SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • 1
    Swindle P, Eastham JA, Ohori M et al. Do margins matter? The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 2005; 174: 903907
  • 2
    Karakiewicz PI, Eastham JA, Graefen M et al. Prognostic impact of positive surgical margins in surgically treated prostate cancer: multi-institutional assessment of 5831 patients. Urology 2005; 66: 12451250
  • 3
    Yossepowitch O, Bjartell A, Eastham JA et al. Positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy: outlining the problem and its long-term consequences. Eur Urol 2009; 55: 8799
  • 4
    Wright JL, Dalkin BL, True LD et al. Positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy predict prostate cancer specific mortality. J Urol 2010; 183: 22132218
  • 5
    Boorjian SA, Karnes RJ, Crispen PL et al. The impact of positive surgical margins on mortality following radical prostatectomy during the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol 2010; 183: 10031009
  • 6
    Budäus L, Isbarn H, Eichelberg C et al. Biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: multiplicative interaction between surgical margin status and pathological stage. J Urol 2010; 184: 13411346
  • 7
    Chalfin HJ, Dinizo M, Trock BJ et al. Impact of surgical margin status on prostate-cancer-specific mortality. BJU Int 2012; 110: 16841689
  • 8
    Iczkowski KA, Lucia MS. Frequency of positive surgical margin at prostatectomy and its effect on patient outcome. Prostate Cancer 2011; 2011: 673021. doi: 10.1155/2011/673021. Epub 2011 Jun 9
  • 9
    Corcoran NM, Hovens CM, Metcalfe C et al. Positive surgical margins are a risk factor for significant biochemical recurrence only in intermediate-risk disease. BJU Int 2012; 110: 821827
  • 10
    Vickers A, Bianco F, Cronin A et al. The learning curve for surgical margins after open radical prostatectomy: implications for margin status as an oncological end point. J Urol 2010; 183: 13601365
  • 11
    McNeal JE. Prostate. In Mills SE ed., Histology for Pathologists, 3rd edn. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2007: 923942
  • 12
    Epstein JI, Cubilla AL, Humphrey PA. Tumors of the Prostate Gland, Seminal Vesicles, Penis, and Scrotum. AFIP Atlas of Tumor Pathology Series 4. Washington, DC: ARP Press, 2001: 121
  • 13
    Barré C. Open radical retropubic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2007; 52: 7180
  • 14
    Pierorazio PM, Epstein JI, Humphreys E et al. The significance of a positive bladder neck margin after radical prostatectomy: the American Joint Committee on Cancer Pathological Stage T4 designation is not warranted. J Urol 2010; 183: 151157
  • 15
    Tewari A, Sooriakumaran P, Bloch DA et al. Positive surgical margin and perioperative complication rates of primary surgical treatments for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 115
  • 16
    Moore BM, Savdie R, PeBenito RA et al. The impact of nerve sparing on incidence and location of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2012; 109: 533538
  • 17
    Barocas DA, Han M, Epstein JI et al. Does capsular incision at radical retropubic prostatectomy affect disease-free survival in otherwise organ-confined prostate cancer? Urology 2001; 58: 746751
  • 18
    Tan PH, Cheng L, Srigley JR et al. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 5: surgical margins. Modern Pathol 2011; 24: 4857
  • 19
    Boccon-Gibod L, Ravery V, Vordos D et al. Radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: the perineal approach increases the risk of surgically induced positive margins and capsular incisions. J Urol 1998; 160: 13831385
  • 20
    Shah R, Bassily N, Wei J, Mucci NR et al. Benign prostatic glands at surgical margins of radical prostatectomy specimens: frequency and associated risk factors. Urology 2000; 56: 721725
  • 21
    Kernek KM, Koch MO, Daggy JK, Juliar BE, Cheng L. The presence of benign prostatic glandular tissue at surgical margins does not predict PSA recurrence. J Clin Pathol 2005; 58: 725728
  • 22
    Puech P, Sufana Iancu A, Renard B, Villers A, Lemaitre L. Detecting prostate cancer with MRI – why and how. Diagn Interv Imaging 2012; 93: 268278
  • 23
    Nevoux P, Ouzzane A, Ahmed HU et al. Quantitative tissue analyses of prostate cancer foci in an unselected cystoprostatectomy series. BJU Int 2012; 110: 517523
  • 24
    Meeks JJ, Eastham JA. Radical prostatectomy: positive surgical margins matter. Urol Oncol 2013; 31: 974979
  • 25
    Chuang AY, Nielsen ME, Hernandez DJ et al. The significance of positive surgical margin in areas of capsular incision in otherwise organ confined disease at radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2007; 178: 13061310
  • 26
    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: 308312
  • 27
    Lake AM, He C, Wood DP Jr. Focal positive surgical margins decrease disease-free survival after radical prostatectomy even in organ-confined disease. Urology 2010; 76: 12121216
  • 28
    Brimo F, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Tumor grade at margins of resection in radical prostatectomy specimens is an independent predictor of prognosis. Urology 2010; 76: 12061209
  • 29
    Cao D, Humphrey PA, Gao F et al. Ability of linear length of positive margin in radical prostatectomy specimens to predict biochemical recurrence. Urology 2011; 77: 14091414
  • 30
    Shikanov S, Marchetti P, Desai V et al. Short (≤1 mm) positive surgical margin and risk of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2013; 111: 559563
  • 31
    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: 13571363
  • 32
    Salem S, Chang SS, Clark PE et al. Comparative analysis of whole mount processing and systematic sampling of radical prostatectomy specimens: pathological outcomes and risk of biochemical recurrence. J Urol 2010; 184: 13341340
  • 33
    Resnick MJ, Canter DJ, Guzzo TJ et al. Defining pathological variables to predict biochemical failure in patients with positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy: implications for adjuvant radiotherapy. BJU Int 2010; 105: 13771380
  • 34
    Cao D, Kibel AS, Gao F et al. The Gleason score of tumor at the margin in radical prostatectomy is predictive of biochemical recurrence. Am J Surg Pathol 2010; 34: 9941001
  • 35
    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: 17941800
  • 36
    Eastham JA, Kattan MW, Riedel E et al. Variations among individual surgeons in the rate of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 2003; 170: 22922296
  • 37
    Klein EA, Bianco FJ, Serio AM et al. Surgeon experience is strongly associated with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy for all preoperative risk categories. J Urol 2008; 179: 22122217