metastasis-free, and overall survival when adjuvant radiation therapy was given to patients with adverse pathological features, including PSMs. Yet, the optimal timing of when to deliver additional RT is still unknown and awaits the results of several randomized clinical trials.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Abbreviations

BCR:

Biochemical recurrence

BMI:

Body mass index

BRFS:

Biochemical recurrence-free survival

CRPC:

Castrate-resistant prostate cancer

DVC:

Dorsal venous complex

LRP:

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

mpMRI:

Multi-parametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging

NVB:

Neurovascular bundle

ORP:

Open radical prostatectomy

PCSM:

Prostate cancer-specific mortality

PSM:

Positive surgical margin

RARP:

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

RT:

Radiation therapy

SWOG:

Southwest Oncology Group

References

  1. Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR. Trends in management for patients with localized prostate cancer, 1990–2013. JAMA. 2015;314(1):80–2.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Oberlin DT, Flum AS, Lai JD, Meeks JJ. The effect of minimally invasive prostatectomy on practice patterns of American urologists. Urol Oncol. 2016 Jun;34(6):255.e1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Pilecki MA, McGuire BB, Jain U, Kim JY, Nadler RB. National multi-institutional comparison of 30-day postoperative complication and readmission rates between open retropubic radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy using NSQIP. J Endourol. 2014;28(4):430–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Menon M, Shrivastava A, Kaul S, Badani KK, Fumo M, Bhandari M, et al. Vattikuti institute prostatectomy: contemporary technique and analysis of results. Eur Urol. 2007;51(3):648–57. discussion 57-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Liu JJ, Maxwell BG, Panousis P, Chung BI. Perioperative outcomes for laparoscopic and robotic compared with open prostatectomy using the national surgical quality improvement program (NSQIP) database. Urology. 2013;82(3):579–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wallerstedt A, Tyritzis SI, Thorsteinsdottir T, Carlsson S, Stranne J, Gustafsson O, et al. Short-term results after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy compared to open radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2015;67(4):660–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ficarra V, Novara G, Ahlering TE, Costello A, Eastham JA, Graefen M, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62(3):418–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Thompson JE, Egger S, Bohm M, Haynes AM, Matthews J, Rasiah K, et al. Superior quality of life and improved surgical margins are achievable with robotic radical prostatectomy after a long learning curve: a prospective single-surgeon study of 1552 consecutive cases. Eur Urol. 2014;65(3):521–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. O'Neil B, Koyama T, Alvarez J, Conwill RM, Albertsen PC, Cooperberg MR, et al. The comparative harms of open and robotic prostatectomy in population based samples. J Urol. 2016;195(2):321–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Diaz M, Peabody JO, Kapoor V, Sammon J, Rogers CG, Stricker H, et al. Oncologic outcomes at 10 years following robotic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2015;67(6):1168–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Abdollah F, Sood A, Sammon JD, Hsu L, Beyer B, Moschini M, et al. Long-term cancer control outcomes in patients with clinically high-risk prostate cancer treated with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: results from a multi-institutional study of 1100 patients. Eur Urol. 2015;68(3):497–505.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tan PH, Cheng L, Srigley JR, Griffiths D, Humphrey PA, van der Kwast TH, 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(1):48–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bong GW, Ritenour CW, Osunkoya AO, Smith MT, Keane TE. Evaluation of modern pathological criteria for positive margins in radical prostatectomy specimens and their use for predicting biochemical recurrence. BJU Int. 2009;103(3):327–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Emerson RE, Koch MO, Daggy JK, Cheng L. Closest distance between tumor and resection margin in radical prostatectomy specimens: lack of prognostic significance. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29(2):225–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Menon M, Tewari A, Baize B, Guillonneau B, Vallancien G. Prospective comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy: the Vattikuti urology institute experience. Urology. 2002;60(5):864–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Badani KK, Kaul S, Menon M. Evolution of robotic radical prostatectomy: assessment after 2766 procedures. Cancer. 2007;110(9):1951–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Patel VR, Palmer KJ, Coughlin G, Samavedi S. Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: perioperative outcomes of 1500 cases. J Endourol. 2008;22(10):2299–305.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wiltz AL, Shikanov S, Eggener SE, Katz MH, Thong AE, Steinberg GD, et al. Robotic radical prostatectomy in overweight and obese patients: oncological and validated-functional outcomes. Urology. 2009;73(2):316–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Carlucci JR, Nabizada-Pace F, Samadi DB. Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: technique and outcomes of 700 cases. Int J Biomed Sci. 2009;5(3):201–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Shikanov S, Song J, Royce C, Al-Ahmadie H, Zorn K, Steinberg G, et al. Length of positive surgical margin after radical prostatectomy as a predictor of biochemical recurrence. J Urol. 2009;182(1):139–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Coelho RF, Chauhan S, Orvieto MA, Palmer KJ, Rocco B, Patel VR. Predictive factors for positive surgical margins and their locations after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2010;57(6):1022–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Patel VR, Coelho RF, Rocco B, Orvieto M, Sivaraman A, Palmer KJ, et al. Positive surgical margins after robotic assisted radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional study. J Urol. 2011;186(2):511–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sooriakumaran P, Srivastava A, Shariat SF, Stricker PD, Ahlering T, Eden CG, et al. A multinational, multi-institutional study comparing positive surgical margin rates among 22393 open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy patients. Eur Urol. 2014;66(3):450–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kozal S, Peyronnet B, Cattarino S, Seisen T, Comperat E, Vaessen C, et al. Influence of pathological factors on oncological outcomes after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer: results of a prospective study. Urol Oncol. 2015;33(7):330 e1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Mithal P, Howard LE, Aronson WJ, Terris MK, Cooperberg MR, Kane CJ, et al. Positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy patients do not predict long-term oncological outcomes: results from the shared equal access regional cancer hospital (SEARCH) cohort. BJU Int. 2016;117(2):244–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Suardi N, DellOglio P, Gallina A, Gandaglia G, Buffi N, Moschini M, et al. Evaluation of positive surgical margins in patients undergoing robot-assisted and open radical prostatectomy according to preoperative risk groups. Urol Oncol. 2016;34(2):57 e1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Novara G, Ficarra V, Mocellin S, Ahlering TE, Carroll PR, Graefen M, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62(3):382–404.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Evans SM, Millar JL, Frydenberg M, Murphy DG, Davis ID, Spelman T, et al. Positive surgical margins: rate, contributing factors and impact on further treatment: findings from the prostate cancer registry. BJU Int. 2014;114(5):680–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lallas CD, Fashola Y, Den RB, Gelpi-Hammerschmidt F, Calvaresi AE, McCue P, et al. Predictors of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy at a single institution: preoperative and pathologic factors, and the impact of surgeon variability and technique on incidence and location. Can J Urol. 2014;21(5):7479–86.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Tuliao PH, Koo KC, Komninos C, Chang CH, Choi YD, Chung BH, et al. Number of positive preoperative biopsy cores is a predictor of positive surgical margins (PSM) in small prostates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). BJU Int. 2015;116(6):897–904.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Ficarra V, Novara G, Secco S, D'Elia C, Boscolo-Berto R, Gardiman M, et al. Predictors of positive surgical margins after laparoscopic robot assisted radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2009;182(6):2682–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hashimoto T, Yoshioka K, Gondo T, Takeuchi H, Nakagami Y, Nakashima J, et al. Predictors for positive surgical margins after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a single surgeon's series in Japan. Int J Urol. 2013;20(9):873–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Castle EP, Atug F, Woods M, Thomas R, Davis R. Impact of body mass index on outcomes after robot assisted radical prostatectomy. World J Urol. 2008;26(1):91–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Herman MP, Raman JD, Dong S, Samadi D, Scherr DS. Increasing body mass index negatively impacts outcomes following robotic radical prostatectomy. JSLS. 2007;11(4):438–42.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Ahlering TE, Eichel L, Edwards R, Skarecky DW. Impact of obesity on clinical outcomes in robotic prostatectomy. Urology. 2005;65(4):740–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Marchetti PE, Shikanov S, Razmaria AA, Zagaja GP, Shalhav AL. Impact of prostate weight on probability of positive surgical margins in patients with low-risk prostate cancer after robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2011;77(3):677–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Sooriakumaran P, John M, Wiklund P, Lee D, Nilsson A, Tewari AK. Learning curve for robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: a multi-institutional study of 3794 patients. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2011;63(3):191–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Leroy TJ, Thiel DD, Duchene DA, Parker AS, Igel TC, Wehle MJ, et al. Safety and peri-operative outcomes during learning curve of robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: a multi-institutional study of fellowship-trained robotic surgeons versus experienced open radical prostatectomy surgeons incorporating robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2010;24(10):1665–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Dev HS, Wiklund P, Patel V, Parashar D, Palmer K, Nyberg T, et al. Surgical margin length and location affect recurrence rates after robotic prostatectomy. Urol Oncol. 2015;33(3):109 e7–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Walz J, Burnett AL, Costello AJ, Eastham JA, Graefen M, Guillonneau B, et al. A critical analysis of the current knowledge of surgical anatomy related to optimization of cancer control and preservation of continence and erection in candidates for radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2010;57(2):179–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Watson RB, Civantos F, Soloway MS. Positive surgical margins with radical prostatectomy: detailed pathological analysis and prognosis. Urology. 1996;48(1):80–90.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Salomon L, Levrel O, Anastasiadis AG, Irani J, De La Taille A, Saint F, et al. Prognostic significance of tumor volume after radical prostatectomy: a multivariate analysis of pathological prognostic factors. Eur Urol. 2003;43(1):39–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Eastham JA, Kuroiwa K, Ohori M, Serio AM, Gorbonos A, Maru N, et al. Prognostic significance of location of positive margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology. 2007;70(5):965–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Blute ML, Bostwick DG, Bergstralh EJ, Slezak JM, Martin SK, Amling CL, et al. Anatomic site-specific positive margins in organ-confined prostate cancer and its impact on outcome after radical prostatectomy. Urology. 1997;50(5):733–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Aydin H, Tsuzuki T, Hernandez D, Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Positive proximal (bladder neck) margin at radical prostatectomy confers greater risk of biochemical progression. Urology. 2004;64(3):551–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Sooriakumaran P, Ploumidis A, Nyberg T, Olsson M, Akre O, Haendler L, et al. The impact of length and location of positive margins in predicting biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. BJU Int. 2015;115(1):106–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Kates M, Sopko NA, Han M, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Importance of reporting the gleason score at the positive surgical margin site: analysis of 4,082 consecutive radical prostatectomy cases. J Urol. 2016;195(2):337–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Viers BR, Sukov WR, Gettman MT, Rangel LJ, Bergstralh EJ, Frank I, et al. Primary Gleason grade 4 at the positive margin is associated with metastasis and death among patients with Gleason 7 prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2014;66(6):1116–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Roehl KA, Han M, Ramos CG, Antenor JA, Catalona WJ. Cancer progression and survival rates following anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy in 3,478 consecutive patients: long-term results. J Urol. 2004;172(3):910–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Ward JF, Zincke H, Bergstralh EJ, Slezak JM, Myers RP, Blute ML. The impact of surgical approach (nerve bundle preservation versus wide local excision) on surgical margins and biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2004;172(4 Pt 1):1328–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Han M, Piantadosi S, Zahurak ML, Sokoll LJ, Chan DW, Epstein JI, et al. Serum acid phosphatase level and biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy for men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Urology. 2001;57(4):707–11.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Karakiewicz PI, Eastham JA, Graefen M, Cagiannos I, Stricker PD, Klein E, et al. Prognostic impact of positive surgical margins in surgically treated prostate cancer: multi-institutional assessment of 5831 patients. Urology. 2005;66(6):1245–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Simon MA, Kim S, Soloway MS. Prostate specific antigen recurrence rates are low after radical retropubic prostatectomy and positive margins. J Urol. 2006;175(1):140–4. discussion 4-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Pavlovich CP, Trock BJ, Sulman A, Wagner AA, Mettee LZ, Su LM. 3-year actuarial biochemical recurrence-free survival following laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: experience from a tertiary referral center in the United States. J Urol. 2008;179(3):917–21. discussion 21-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Murphy DG, Kerger M, Crowe H, Peters JS, Costello AJ. Operative details and oncological and functional outcome of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: 400 cases with a minimum of 12 months follow-up. Eur Urol. 2009;55(6):1358–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Stephenson AJ, Wood DP, Kattan MW, Klein EA, Scardino PT, Eastham JA, 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(4):1357–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Wright JL, Dalkin BL, True LD, Ellis WJ, Stanford JL, Lange PH, et al. Positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy predict prostate cancer specific mortality. J Urol. 2010;183(6):2213–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Shah SK, Fleet TM, Williams V, Smith AY, Skipper B, Wiggins C. SEER coding standards result in underestimation of positive surgical margin incidence at radical prostatectomy: results of a systematic audit. J Urol. 2011;186(3):855–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Mauermann J, Fradet V, Lacombe L, Dujardin T, Tiguert R, Tetu B, et al. The impact of solitary and multiple positive surgical margins on hard clinical end points in 1712 adjuvant treatment-naive pT2-4 N0 radical prostatectomy patients. Eur Urol. 2013;64(1):19–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Thompson IM, Valicenti RK, Albertsen P, Davis BJ, Goldenberg SL, Hahn C, et al. Adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy after prostatectomy: AUA/ASTRO Guideline. J Urol. 2013;190(2):441–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Stephenson AJ, Scardino PT, Kattan MW, Pisansky TM, Slawin KM, Klein EA, et al. Predicting the outcome of salvage radiation therapy for recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(15):2035–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Bolla M, van Poppel H, Collette L, van Cangh P, Vekemans K, Da Pozzo L, et al. Postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy: a randomised controlled trial (EORTC trial 22911). Lancet. 2005;366(9485):572–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Van der Kwast TH, Collette L, Bolla M. Adjuvant radiotherapy after surgery for pathologically advanced prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(35):5671–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Thompson IM Jr, Tangen CM, Paradelo J, Lucia MS, Miller G, Troyer D, et al. Adjuvant radiotherapy for pathologically advanced prostate cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2006;296(19):2329–35.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Thompson IM, Tangen CM, Paradelo J, Lucia MS, Miller G, Troyer D, et al. Adjuvant radiotherapy for pathological T3N0M0 prostate cancer significantly reduces risk of metastases and improves survival: long-term followup of a randomized clinical trial. J Urol. 2009;181(3):956–62.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Wiegel T, Bottke D, Steiner U, Siegmann A, Golz R, Storkel S, et al. Phase III postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy compared with radical prostatectomy alone in pT3 prostate cancer with postoperative undetectable prostate-specific antigen: ARO 96-02/AUO AP 09/95. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(18):2924–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Kalbasi A, Swisher-McClure S, Mitra N, Sunderland R, Smaldone MC, Uzzo RG, et al. Low rates of adjuvant radiation in patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer with high-risk pathologic features. Cancer. 2014;120(19):3089–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Maurice MJ, Zhu H, Abouassaly R. Low use of immediate and delayed postoperative radiation for prostate cancer with adverse pathological features. J Urol. 2015;194(4):972–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Budiharto T, Perneel C, Haustermans K, Junius S, Tombal B, Scalliet P, et al. A multi-institutional analysis comparing adjuvant and salvage radiation therapy for high-risk prostate cancer patients with undetectable PSA after prostatectomy. Radiother Oncol. 2010;97(3):474–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Briganti A, Wiegel T, Joniau S, Cozzarini C, Bianchi M, Sun M, et al. Early salvage radiation therapy does not compromise cancer control in patients with pT3N0 prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: results of a match-controlled multi-institutional analysis. Eur Urol. 2012;62(3):472–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Parker C, Sydes MR, Catton C, Kynaston H, Logue J, Murphy C, et al. Radiotherapy and androgen deprivation in combination after local surgery (RADICALS): a new medical research council/national cancer institute of Canada phase III trial of adjuvant treatment after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2007;99(6):1376–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Pearse M, Fraser-Browne C, Davis ID, Duchesne GM, Fisher R, Frydenberg M, et al. A phase III trial to investigate the timing of radiotherapy for prostate cancer with high-risk features: background and rationale of the radiotherapy–adjuvant versus early salvage (RAVES) trial. BJU Int. 2014;113(Suppl 2):7–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Park BH, Jeon HG, Jeong BC, Seo SI, Lee HM, Choi HY, et al. Influence of magnetic resonance imaging in the decision to preserve or resect neurovascular bundles at robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2014;192(1):82–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Hricak H, Wang L, Wei DC, Coakley FV, Akin O, Reuter VE, et al. The role of preoperative endorectal magnetic resonance imaging in the decision regarding whether to preserve or resect neurovascular bundles during radical retropubic prostatectomy. Cancer. 2004;100(12):2655–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. McClure TD, Margolis DJ, Reiter RE, Sayre JW, Thomas MA, Nagarajan R, et al. Use of MR imaging to determine preservation of the neurovascular bundles at robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Radiology. 2012;262(3):874–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Rud E, Baco E, Klotz D, Rennesund K, Svindland A, Berge V, et al. Does preoperative magnetic resonance imaging reduce the rate of positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy in a randomised clinical trial? Eur Urol. 2015;68(3):487–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Schlomm T, Tennstedt P, Huxhold C, Steuber T, Salomon G, Michl U, et al. Neurovascular structure-adjacent frozen-section examination (NeuroSAFE) increases nerve-sparing frequency and reduces positive surgical margins in open and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: experience after 11,069 consecutive patients. Eur Urol. 2012;62(2):333–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. von Bodman C, Brock M, Roghmann F, Byers A, Loppenberg B, Braun K, et al. Intraoperative frozen section of the prostate decreases positive margin rate while ensuring nerve sparing procedure during radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2013;190(2):515–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Zorn KC, Gofrit ON, Steinberg GP, Taxy JB, Zagaja GP, Shalhav AL. Planned nerve preservation to reduce positive surgical margins during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2008;22(6):1303–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Guru KA, Perlmutter AE, Sheldon MJ, Butt ZM, Zhang S, Tan W, et al. Apical margins after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: does technique matter? J Endourol. 2009;23(1):123–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Tewari AK, Srivastava A, Mudaliar K, Tan GY, Grover S, El Douaihy Y, et al. Anatomical retro-apical technique of synchronous (posterior and anterior) urethral transection: a novel approach for ameliorating apical margin positivity during robotic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2010;106(9):1364–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Section of Urology, The University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA

    Shay Golan, Vignesh Packiam & Arieh L. Shalhav

Authors
  1. Shay Golan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vignesh Packiam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Arieh L. Shalhav
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology Comprehensive Cancer Center Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA

    Ashok K. Hemal

  2. Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA

    Mani Menon

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Golan, S., Packiam, V., Shalhav, A.L. (2018). Robotic Radical Prostatectomy: Margins Positivity and Implications on Cancer Control. In: Hemal, A., Menon, M. (eds) Robotics in Genitourinary Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20645-5_34

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20645-5_34

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-20644-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-20645-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation