title: Influence of nerve-sparing (NS) procedure during radical prostatectomy (RP) on margin status and biochemical failure.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To evaluate whether nerve-sparing procedure itself is a risk factor for biochemical recurrence in carefully selected patients.
  
  
  METHODS
  We compared patients of our historical series who in retrospect were candidates for nerve-sparing (NS) procedure with a contemporary cohort of patients. With respect to stage migration and selection bias between these two groups we performed a multivariate analysis adjusting for all explanatory variables in the model. NS was performed in n = 723 patients (bilateral n = 359, unilateral n = 364) in comparison to n = 620 patients undergoing non-NS RP, comprising n = 756 patients within the favorable pT2 category. We examined the association of clinical and histopathological parameters in relation to PSA recurrence in uni- and multivariate analyses including NS as a variable. Furthermore, for each prostate lobe separately we determined whether surgical procedure (nerve-sparing vs. non-nerve-sparing RP) resulted in a positive margin.
  
  
  RESULTS
  In univariate analysis there was no difference in pT2 (log rank p = 0.091), pT3a (log rank p = 0.171) and pT3b (log rank p = 0.110) cancers between patients treated with NS compared to non-NS surgery. The 3- and 5-year recurrence free survival rate for patients with pT2, pT3a and pT3b cancers treated by NS vs. non-NS were 96.3/94.9 vs. 94.9/90.8, 75.0/61.8 vs. 73.4/55.0 and 46/30 vs. 38/23. Multivariate regression analysis showed no association with PSA failure (p = 0.798) for patients who underwent NS. Capsular penetration (p < 0.001), lymph-node status (p < 0.001), seminal vesicle invasion (p < 0.001), surgical margin status (p = 0.0130), Gleason score (p < 0.001) and preoperative PSA (p = 0.005) were significantly associated with risk of failure. The positive margin rate per each prostate lobe in pT2 cancers was 6.5% vs. 5.1% in NS and non-NS cases, 10.3% vs. 17.3% in patients with extracapsular extension and 15.0% vs. 25.1% in cases with seminal vesicle invasion respectively.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  NS RP is an oncologically safe procedure provided that appropriate preoperative selection of patients by means of a validated nomogram is performed. Moreover, evaluation of positive margins in patients undergoing NS and non-NS RP revealed no evidence that adequacy of tumor excision is compromised by NS procedure.
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, University Clinics of Bochum, Marienhospital Herne, 44627 Herne, Germany. rein-jueri.palisaar@marienhospital-herne.de
authors.forename: Rein-Jüri
authors.initials: RJ
authors.lastname: Palisaar
authors.forename: Joachim
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Noldus
authors.forename: Markus
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Graefen
authors.forename: Andreas
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Erbersdobler
authors.forename: Alexander
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Haese
authors.forename: Hartwig
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Huland
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D001706:Biopsy; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011467:Prostate / Q000294:innervation* / Q000473:pathology*; D017430:Prostate-Specific Antigen / Q000097:blood; D011468:Prostatectomy / Q000379:methods*; D011471:Prostatic Neoplasms / Q000097:blood / Q000601:surgery*; D012307:Risk Factors; D017211:Treatment Failure
chemical_list: D017430:Prostate-Specific Antigen