Next Article in Journal
A Tissue Renewal-Based Mechanism Drives Colon Tumorigenesis
Previous Article in Journal
Functional Outcomes After Reoperation for Recurrent Glioma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Karnofsky Performance Status with Descriptive Health-Related Quality-of-Life Reporting
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 18
Issue 1
10.3390/cancers18010043
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Assessment of Local and Metastatic Recurrence Following Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy by Margin Status Using PSMA PET/CT Scan

by
Thomas Edward Ahlering
*,
Yeagyeong Hwang
,
Michael Matthew Lee
,
Joshua Tran
,
Anders David Jens Carlson
,
Levon Kazarian
,
Karren Liang
and
Whitney Zhang
Department of Urology, University of California, Irvine Medical Center, Orange, CA 92868, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2026, 18(1), 43; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18010043
Submission received: 18 November 2025 / Revised: 13 December 2025 / Accepted: 21 December 2025 / Published: 23 December 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Clinical Research of Cancer)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Simple Summary

After radical prostatectomy (RP), many clinicians assume that having “negative surgical margins,” (meaning all cancer was fully removed) lowers the chance of cancer returning locally. However, our study of 159 men who developed a rise in PSA after RP challenges this long-held belief. Using PSMA PET/CT scans, which is one of the most sensitive imaging tools for detecting recurrent prostate cancer, we found that men with positive and negative surgical margins had nearly identical rates of local recurrence, as well as similar rates of lymph node and bone metastases. Our results illustrate that pursuing wider resections to achieve negative margins, often at the cost of urinary continence and erectile function, may not improve outcomes. Earlier detection and timely evaluation with PSMA PET may be more important for long-term cancer control than margin status alone.

Abstract

Background: Local recurrences following radical prostatectomy (RP) are typically attributed to incomplete surgical resection or positive surgical margins (PSMs). Yet approximately 70% of men with PSMs never experience BCR. Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET scans (PSMA PET) are useful in detecting the incidence and location of recurrence sites. This study explores the relationship between margin status and local and metastatic recurrences using PSMA PET scans. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted with prospectively collected data following RARP with BCR in 159 men undergoing PSMA PET (2017–2023). The primary outcome compared risk and location of recurrences between NSM vs. PSM. A total of 13 cases (8%) had “equivocal” PET scan findings which were assessed first as all positive and then all negative. Results: Of 159 men with BCR undergoing PSMA PET scans, 101 (63.5%) had NSMs and 58 (36.5%) had PSMs. Assuming all 13 “equivocal” scans were positive, the risk of a positive PSMA PET is NSMs vs. PSMs (73% vs. 69% p = 0.56). Local recurrence rates did not differ significantly (NSMs 39.2% vs. PSMs 45% p = 0.55), nor did lymph nodes (NSMs 61% vs. PSMs 58% p = 0.73) or bone lesions (NSMs 16.2% vs. PSMs 22.5% p = 0.41). Multivariate regression analysis showed that margin status was not a predictor of local recurrence (OR 1.40; 95% CI [0.65, 1.54]; p = 0.382). Conclusions: Local recurrence occurs at about the same rate independent of margin positivity status, suggesting that local recurrences appear to be more closely related to metastatic dissemination, not incomplete resection. These findings question the oncologic rationale for wider resections at the expense of functional outcomes.

1. Introduction

Prostate cancer (PC) is the most common non-cutaneous cancer in the United States and is the second leading cause for cancer-related mortality in men. According to the American Cancer Society, nearly one in eight men will be diagnosed with PC during their lifetime, and one in forty-one will die from the disease [1]. Following the 2012 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation against prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening, the incidence of PC initially declined significantly [2]. However, due to the long natural history of PC, the downstream effects of reduced screening, shown as distance disease progression and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), are becoming more obvious and problematic [3,4,5,6,7]. Unlike most other malignancies, PC is vastly different in that it progresses slowly yet persistently, both before and after treatment intervention. It is well known that most men with recurrent disease will die with PC rather than of it, even in the metastatic setting [8]. This is in contrast to most other cancers, where recurrence following surgical resection typically results in rapid mortality if not cured with secondary intervention. For PC, metastatic recurrences following radical prostatectomy (RP) are rarely curable. However, systemic therapies remain remarkably effective at controlling but not eradicating disease. Even among men with high-risk PC, mortality is only approximately 50% at 29 years following RP [9].
Another significant factor in PC prognosis is positive surgical margins (PSMs). In most cancers, including those in the breast, bladder, and colon, recurrence is an adverse outcome leading to worse survival, high rates of metastasis, and cancer-specific mortality [10,11,12], and it is most notably predicted by the presence of a positive surgical margin [13,14]. In PC, however, the prognostic value of surgical margin status remains a subject of debate. Though some report higher rates of biochemical recurrence (BCR) predicted by PSM, the independent association between PSM and PCSM has not been reliably established. In fact, Pellegrino et al. [15] recently noted in 2023 that a solitary PSM, regardless of size, did not confer increased risk of PCSM as compared to negative surgical margins (NSMs). Subsequently, it was shown that the BCR rate for solitary PSMs at 10 years after RP was only 30%, raising the question of why 70% of men with “incomplete resection” had no recurrence. The logical explanation for the lack of PSA progression in the face of a PSM would suggest that PC cells at the pathological margin must simply senesce and die 70% of the time [16,17]. Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET/CT scanning has revolutionized PC management. With high sensitivity and specificity for detecting and localizing local and distant metastases even at low PSA levels, PSMA PET/CT offers an unprecedented opportunity to evaluate the patterns of disease recurrence [18,19]. This study aims to further examine the PSMA PET scan results of our first 159 men with BCR to compare primarily PSMs versus NSMs.

2. Materials and Methods

This was a single-center retrospective analysis of 159 patients with BCR following RARP by a single surgeon (TA) who had a PSMA PET/CT scan between 2017 and 2023. Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) was not routinely performed at the time of RARP in this cohort. When indicated, it was performed in the salvage setting based on PSMA PET/CT-identified nodal recurrence. PSMA PET/CT was performed in response to rising PSA levels (approximately 0.7–1.0 ng/mL) and/or in selected patients with higher preoperative risk, as part of routine clinical care rather than at a fixed postoperative interval. A total of 90% of the PSMA PET scans were performed and interpreted at the University of California Los Angeles Medical Center using 68Gallium-labeled PSMA radiotracer (University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA) [20]. BCR was defined as two PSA levels > 0.2 ng/mL post-RARP. Since 13 (8%) of the 159 scans had “equivocal” PSMA-PET/CT scan findings, we performed two analyses: one assuming all equivocal findings were positive and, in a secondary supplemental analysis, one assuming all equivocal findings were negative. PSMA PET/CT findings were classified based on finalized pathology-issued imaging reports. Equivocal findings were interpreted according to radiologic descriptors provided in the report, with lesions demonstrating focal uptakes above background activity at anatomically plausible sites classified as positive. Equivocal lesions were defined as sites of low-level focal uptake that did not definitely exceed physiological background activity and/or lacked a clear anatomic correlate on CT. All equivocal cases were reviewed in consensus by board-certified pathologists with expertise in molecular imaging, minimizing inter-reader variability. The study was conducted under an approved institutional review board protocol at the University of California, Irvine (HS#1998-84).
Demographic and clinical variables, including age, PSA levels at time of PSMA-PET/CT scan, pathological stage, Gleason grade group, and surgical margin status, were collected from the patients’ medical records. Patients were stratified based on margin status (positive vs. negative) and scan result (positive vs. negative findings). To assess the oncological value of complete local resection, the primary outcome was to compare the rate and location of recurrences between men with NSMs and PSMs. Local recurrence was defined as PSMA PET/CT-avid uptake localized to the prostate bed and/or seminal vesicle (SV) remnants. Uptake was required to be focal and greater than surrounding background activity. No fixed SUV threshold was applied, consistent with clinical practice. Benign postoperative changes were carefully considered, particularly in the prostate bed. Uptake patterns suggestive of postoperative inflammation were not classified as positive. Lymph node metastasis and bone metastasis were defined as one or more lymph nodes or bones with PSMA PET/CT uptake, respectively.
To evaluate demographic differences in our groups stratified by margin status, Student’s t-tests were conducted for continuous variables and Chi-squared for categorical variables. A p-value < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to assess whether margin status independently predicted recurrence after adjusting for confounding variables such as age, PSA level, pathological stage, and Gleason grade group. All statistical tests and figures were conducted and produced in the R statistical package version 4.4.0 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).

3. Results

3.1. Patient Cohorts

A total of 159 men who underwent RARP and subsequently developed BCR were included in the study. Of these, 101 (63.5%) had NSMs and 58 (36.5%) had PSMs. Table 1 summarizes the baseline demographic and clinical characteristics stratified by surgical margin and PSMA PET/CT scan status, assuming 13 equivocal PSMA PET findings (N = 13, 8%) as positive. Corresponding analyses assuming all equivocal cases as negative are shown in Supplemental Table S1.
The median PSA at the time of positive PSMA PET scans was similar between groups (1.20 ng/mL for NSM vs. 1.37 ng/mL for PSM); however, the mean PSA levels were higher among men with PSMs (4.62 ± 10.1 ng/mL vs. 2.71 ± 8.38 ng/mL). The mean time from surgery to PSMA PET imaging was significantly shorter in patients in the PSM groups (3.21 ± 3.10 years) compared to the NSM group (7.23 ± 4.71 years; p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in mean age at surgery, age at PSMA scan, or PSA levels at imaging. Among patients with PSMs, the distribution of overall Gleason grade group (GGG) was GGG-2 in 15.0%, GGG-3 in 45.0%, GGG-4 in 15.0%, and GGG-5 in 25.0% of cases (Table 1).

3.2. PSMA PET Findings by Margin Status

Assuming all equivocal PSMA scan findings were positive, 73% (74/101) of men with NSMs and 69% (40/58) of those with PSMs demonstrated at least one PSMA-avid lesion (p = 0.56). Figure 1 depicts the distribution of PSMA PET findings by margin status. Among NSM patients with positive scans, local recurrence in the prostate bed or seminal vesicle (PB/SV) region was detected in 39.2% (29/74), lymph node (LN) involvement was detected in 60.8% (45/74), and bone lesions were detected in 16.2% (12/74). Similarly, in the PSM group, PB/SV recurrences were observed in 45.0% (18/40), LN involvement was observed in 57.5% (23/40), and bone metastases were observed in 22.5% (9/40) (Figure 1). None of these differences were statistically significant (local: p = 0.55; LN: p = 0.73; bone: p = 0.41). The number of lesions was also compared between the groups: single lesions occurred in 59.5% of NSM and 52.5% of PSM cases, whereas multiple lesions were observed in 40.5% and 47.5%, respectively. Pathological staging revealed a significantly higher rate of advanced disease (pT3/T4) among men with PSMs (87.5% vs. 58.1%, p = 0.0013), while pathological GGG distribution did not differ significantly (p = 0.133). Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that margin status was not a significant predictor of local recurrence (OR 1.40, 95% CI [0.65–1.54], p = 0.382), nor were age, p-GGG, or p-stage (Table 2).
Similar results were found (Supplemental Table S1) when assuming all 13 “equivocal scans” as “negative.” The proportion of positive scans was nearly identical between NSM and PSM cohorts (63.4% vs. 63.8%, p = 0.96). Similarly, rates of local recurrence (56% vs. 54%), nodal involvement (59% vs. 57%), and bone lesions (18.8% vs. 24.3%) remained statistically not significant.

3.3. Pathological Stage Subgroup Analysis

To further explore the relationship between pathological stage and recurrence patterns, a subgroup analysis was conducted by p-stage (Table 3). A total of 56 of 159 men (35.2%) had organ-confined pT2 disease and 103 (64.8%) had extraprostatic (pT3/T4) disease. PSMs were more frequent in the pT3/T4 group (48/103; 46.6%) compared with pT2 (10/56; 17.8%).
Among all patients, local recurrence rates did not differ significantly by p-stage (pT2 (20/56) 35.7% vs. pT3+ (27/103) 26.2%; p = 0.63). When stratified by both margin and stage, local recurrence occurred in 32.6% (15/46) NSM vs. 50% (5/10) PSM among pT2 cases (p = 0.363) and in 25.5% (14/55) NSM vs. 27.1% (13/48) PSM among pT3+ cases (p = 0.593). Lymph node metastases were more frequent in higher-stage disease (pT3+ 53.4% (55/103) vs. pT2 28.6% (16/56); p = 0.0045), while bone lesions did not differ significantly (pT2 8.9% (5/56) vs. pT3+ 15.5% (16/103); p = 0.24). When stratified by both margin and stage, lymph node metastases occurred in 32.6% (15/46) NSM vs. 10% (1/10) PSM among pT2 cases (p = 0.155) and in 54.5% (30/55) NSM vs. 45.8% (22/48) PSM among pT3+ cases (p = 0.380). For pT2 disease, NSM patients demonstrated a longer time interval from surgery to PSMA scan compared to PSM (8.2 ± 4.3 years vs. 3.2 ± 1.9 years; p < 0.001). Multivariate regression analysis showed that p-stage status was not a significant predictor of local recurrence (p = 0.374), nor were age, margins, or p-GGG.

4. Discussion

In this study, we assessed the risk and location of recurrence using PSMA-PET/CT as the detection method [20]. Given “equivocal findings” yielded by PSMA-PET, we first did testing assuming all equivocal scans as positive. In this assumption, recurrence rates were similar between men with NSM versus PSM (73% vs. 69%, p = 0.56). When we assumed equivocal scans as negative, the results were the same; recurrence rates did not differ between NSM and PSM (63.4% vs. 63.8%, p = 0.96).
Traditionally, the oncologic rationale is straightforward: when cancer extends to the surgical margin, residual disease may lead first to local recurrence and eventually to metastatic spread. Conversely, disease can also progress through lymphovascular invasion [21], leading to distant metastasis without an intervening local recurrence. Under this model, a negative margin should correspond to a low risk of local recurrence, whereas a positive margin should almost certainly signal persistent cancer and, therefore, a high likelihood of recurrence. This framework has historically justified the use of adjuvant therapies aimed at eradicating presumed residual local disease to prevent worse oncological outcomes [22,23].
However, despite decades of emphasis on the oncologic importance of achieving negative margins, our PSMA-PET-based analysis did not show a statistically significant difference in either local or metastatic recurrence between patients with negative versus positive margins. This finding persisted even when equivocal PSMA scans were treated as positive, suggesting that margin status alone may be a less reliable predictor of recurrence in the modern PSMA-PET era than previously assumed.
Many prior studies have linked PSMs with adverse oncologic outcomes [24,25,26]. However, more recent evidence complicates this traditional view. In 2023, Pellegrino et al. [15] analyzed 8141 men and found that unifocal PSMs, regardless of length, were associated with a two-fold increase in BCR at 10 years (30% for PSM vs. 15% for NSM). A logical interpretation is that 15% of NSM patients who recurred likely did so because of a biologically aggressive disease that disseminated via lymphatic or vascular pathways rather than local failure. For men with PSMs, Pellegrino et al. noted that the majority of men with PSMs did not experience recurrence despite pathological evidence of residual disease. This observation supports the interpretation that only a subset of recurrences in PSM patients represents true local failure, with the remainder driven by pre-existing systemic disease. This aligns with modern analyses showing that multifocality and Gleason group at the margin matter more than margin positivity alone [27].
Yet this interpretation leads to an unresolved question: if residual tumor is present at the inked surface, why did 85% of men with pathological evidence of residual disease at the margin not develop local recurrence? This discrepancy suggests that not all margin-positive tumor foci behave as viable, proliferative residual disease; some may be biologically quiescent or clinically inconsequential. Our results align with this evolving perspective and extend it by demonstrating that, even with modern PSMA-PET/CT—the most sensitive modality for detecting both local and distant recurrence—margin status did not correspond to higher recurrence rates in our cohort.
These findings are undeniably unexpected. Surgical doctrine has long held that achieving a negative margin is essential, because any residual tumor at the inked edge should logically translate into higher rates of local recurrence [28]. Yet in our cohort, men with positive margins did not experience higher rates of PSMA-detected local recurrence, and men with negative margins recurred at nearly the same frequency. This raises two questions: why are local recurrence rates not substantially higher in men with PSMs, and why do men with NSMs demonstrate comparable rates of local failure? Our data suggest that local recurrence may not be as tightly linked to the notion of “incomplete tumor excision” as traditionally believed. When we examined PSMA-PET-identified local recurrence in the prostate bed or seminal vesicle region—and treated all equivocal scans as positive—the incidence was 39.2% for NSMs and 45% for PSMs (p = 0.55). Under the opposite assumption, treating equivocal scans as negative, local recurrence rates remained nearly identical (43.8% vs. 45.9%, p = 0.80). Regardless of the results of equivocal scans, the conclusion remains that margin status does not meaningfully predict local recurrence in the PSMA era.
Furthermore, our study also examined PSMA-PET-detected metastatic recurrence in lymph nodes and bone and found no meaningful difference between margin groups, regardless of how equivocal scans were classified. These patterns suggest that local, nodal, and osseous recurrences may arise through similar lymphovascular mechanisms rather than from a stepwise cascade beginning with residual tumor at a positive margin, followed by local recurrence and progression to lymph node and bone metastases. The comparable rates of local recurrence in NSM and PSM patients argue against incomplete resection as the dominant cause of local failure. Instead, they point toward alternative drivers, such as early lymphovascular dissemination or microenvironmental resistance, as more plausible contributors to recurrence patterns. This interpretation is further supported by our findings, showing that pathological stage and Gleason group showed no difference in bone metastases between margin groups, as well as the observed parity in lymph node and bone metastases between the groups regardless of margin status.
From a clinical perspective, these findings have profound implications and further suggest that surgical strategies aimed at maximizing negative margins, often at the expense of functional outcomes [29], may not yield the oncologic benefit surgeons seek. Additionally, our study highlights the critical role of PSMA PET imaging in accurately characterizing disease recurrence. The newly advanced imaging technique allows for early and precise localization of recurrence even at low PSA levels [30], allowing for therapeutic planning and facilitating research to advance PC management. Patients and clinicians should follow the PSA screening recommendations of the European Association of Urology and their guidelines [19,31] to ensure early detection and systematic disease monitoring to improve long-term outcomes in PC patients.
This study is limited by its retrospective design and reliance on data from a single surgical center. No fixed SUV threshold was applied, reflecting real-world practice but potentially affecting reproducibility. The differences in time from surgery to PSMA PET/CT imaging may influence recurrence detection patterns as earlier imaging is more likely to identify lower-volume or localized disease, whereas longer intervals allow progression to higher-volume or metastatic disease. Despite this potential timing-related bias, no statistically significant differences were observed in recurrence patterns between patients with negative versus positive SMs.

5. Conclusions

This study demonstrates that surgical margin does not independently predict local or metastatic recurrence in men with BCR following RARP. The similarity in recurrence patterns between NSMs and PSMs groups, validated through high-sensitivity PSMA PET imaging, challenges the traditional notion on wider or more extensive oncological resections and supports a more balanced surgical approach, including consideration of nerve-sparing in appropriately selected patients. These findings further suggest that margin status alone may be insufficient to guide adjuvant radiotherapy decisions, highlighting the potential value of imaging-guided postoperative management strategies. In this context, earlier intervention and integration of PSMA PET/CT into postoperative surveillance, particularly in patients with rising PSA levels (approximately 0.7–1.0 ng/mL) or high-risk preoperative features, may facilitate earlier, more targeted interventions that could reduce BCR, the need for androgen deprivation therapy, or PCSM. Future prospective, multi-institutional studies are warranted to further validate these findings.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/cancers18010043/s1; Table S1: Demographics stratified by margin and PSMA scan status (assuming 13 “equivocals” are negative).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.H., J.T., M.M.L. and T.E.A.; methodology, Y.H., J.T. and T.E.A.; formal analysis, Y.H. and J.T.; investigation, T.E.A.; data curation, Y.H., M.M.L., J.T., A.D.J.C., L.K., K.L. and W.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, T.E.A., Y.H. and M.M.L.; writing—review and editing, Y.H., M.M.L., J.T. and T.E.A.; visualization, Y.H., M.M.L. and J.T.; supervision, T.E.A.; project administration, Y.H., M.M.L. and J.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of University of California, Irvine (HS#1998-84; approval 1998), approved on 12 February 2018.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The dataset generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. American Cancer Society. Key Statistics for Prostate Cancer|Prostate Cancer Facts. Available online: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/prostate-cancer/about/key-statistics.html (accessed on 13 November 2025).
  2. American Cancer Society. Prostate. Available online: https://cancerstatisticscenter.cancer.org/types/prostate (accessed on 13 November 2025).
  3. Ahlering, T.; Huynh, L.M.; Kaler, K.S.; Williams, S.; Osann, K.; Joseph, J.; Lee, D.; Davis, J.W.; Abaza, R.; Kaouk, J.; et al. Unintended Consequences of Decreased PSA-Based Prostate Cancer Screening. World J. Urol. 2019, 37, 489–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Jeong, S.H.; Raman, J.D. Impact of the Evolving United States Preventative Services Task Force Policy Statements on Incidence and Distribution of Prostate Cancer over 15 Years in a Statewide Cancer Registry. Prostate Int. 2021, 9, 12–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hu, J.C.; Nguyen, P.; Mao, J.; Halpern, J.; Shoag, J.; Wright, J.D.; Sedrakyan, A. Increase in Prostate Cancer Distant Metastases at Diagnosis in the United States. JAMA Oncol. 2017, 3, 705–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Plambeck, B.D.; Wang, L.L.; Mcgirr, S.; Jiang, J.; Van Leeuwen, B.J.; Lagrange, C.A.; Boyle, S.L. Effects of the 2012 and 2018 US Preventive Services Task Force Prostate Cancer Screening Guidelines on Pathologic Outcomes after Prostatectomy. Prostate 2022, 82, 216–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Burgess, L.; Aldrighetti, C.M.; Ghosh, A.; Niemierko, A.; Chino, F.; Huynh, M.J.; Efstathiou, J.A.; Kamran, S.C. Association of the USPSTF Grade D Recommendation Against Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening with Prostate Cancer-Specific Mortality. JAMA Netw. Open 2022, 5, e2211869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Messing, E.M.; Manola, J.; Yao, J.; Kiernan, M.; Crawford, D.; Wilding, G.; di’SantAgnese, P.A.; Trump, D. Immediate versus Deferred Androgen Deprivation Treatment in Patients with Node-Positive Prostate Cancer after Radical Prostatectomy and Pelvic Lymphadenectomy. Lancet Oncol. 2006, 7, 472–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bill-Axelson, A.; Holmberg, L.; Garmo, H.; Taari, K.; Busch, C.; Nordling, S.; Häggman, M.; Andersson, S.-O.; Andrén, O.; Steineck, G.; et al. Radical Prostatectomy or Watchful Waiting in Prostate Cancer—29-Year Follow-Up. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018, 379, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rink, M.; Lee, D.J.; Kent, M.; Xylinas, E.; Fritsche, H.-M.; Babjuk, M.; Brisuda, A.; Hansen, J.; Green, D.A.; Aziz, A.; et al. Predictors of Cancer-Specific Mortality after Disease Recurrence Following Radical Cystectomy. BJU Int. 2013, 111, E30–E36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Balboa-Barreiro, V.; Pértega-Díaz, S.; García-Rodríguez, T.; González-Martín, C.; Pardeiro-Pértega, R.; Yáñez-González-Dopeso, L.; Seoane-Pillado, T. Colorectal Cancer Recurrence and Its Impact on Survival after Curative Surgery: An Analysis Based on Multistate Models. Dig. Liver Dis. 2024, 56, 1229–1236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Dent, R.; Valentini, A.; Hanna, W.; Rawlinson, E.; Rakovitch, E.; Sun, P.; Narod, S.A. Factors Associated with Breast Cancer Mortality after Local Recurrence. Curr. Oncol. 2014, 21, e418–e425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Patel, V.; Galloway, T.J.; Liu, J.C. The Impact of Positive Margin on Survival in Oral Cavity Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Oral Oncol. 2021, 122, 105499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bertrand, T.E.; Cruz, A.; Binitie, O.; Cheong, D.; Letson, G.D. Do Surgical Margins Affect Local Recurrence and Survival in Extremity, Nonmetastatic, High-Grade Osteosarcoma? Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2016, 474, 677–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Pellegrino, F.; Falagario, U.G.; Knipper, S.; Martini, A.; Akre, O.; Egevad, L.; Aly, M.; Moschovas, M.C.; Bravi, C.A.; Tran, J.; 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, 888–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Jin, C.; Liao, S.; Lu, G.; Geng, B.D.; Ye, Z.; Xu, J.; Ge, G.; Yang, D. Cellular Senescence in Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Therapeutic Opportunity or Challenge (Review). Mol. Med. Rep. 2024, 30, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Emerson, R.E.; Koch, M.O.; Jones, T.D.; Daggy, J.K.; Juliar, B.E.; Cheng, L. The Influence of Extent of Surgical Margin Positivity on Prostate Specific Antigen Recurrence. J. Clin. Pathol. 2005, 58, 1028–1032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Holzgreve, A.; Armstrong, W.R.; Clark, K.J.; Benz, M.R.; Smith, C.P.; Djaileb, L.; Gafita, A.; Thin, P.; Nickols, N.G.; Kishan, A.U.; et al. PSMA-PET/CT Findings in Patients with High-Risk Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer with No Metastatic Disease by Conventional Imaging. JAMA Netw. Open 2025, 8, e2452971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cornford, P.; van den Bergh, R.C.N.; Briers, E.; Van den Broeck, T.; Brunckhorst, O.; Darraugh, J.; Eberli, D.; De Meerleer, G.; De Santis, M.; Farolfi, A.; et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer—2024 Update. Part I: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur. Urol. 2024, 86, 148–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Calais, J.; Fendler, W.P.; Eiber, M.; Gartmann, J.; Chu, F.-I.; Nickols, N.G.; Reiter, R.E.; Rettig, M.B.; Marks, L.S.; Ahlering, T.E.; et al. Impact of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT on the Management of Prostate Cancer Patients with Biochemical Recurrence. J. Nucl. Med. 2018, 59, 434–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sathianathen, N.J.; Furrer, M.A.; Mulholland, C.J.; Katsios, A.; Soliman, C.; Lawrentschuk, N.; Peters, J.S.; Zargar, H.; Costello, A.J.; Hovens, C.M.; et al. Lymphovascular Invasion at the Time of Radical Prostatectomy Adversely Impacts Oncological Outcomes. Cancers 2024, 16, 123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Su, H.-C.; Li, C.-C.; Li, W.-M.; Yeh, H.-C.; Ke, H.-L.; Wu, W.-J.; Chien, T.M.; Wen, S.-C.; Wang, Y.-C.; Lee, H.-Y. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Adjuvant Therapy on Biochemical Recurrence in Prostate Cancer Patients with Positive Surgical Margins after Radical Prostatectomy. J. Formos. Med. Assoc. 2025; in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Thompson, I.M.; Tangen, C.M.; Paradelo, J.; Lucia, M.S.; Miller, G.; Troyer, D.; Messing, E.; Forman, J.; Chin, J.; Swanson, G.; et al. Adjuvant Radiotherapy for Pathologically Advanced Prostate CancerA Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2006, 296, 2329–2335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wright, J.L.; Dalkin, B.L.; True, L.D.; Ellis, W.J.; Stanford, J.L.; Lange, P.H.; Lin, D.W. Positive Surgical Margins at Radical Prostatectomy Predict Prostate Cancer Specific Mortality. J. Urol. 2010, 183, 2213–2218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Meeks, J.J.; Eastham, J.A. Radical Prostatectomy: Positive Surgical Margins Matter. Urol. Oncol. Semin. Orig. Investig. 2013, 31, 974–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Stephenson, A.J.; Eggener, S.E.; Hernandez, A.V.; Klein, E.A.; Kattan, M.W.; Wood, D.P.; Rabah, D.M.; Eastham, J.A.; Scardino, P.T. Do Margins Matter? The Influence of Positive Surgical Margins on Prostate Cancer–Specific Mortality. Eur. Urol. 2014, 65, 675–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lee, W.; Lim, B.; Kyung, Y.S.; Kim, C.-S. Impact of Positive Surgical Margin on Biochemical Recurrence in Localized Prostate Cancer. Prostate Int. 2021, 9, 151–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Pfitzenmaier, J.; Pahernik, S.; Tremmel, T.; Haferkamp, A.; Buse, S.; Hohenfellner, M. Positive Surgical Margins after Radical Prostatectomy: Do They Have an Impact on Biochemical or Clinical Progression? BJU Int. 2008, 102, 1413–1418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ko, Y.H.; Coelho, R.F.; Chauhan, S.; Sivaraman, A.; Schatloff, O.; Cheon, J.; Patel, V.R. Factors Affecting Return of Continence 3 Months after Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Analysis from a Large, Prospective Data by a Single Surgeon. J. Urol. 2012, 187, 190–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Fendler, W.P.; Calais, J.; Eiber, M.; Flavell, R.R.; Mishoe, A.; Feng, F.Y.; Nguyen, H.G.; Reiter, R.E.; Rettig, M.B.; Okamoto, S.; et al. Assessment of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET Accuracy in Localizing Recurrent Prostate Cancer: A Prospective Single-Arm Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol. 2019, 5, 856–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gandaglia, G.; Albers, P.; Abrahamsson, P.-A.; Briganti, A.; Catto, J.W.F.; Chapple, C.R.; Montorsi, F.; Mottet, N.; Roobol, M.J.; Sønksen, J.; et al. Structured Population-Based Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening for Prostate Cancer: The European Association of Urology Position in 2019. Eur. Urol. 2019, 76, 142–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cancers 18 00043 g001
Figure 1. Flowchart of PSMA PET scan results by margin status.
Figure 1. Flowchart of PSMA PET scan results by margin status.
Cancers 18 00043 g001
Table 1. Demographics stratified by margin and PSMA scan status (assuming 13 “equivocals” are positive).
Table 1. Demographics stratified by margin and PSMA scan status (assuming 13 “equivocals” are positive).
Negative MarginPositive Marginp-Value
Negative ScanPositive ScanNegative ScanPositive ScanNSM (+) Scan vs.
PSM (+) Scan
(N = 27)(N = 74)(N = 18)(N = 40)
Mean (SD)Mean (SD)Mean (SD)Mean (SD)
Age at Surgery62.5 (7.22)61.0 (6.89)62.0 (8.41)63.3 (6.11)0.0798
Age at PSMA68.5 (8.15)68.3 (6.36)66.7 (7.96)66.6 (6.51)0.180
Time from Sx to Scan5.94 (3.62)7.23 (4.71)4.69 (4.41)3.21 (3.10)<0.0001
      Median [IQR]5.10 [3.20–8.70]6.95 [3.20–10.8]3.73 [2.10–6.60]2.20 [0.70–4.80]
PSA at PSMA0.78 (0.604)2.71 (8.38)2.28 (5.32)4.62 (10.1)0.283
      Median [IQR]0.70 [0.30–1.00]1.20 [0.80–2.10]0.94 [0.60–1.30]1.37 [1.00–3.30]
N (%)N (%)N (%)N (%)
Lesions 0.476
      Negative27 (100%)0 (0%)18 (100%)0 (0%)
      Single0 (0%)44 (59.5%)0 (0%)21 (52.5%)
      Multiple0 (0%)30 (40.5%)0 (0%)19 (47.5%)
Local Recurrence 0.804
      Negative27 (100%)45 (60.8%)18 (100%)22 (55.0%)
      Prostate bed0 (0%)25 (33.8%)0 (0%)16 (40.0%)
      Seminal vesical0 (0%)4 (5.4%)0 (0%)2 (5.0%)
Lymph Node 0.732
      Negative27 (100%)29 (39.2%)18 (100%)17 (42.5%)
      At least one node0 (0%)45 (60.8%)0 (0%)23 (57.5%)
Bone 0.411
      Negative27 (100%)62 (83.8%)18 (100%)31 (77.5%)
      At least one lesion0 (0%)12 (16.2%)0 (0%)9 (22.5%)
Pathological GGG 0.133
      11 (3.7%)5 (6.8%)3 (16.7%)0 (0%)
      28 (29.6%)22 (29.7%)4 (22.2%)6 (15.0%)
      311 (40.7%)28 (37.8%)7 (38.9%)18 (45.0%)
      44 (14.8%)7 (9.5%)1 (5.6%)6 (15.0%)
      53 (11.1%)12 (16.2%)3 (16.7%)10 (25.0%)
Pathological Stage 0.0013
      pT215 (55.6%)31 (41.9%)5 (27.8%)5 (12.5%)
      pT3/pT412 (44.4%)43 (58.1%)13 (72.2%)35 (87.5%)
Table 2. Multivariate regression finding predictors of a positive local recurrence.
Table 2. Multivariate regression finding predictors of a positive local recurrence.
CharacteristicOR95% CIp-Value
Age at Surgery0.960.91, 1.020.170
Pathological Gleason Grade Group
1--
20.960.21, 4.590.959
30.680.15, 3.270.612
40.480.08, 2.830.411
50.640.12, 3.530.598
Pathological Stage
pT2--
pT30.700.32, 1.540.374
Margins
Negative--
Positive1.400.65, 1.540.382
OR = Odds Ratio; Cl = Confidence Interval
Table 3. Demographics stratified by margin and p-stage (assuming 13 “equivocals” are positive).
Table 3. Demographics stratified by margin and p-stage (assuming 13 “equivocals” are positive).
Negative MarginPositive Marginp-Value
pT2pT3pT2pT3NSM, pT2 vs. PSM, pT2NSM, pT3 vs. PSM, pT3
(N = 46)(N = 55)(N = 10)(N = 48)
Mean (SD)Mean (SD)Mean (SD)Mean (SD)
Age at Surgery60.2 (7.26)62.5 (6.62)59.8 (5.78)63.5 (6.94)0.8710.456
Age at PSMA68.4 (7.42)68.3 (6.39)63.0 (4.34)67.4 (7.16)0.03130.502
Time from Sx to Scan8.20 (4.29)5.78 (4.34)3.16 (1.91)3.78 (3.85)<0.0010.0157
        Median [Min, Max]8.80 [0.400, 18.6]4.50 [0.300, 17.1]2.98 [1.10, 7.50]2.85 [0.192, 18.4]
PSA at PSMA3.05 (10.6)1.47 (1.27)2.06 (1.75)4.28 (9.75)0.7710.0366
        Median [Min, Max]1.05 [0.260, 72.5]1.09 [0.140, 6.60]1.31 [0.260, 5.80]1.14 [0.300, 57.6]
N (%)N (%)N (%)N (%)
Lesions 0.5550.811
        Negative15 (32.6%)12 (21.8%)5 (50.0%)13 (27.1%)
        Single21 (45.7%)23 (41.8%)3 (30.0%)18 (37.5%)
        Multiple10 (21.7%)20 (36.4%)2 (20.0%)17 (35.4%)
Local Recurrence 0.3630.593
        Negative31 (67.4%)41 (74.5%)5 (50.0%)35 (72.9%)
        Prostate bed14 (30.4%)11 (20.0%)4 (40.0%)12 (25.0%)
        Seminal vesical1 (2.2%)3 (5.5%)1 (10.0%)1 (2.1%)
Lymph Node 0.1550.380
        Negative31 (67.4%)25 (45.5%)9 (90.0%)26 (54.2%)
        At least one node15 (32.6%)30 (54.5%)1 (10.0%)22 (45.8%)
Bone 0.8970.768
        Negative42 (91.3%)47 (85.5%)9 (90.0%)40 (83.3%)
        At least one lesion4 (8.7%)8 (14.5%)1 (10.0%)8 (16.7%)
Pathological GGG 0.5950.839
        14 (8.7%)2 (3.6%)2 (20.0%)1 (2.1%)
        217 (37.0%)13 (23.6%)2 (20.0%)8 (16.7%)
        317 (37.0%)22 (40.0%)3 (30.0%)22 (45.8%)
        44 (8.7%)7 (12.7%)2 (20.0%)5 (10.4%)
        54 (8.7%)11 (20.0%)1 (10.0%)12 (25.0%)
PSMA Scan 0.3030.536
        Negative15 (32.6%)12 (21.8%)5 (50.0%)13 (27.1%)
        Positive31 (67.4%)43 (78.2%)5 (50.0%)35 (72.9%)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ahlering, T.E.; Hwang, Y.; Lee, M.M.; Tran, J.; Carlson, A.D.J.; Kazarian, L.; Liang, K.; Zhang, W. Assessment of Local and Metastatic Recurrence Following Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy by Margin Status Using PSMA PET/CT Scan. Cancers 2026, 18, 43. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18010043

AMA Style

Ahlering TE, Hwang Y, Lee MM, Tran J, Carlson ADJ, Kazarian L, Liang K, Zhang W. Assessment of Local and Metastatic Recurrence Following Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy by Margin Status Using PSMA PET/CT Scan. Cancers. 2026; 18(1):43. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18010043

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ahlering, Thomas Edward, Yeagyeong Hwang, Michael Matthew Lee, Joshua Tran, Anders David Jens Carlson, Levon Kazarian, Karren Liang, and Whitney Zhang. 2026. "Assessment of Local and Metastatic Recurrence Following Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy by Margin Status Using PSMA PET/CT Scan" Cancers 18, no. 1: 43. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18010043

APA Style

Ahlering, T. E., Hwang, Y., Lee, M. M., Tran, J., Carlson, A. D. J., Kazarian, L., Liang, K., & Zhang, W. (2026). Assessment of Local and Metastatic Recurrence Following Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy by Margin Status Using PSMA PET/CT Scan. Cancers, 18(1), 43. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18010043

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Back to TopTop