The impact of positive surgical margin parameters and pathological stage on biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

BackgroundTo systematically review and perform a meta-analysis on the predictive value of the primary Gleason grade (PGG) at the positive surgical margin (PSM), length of PSM, number of PSMs, and pathological stage of the primary tumor on biochemical recurrence (BCR) in patients with prostate cancer (PCa) after radical prostatectomy (RP).MethodsA systematic literature search was performed using electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, from January 1, 2005, to October 1, 2023. The protocol was pre-registered in PROSPERO. Subgroup analyses were performed according to the different treatments and study outcomes. Pooled hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals were extracted from multivariate analyses, and a fixed or random effect model was used to pool the estimates. Subgroup analyses were performed to explore the reasons for the heterogeneity.ResultsThirty-one studies that included 50,028 patients with PCa were eligible for this meta-analysis. The results showed that, compared to PGG3, PGG4/5 was associated with a significantly increased risk of BCR. Compared with PSM ≤3 mm, PSM ≥3 mm was associated with a significantly increased risk of BCR. Compared with unifocal PSM, multifocal PSM (mF-PSM) was associated with a significantly increased risk of BCR. In addition, pT >2 was associated with a significantly increased risk of BCR compared to pT2. Notably, the findings were found to be reliable based on the sensitivity and subgroup analyses.ConclusionsPGG at the PSM, length of PSM, number of PSMs, and pathological stage of the primary tumor in patients with PCa were found to be associated with a significantly increased risk of BCR. Thus, patients with these factors should be treated differently in terms of receiving adjunct treatment and more frequent monitoring. Large-scale, well-designed prospective studies with longer follow-up periods are needed to validate the efficacy of these risk factors and their effects on patient responses to adjuvant and salvage therapies and other oncological outcomes.