Stroup, Sean P

Objectives To reassess the role of primary retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) in patients with marker‐negative non‐seminomatous germ cell tumour (NSGCT) clinical stage (CS) 2a, to explore results in patients with CS 2b and to evaluate surgical methods, recurrence, and adjuvant chemotherapy indications. Materials and Methods Data from 17 institutions were collected, comprising 305 men who underwent primary RPLND for CS 2 NSGCT. Regression analyses were conducted to predict histology in the RPLND specimen and disease‐free survival (DFS). Results A larger retroperitoneal lymph node diameter was associated with pure teratoma in the RPLND specimen (odds ratio [OR] 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01–1.07; P = 0.03), but no association was observed with DFS. The 5‐year DFS rates in marker negative CS 2a and 2b were 79% and 76%. In men with non‐teratomatous viable cancer in the RPLND specimen, the 5‐year DFS rates for CS 2a and 2b were 95% and 87% with adjuvant chemotherapy, and 67% and 74% without adjuvant chemotherapy. We did not identify an association between the number of adjuvant chemotherapy cycles and DFS. Conclusions Our study suggests considering primary RPLND not only in marker‐negative CS 2a but also in CS 2b. Further research should determine the efficacy of primary RPLND in men with CS 2c and marker‐positive CS 2, as well as which patients may benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy and the optimal cycle number.

Objective To evaluate biochemical recurrence ( BCR ) patterns amongst men undergoing radical prostatectomy ( RP ) with specimens having negative ( NSM ), positive ( PSM ), and close surgical margins ( CSM ) from the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital ( SEARCH ) cohort, as PSM after RP are a significant predictor of biochemical failure and possible disease progression, with CSM representing a diagnostic challenge for surgeons. Patients and Methods Men undergoing RP between 1988 and 2015 with known final pathological margin status were evaluated. The cohort was divided into three groups based on margin status; NSM , PSM , and CSM . CSM were defined by distance of tumour ≤1 mm from the surgical margin. BCR was defined as a prostate‐specific antigen ( PSA ) level of >0.2 ng/mL, two values at 0.2 ng/mL, or secondary treatment for an elevated PSA level. Predictors of BCR , metastases, and mortality were analysed using Cox proportional hazard models. Results Of 5515 men in the SEARCH database, 4337 (79%) men met criteria for inclusion in the analysis. Of these, 2063 (48%) had NSM , 1902 (44%) had PSM , and 372 (8%) had CSM . On multivariable analysis, relative to NSM , men with CSM had a higher risk of BCR (hazard ratio [ HR ] 1.51, 95% confidence interval [ CI ] 1.25–1.82; P < 0.001) but a decreased risk of BCR when compared to those men with PSM ( HR 2.09, 95% CI 1.86–2.36; P < 0.001). Metastases, prostate cancer‐specific mortality and all‐cause mortality did not differ based on margin status alone. Conclusions Management of men with CSM is a diagnostic challenge, with a disease course that is not entirely benign. The evaluation of other known risk factors probably provides greater prognostic value for these men and may ultimately better select those who may benefit from adjuvant therapy.