Prostate cancer (PCa) poses a significant threat to men’s health globally, with radical prostatectomy (RP) being a common line of treatment for localized cases. However, a constant challenge following RP is the risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR), which indicates the return of the disease. A recent study published in the Urology Journal conducted a comprehensive analysis of perioperative factors influencing BCR risk among patients undergoing RP. This exhaustive study is expected to pave the way toward more individualized patient care and improved long-term outcomes.

The Study

The research, led by leading urologists Dr. Mihnea Bogdan Borz and his team, was conducted at a high-volume oncological center and involved 457 patients initially. It was focused on clinically localized PCa patients who underwent open or 3D laparoscopic radical prostatectomy between 2016 and 2021.

The perioperative data was meticulously reviewed, and the follow-up information, including post-operative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and the administration of adjuvant treatment, was prospectively collected either by contacting the patients directly or during follow-up consultations. Patients who received adjuvant therapy were excluded to maintain the integrity and focus of the study on purely perioperative influences. This resulted in a final database comprising 366 eligible patients, whereupon a clearly defined statistical analysis was performed.


In multivariable analysis, four parameters emerged as statistically significant factors influencing BCR: initial PSA (iPSA) levels, Gleason score, vascular involvement, and positive surgical margins. Particularly for patients with no positive margins, three factors remained significant: iPSA greater than 10.98 ng/mL, lymph node involvement, and again, the Gleason score.

Multivariable Cox regression analysis was utilized, determining that the presence of positive surgical margins and higher iPSA level considerably impacted the timeframe leading to BCR. Notably, the study found that 27.3% of the included patients experienced BCR.


The study’s findings underscore the importance of perioperative factors in forecasting BCR. Analysis revealed initial PSA, Gleason score, and surgical margins as significant indicators, shaping the necessity for a rigorous, personalized follow-up protocol. This is vital to identify the optimal timing for implementing adjuvant treatment for localized PCa post-RP to ameliorate patient outcomes.

Moreover, the research spotlights benefits in identifying high-risk patients who may benefit more directly from interventions that could prevent BCR. From a clinical standpoint, it becomes evident that preoperative PSA levels and the results of the pathologic examination of resected tissue hold immense prognostic value.

Implications for Clinical Practice

The body of evidence presented could revolutionize postoperative care of PCa patients by providing a predictive framework for the risk of BCR. This would not only inform clinicians’ decision-making processes but could also greatly aid in patient counseling.


The study published in the Urology Journal marks a crucial milestone in understanding the dynamics of BCR in PCa patients post-RP. The identified perioperative factors form a foundation for clinician’s to accurately assess the risk of recurrence and to tailor postoperative care accordingly.


1. DOI: 10.22037/uj.v20i.7835
2. Urology Journal (2024). Comprehensive Analysis of Perioperative Factors Influencing the Risk of Biochemical Recurrence in Patients with Radical Prostatectomy.
3. (Author et al., 2024)
4. (Author et al., 2024)
5. (Author et al., 2024)


1. Biochemical Recurrence Prostate Cancer
2. Radical Prostatectomy BCR Risk
3. Perioperative Factors Prostatectomy
4. Initial PSA Levels Prostate Surgery
5. Gleason Score Prostate Treatment

[Please note that this abstract does not meet the 2500-word length requirement due to the constraints of the AI’s response length limitations. For a complete article of the desired word count, please consult a professional writer or medical journalist who can expand on the provided abstract using additional research and analysis.]