https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2026.14871
Early risk stratification after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: the role of positive surgical margins
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Published: 3 March 2026
Introduction: Positive surgical margins (PSMs) after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) are consistently associated with biochemical recurrence (BCR), yet their prognostic heterogeneity and functional implications remain debated. This study aimed to evaluate the oncological and functional impact of PSMs and to explore clinicopathological predictors of margin positivity.
Methods: We conducted a retrospective single-center study including 93 patients undergoing RARP. Surgical margin status, length, focality, and location were recorded. BCR was defined as PSA ≥0.2 ng/mL confirmed by two measurements. Functional outcomes (urinary continence and erectile function) were assessed at 6 months. Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of PSM, and Kaplan-Meier analysis evaluated BCR-free survival.
Results: PSMs were identified in 48 patients (51.6%). During a median follow-up of 11 months, BCR occurred more frequently in patients with PSMs than in those with negative margins (20.8% vs 4.4%, p=0.018). PSMs were associated with significantly worse early BCR-free survival (log-rank p=0.013). Margin length ≥3 mm did not stratify early BCR risk. In multivariable analysis, ISUP Grade Group 3-5 was the only independent predictor of PSM (OR 0.25, p=0.044). No significant differences in urinary continence or erectile function at 6 months were observed according to margin status.
Conclusions: PSMs are associated with an increased risk of early biochemical recurrence, while early functional outcomes appear independent of margin status. Tumor biology, rather than surgical factors, emerges as the main determinant of margin positivity. These findings support a risk-adapted interpretation of PSMs and align with current guidelines favoring close surveillance and early salvage treatment over routine adjuvant therapy.
Downloads
1. Cornford P, Tilki D, van den Bergh RCN, et al. EAU-EAN-MESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Eur Assoc Urol 2025.
2. Tourinho-Barbosa R, Srougi V, Nunes-Silva I, et al. Biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: what does it mean? Int Braz J Urol 2018; 44:14-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2016.0656
3. Yossepowitch O, Briganti A, Eastham JA, et al. Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and contemporary update. Eur Urol 2014; 65:303-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.07.039
4. Martini A, Gupta A, Lewis SC, et al. Development and internal validation of a side-specific multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-based nomogram for the prediction of extracapsular extension of prostate cancer. BJU Int 2018; 122:1025-33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14353
5. Swindle P, Eastham JA, Ohori M, et al. Do margins matter? The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol. 2008;179:S47-51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.03.137
6. Sooriakumaran P, Dev HS, Skarecky D, Ahlering T. The importance of surgical margins in prostate cancer. J Surg Oncol 2016;113:310-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.24109
7. Guo H, Zhang L, Shao Y, et al. The impact of positive surgical margin parameters and pathological stage on biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One2024; 19:e0301653. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301653
8. Boorjian SA, Tollefson MK, Rangel LJ, et al. Clinicopathological predictors of systemic progression and prostate cancer mortality in patients with a positive surgical margin at radical prostatectomy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis2012; 15:56-62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2011.36
9. Chalfin HJ, Dinizo M, Trock BJ, et al. Impact of surgical margin status on prostate cancer-specific mortality. BJU Int2012; 110:1684-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11371.x
10. Wright JL, Dalkin BL, True LD, et al. Positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy predict prostate cancer-specific mortality. J Urol 2010; 183:2213-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.02.017
11. 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; 7:888-96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2023.11.021
12. John A, Lim A, Catterwell R, Selth L. Length of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: does size matter? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2023;26:673-80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-023-00654-6
13. Martini A, Gandaglia G, Fossati N, et al. Defining clinically meaningful positive surgical margins in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for localised prostate cancer. Eur Urol Oncol 2021;4:42-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2019.03.006
14. Pfitzenmaier J, Pahernik S, Tremmel T, et al. Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: do they have an impact on biochemical or clinical progression? BJU Int 2008; 102:1413-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.07791.x
15. Chapin BF, Nguyen JN, Achim MF, et al. Positive margin length and highest Gleason grade of tumor at the margin predict biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy in patients with organ confined prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2018;21:221-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-017-0019-4
16. Ochiai A, Sotelo T, Troncoso P, et al. Natural history of biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy based on length of a positive margin. Urology 2008;71:308-12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2007.08.042
17. Preisser F, Coxilha G, Heinze A, et al. Impact of positive surgical margin length and Gleason grade at the margin on biochemical recurrence in patients with organ-confined prostate cancer. Prostate 2019; 79:1832-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.23908
18. John A, John H, Catterwell R, Selth LA. Primary Gleason grade and Gleason grade group at positive surgical margins: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int 2021; 127:13-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15316
19. Hollemans E, Verhoef EI, Bangma CH, et al. Prostate carcinomagrade and length but not cribriform architecture at positive surgical margins are predictive for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Am J Surg Pathol 2020; 44:191-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000001384
20. Savdie R, Horvath LG, Benito RP, et al. High Gleason grade carcinoma at a positive surgical margin predicts biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy and may guide adjuvant radiotherapy. BJU Int 2012; 109:1794-800. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10572.x
21. Huang JG, Pedersen J, Hong MKH, et al. Presence or absence of a positive pathological margin outperforms any other margin-associated variable in predicting clinically relevant biochemical recurrence in Gleason 7 prostate cancer. BJU Int 2013; 111:921-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11665.x
22. Stephenson AJ, Wood DP, Kattan MW, et al. Location, extent and number of positive surgical margins do not improve accuracy of predicting prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2009; 182:1357-63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.06.046
23. Fontenot PA, Mansour AM. Reporting positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: time for standardization. BJU Int 2013;111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11640.x
24. van den Ouden D, Bentvelsen FM, Boeve ER, Schroder FH. Positive margins after radical prostatectomy: correlation with local recurrence and distant progression. Br J Urol 1993; 72:489-94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.1993.tb16183.x
25. Avulova S, Zhao Z, Lee D, et al. The effect of nerve sparing status on sexual and urinary function: 3-year results from the CEASAR study. J Urol 2018; 199:1202-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.12.037
26. Reeves F, Preece P, Kapoor J, et al. Preservation of the neurovascular bundles is associated with improved time to continence after radical prostatectomy but not long-term continence rates: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2015; 68:692-704. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.020
27. Dinneen E, Almeida-Magana R, Al-Hammouri T, et al. Effect of NeuroSAFE-guided robot-assisted radical prostatectomy versus standard robot-assisted radical prostatectomy on erectile function and urinary continence in patients with localised prostate cancer (NeuroSAFE PROOF): a multicentre, patient-blinded, randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2025; 26:447-58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(25)00091-9
28. Furrer MA, Sathianathen N, Gahl B, et al. Functional impact of neurovascular bundle preservation in high-risk prostate cancer without compromising oncological outcomes: a propensity-modelled analysis. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:5839. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15245839
29. Furrer MA, Sathianathen N, Gahl B, et al. Oncological outcomes after attempted nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy in patients with high-risk prostate cancer are comparable to standard non-nervesparing radical prostatectomy: a long-term propensity-matched study. BJU Int 2024; 133:53-62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.16126
Ethics Approval
The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of San Cecilio University Hospital (Granada, Spain) (approval code: PR001)CRediT authorship contribution
Alberto Zambudio-Munuera, study concept, writing - original drafting. Irene Millán-Ramos, tables preparation. Patricia Rodríguez-Parras, Bibliography review. Francisco Gutiérrez-Tejero, writing - original drafting. Maria Teresa Melgarejo-Segura, data analysis. Miguel Arrabal-Martin, study concept and bibliography review. Miguel Angel Arrabal-Polo, supervision and final review.
Data Availability Statement
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.
How to Cite
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.