A centralized comparison of radical perineal and retropubic prostatectomy specimens: is there a difference according to the surgical approach?

摘要

PURPOSE: We performed a central review of pathology specimens from radical perineal and radical retropubic prostatectomies performed by a single surgeon. We determined whether differences exist in the 2 approaches in regard to the ability to obtain adequate surgical margins around the tumor and adequate extracapsular tissue around the prostate, and avoid inadvertent capsular incision. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The review included whole mount prostates from 60 patients who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy and 40 who underwent radical perineal prostatectomy. The pathologist (N. S. G.) was blinded to the surgical approach. All prostatectomies were consecutive and performed by the same surgeon (H. J. K.). To ensure consistency of the pathological measurements patients were excluded from analysis if they had undergone preoperative androgen ablation or a nerve sparing procedure, leaving 45 retropubic and 27 perineal prostatectomy specimens for further evaluation. Pertinent clinical parameters were assessed and a detailed pathological analysis of each specimen was performed. RESULTS: In the retropubic and perineal groups 78% of the tumors were organ confined (stage pT2) with extracapsular extension (stage pT3) in the majority of the remaining patients. There was no significant difference in the positive margin rate for the retropubic and perineal procedures (16% and 22%, p = 0.53) or for Gleason 6 and 7 tumors only in the 2 groups (10% and 17%, respectively, p = 0.47). The capsular incision rate was 4% in each group. The distance of the tumor from the posterolateral margins and the amount of extracapsular tissue excised were equivalent in each group. Subgroups of patients with a prostate of less than 50 gm. and containing only low grade, low stage neoplasms were also analyzed. Subgroup analysis showed no difference in any variable. CONCLUSIONS: Radical perineal prostatectomy is comparable to radical retropubic prostatectomy for obtaining adequate surgical margins, avoiding inadvertent capsular incisions and excising adequate extracapsular tissue around tumor foci. Additional patient accrual and prostate specific antigen followup would further help validate the similar efficacy of the 2 surgical approaches as treatment for prostate cancer.