In pathological T2-prostate cancers a positive surgical margin is associated with adverse psychological outcomes
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v61.45306Keywords:
Anxiety, fear of recurrence, prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy, surgical marginsAbstract
Objective: A positive surgical margin (PSM) after radical prostatectomy (RP) is considered an adverse surgical feature, but the clinical implications have been debated. Further motive to aim for negative margins (NSM) may be patient anxiety due to PSM, but studies on psychological consequences are lacking. We explored associations between psychological factors and PSM on a consecutive group of men after RP.
Material and methods: Men with suspected prostate cancer were invited to a study on psychological factors. Patient reported outcome measurement questionnaires were collected before diagnosis, and at 6, 12 and 24 months from those who underwent RP. Multivariable mixed models and post hoc pairwise comparisons were used to explore associations between PSM and psychological outcomes.
Results: In total, 387 men had RP and 94 (24%) had PSM. General psychological outcomes were not associated with margin status. At 12 months, men with PSM considered their personal risk of recurrence 6% (30% vs. 24%) points higher and had clinical fear of recurrence (FoR) 14% (47% vs. 33%) more often than men with NSM. In adjusted and stratified analyses, men with pathological (p-)T2-stage and NSM had less FoR than the rest of the sample. In pT3-disease, PSM had no additional impact on FoR. A limitation was the small size of the pT2 group with PSM and the lack of information on how patients were informed.
Conclusions: After RP, PSM was associated with higher FoR, particularly in men with pT2-cancer. Improved counselling and further research into causes and mitigation of FoR, is warranted.
Downloads
References
Novara G, Ficarra V, Mocellin S, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62(3):382–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.047 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.047
Yossepowitch O, Briganti A, Eastham JA, et al. Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and contempo-rary update. Eur Urol. 2014;65(2):303–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.07.039 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.07.039
Mauermann J, Fradet V, Lacombe L, 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.08.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.08.002
Mithal P, Howard LE, Aronson WJ, 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):244–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13181 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13181
Pellegrino F, Falagario UG, Knipper S, et al. Assessing the impact of positive surgical margins on mortality in patients who underwent robotic radical prostatectomy: 20 years’ report from the EAU Robotic Urology Section Scientific Working Group. Eur Urol Oncol. 2024;7(4):888–896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2023.11.021 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2023.11.021
Auffenberg GB, Qi J, Dunn RL, et al. Evaluation of patient- and surgeon-specific variations in patient-reported urinary outcomes 3 months after radical prostatectomy from a statewide improvement collaborative. JAMA Surg. 2021;156(3):e206359. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2020.6359 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2020.6359
Vis AN, van den Bergh RCN, van der Poel HG, et al. Selection of patients for nerve sparing surgery in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. BJUI Compass. 2022;3(1):6–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/bco2.115 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bco2.115
Moris L, Gandaglia G, Vilaseca A, et al. Evaluation of oncological outcomes and data quality in studies assessing nerve-sparing versus non-nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy in nonmetastatic prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol Focus. 2022;8(3):690–700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2021.05.009 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2021.05.009
Hong YM, Hu JC, Paciorek AT, et al. Impact of radical prostatectomy positive surgical margins on fear of cancer recurrence: results from CaPSURE. Urol Oncol. 2010;28(3):268–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2008.07.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2008.07.004
Nilsson R, Næss-Andresen TF, Myklebust T, et al. Fear of recurrence in prostate cancer patients: a cross-sectional study after radical pros-tatectomy or active surveillance. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2021;25:44–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2021.01.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2021.01.002
Norwegian Health Directorate. Nasjonalt handlingsprogram med retningslinjer for diagnostikk, behandling og oppfølging av pros-tatakreft. Oslo: Helsedirektoratet (last updated 02.10.2024, read 07.07.2025) Available from: www.helsedirektoratet.no/retningslinjer/prostatakreft-handlingsprogram
Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85(5):365–376. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/85.5.365 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/85.5.365
Chalder T, Berelowitz G, Pawlikowska T, et al. Development of a fatigue scale. J Psychosom Res. 1993;37(2):147–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3999(93)90081-P DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3999(93)90081-P
Tambs K, Moum T. How well can a few questionnaire items indicate anxiety and depression? Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1993;87(5):364–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.1993.tb03388.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.1993.tb03388.x
Langhammer A, Bratberg G, Heggland J, et al. Cohort profile: the HUNT Study, Norway. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;42(4):968–977. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dys095 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dys095
Lebel S, Ozakinci G, Humphris G, et al. From normal response to clinical problem: definition and clinical features of fear of cancer recur-rence. Support Care Cancer. 2016;24(8):3265–3268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-016-3272-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-016-3272-5
Thewes B, Zachariae R, Christensen S, et al. The Concerns About Recurrence Questionnaire: validation of a brief measure of fear of cancer recurrence amongst Danish and Australian breast cancer survivors. J Cancer Surviv. 2015;9(1):68–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-014-0383-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-014-0383-1
Group TE. EuroQol – a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 1990;16(3):199–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9
Szymanski KM, Wei JT, Dunn RL, et al. Development and validation of an abbreviated version of the expanded prostate cancer index com-posite instrument for measuring health-related quality of life among prostate cancer survivors. Urology. 2010;76(5):1245–1250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2010.01.027 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2010.01.027
Richters A, Derks J, Husson O, et al. Effect of surgical margin status after radical prostatectomy on health-related quality of life and illness perception in patients with prostate cancer. Urol Oncol. 2015;33(1):16.e9–16.e15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.10.006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.10.006
Baker F, Denniston M, Smith T, et al. Adult cancer survivors: how are they faring? Cancer. 2005;104(11 Suppl):2565–2576. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.21488 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.21488
Simard S, Savard J, Ivers H. Fear of cancer recurrence: specific profiles and nature of intrusive thoughts. J Cancer Surviv. 2010;4(4):361–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-010-0136-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-010-0136-8
Luigjes-Huizer YL, Tauber NM, Humphris G, et al. What is the prevalence of fear of cancer recurrence in cancer survivors and patients? A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis. Psycho-oncology. 2022;31(6):879–892. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.5921 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.5921
Falagario UG, Abbadi A, Remmers S, et al. Biochemical recurrence and risk of mortality following radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(9):e2332900. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.32900 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.32900
Pompe RS, Bandini M, Preisser F, et al. Contemporary approach to predict early biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: up-date of the Walz nomogram. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2018;21(3):386–393. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-018-0033-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-018-0033-1
Kendel F, Helbig L, Neumann K, et al. Patients’ perceptions of mortality risk for localized prostate cancer vary markedly depending on their treatment strategy. Int J Cancer. 2016;139(4):749–753. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.30123 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.30123
van Stam MA, van der Poel HG, van der Voort van Zyp JRN, et al. The accuracy of patients’ perceptions of the risks associated with local-ised prostate cancer treatments. BJU Int. 2018;121(3):405–414. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14034 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14034
Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, et al. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(2):102–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012
Ettala O, Bergroth R, Riikonen J, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric validation of the Finnish version of the Expanded Pros-tate Cancer Index Composite-26 for patients with localised prostate cancer. Scand J Urol. 2025;60:151–157. https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v60.44371 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v60.44371
Otrebski Nilsson M, Aas K, Myklebust T, et al. Do all prostate cancer patients want, and experience shared decision making prior to curative treatment? Scand J Urol. 2023;58:133–140. https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v58.14730 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v58.14730
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Rasmus Nilsson, Tor Åge Myklebust, Thomas Næss-Andresen, Tomm Bernklev, Hege Kersten, Erik Skaaheim Haug
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
As from Volume 59 (2024) all published articles, unless otherwise specified, are published under CC-BY license, allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, with the condition of proper attribution to the original work.
