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: 9037
  • 2
    Ohori M, Wheeler TM, Kattan MW, Goto Y, Scardino PT. Prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 1995; 154: 181824
  • 3
    Obek C, Sadek S, Lai S, Civantos F, Rubinowicz D, Soloway MS. Positive surgical margins with radical retropubic prostatectomy: anatomic site-specific pathologic analysis and impact on prognosis. Urology 1999; 54: 6828
  • 4
    Billis A, Watanabe IC, Costa MV, Telles GH, Magna LA. Iatrogenic and non-iatrogenic positive margins: incidence, site, factors involved, and time to PSA progression following radical prostatectomy. Int Urol Nephrol 2008; 40: 10511
  • 5
    Pettus JA, Weight CJ, Thompson CJ, Middleton RG, Stephenson RA. Biochemical failure in men following radical retropubic prostatectomy: impact of surgical margin status and location. J Urol 2004; 172: 12932
  • 6
    Catalona WJ, Bigg SW. Nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: evaluation of results after 250 patients. J Urol 1990; 143: 53844
  • 7
    Wieder JA, Soloway MS. Incidence, etiology, location, prevention and treatment of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 1998; 160: 299315
  • 8
    Walsh PC, Donker PJ. Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. J Urol 1982; 128: 4927
  • 9
    Salomon L, Anastasiadis AG, Levrel O et al. Location of positive surgical margins after retropubic, perineal, and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for organ-confined prostate cancer. Urology 2003; 61: 38690
  • 10
    Palisaar RJ, Noldus J, Graefen M, Erbersdobler A, Haese A, Huland H. Influence of nerve-sparing (NS) procedure during radical prostatectomy (RP) on margin status and biochemical failure. Eur Urol 2005; 47: 17684
  • 11
    Sofer M, Hamilton-Nelson KL, Schlesselman JJ, Soloway MS. Risk of positive margins and biochemical recurrence in relation to nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 18538
  • 12
    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: 48994
  • 13
    Nelles JL, Freedland SJ, Presti JC Jr et al. Impact of nerve sparing on surgical margins and biochemical recurrence: results from the SEARCH database. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2009; 12: 1726
  • 14
    Cheng L, Slezak J, Bergstralh EJ, Myers RP, Zincke H, Bostwick DG. Preoperative prediction of surgical margin status in patients with prostate cancer treated by radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 28628
  • 15
    Ackerman DA, Barry JM, Wicklund RA, Olson N, Lowe BA. Analysis of risk factors associated with prostate cancer extension to the surgical margin and pelvic node metastasis at radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1993; 150: 184550
  • 16
    Vickers AJ, Branco FJ, Serio AM et al. The surgical learning curve for prostate cancer control after radical prostatectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007; 99: 11717
  • 17
    Ward JF, Zincke H, Bergstralh EJ, Slezak JM, Myers RP, Blute ML. The impact of surgical approach (nerve bundle preservation versus wide local excision) on surgical margins and biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2004; 172: 132832
  • 18
    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
  • 19
    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: 124550
  • 20
    Stamey TA, Villers AA, McNeal JE, Link PC, Freiha FS. Positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy: importance of the apical dissection. J Urol 1990; 143: 11663
  • 21
    Watson RB, Civantos F, Soloway MS. Positive surgical margins with radical prostatectomy: detailed pathological analysis and prognosis. Urology 1996; 48: 8090
  • 22
    Blute ML, Bostwick DG, Seay TM et al. Pathologic classification of prostate carcinoma: the impact of margin status. Cancer 1998; 82: 9028
  • 23
    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: 74651
  • 24
    Cheng L, Darson MF, Bergstralh EJ, Slezak J, Myers RP, Bostwick DG. Correlation of margin status and extraprostatic extension with progression of prostate carcinoma. Cancer 1999; 86: 177582
  • 25
    Chuang AY, Nielsen ME, Hernandez DJ, Walsh PC, Epstein JI. The significance of positive surgical margin in areas of capsular incision in otherwise organ confined disease at radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2007; 178: 130610
  • 26
    Shuford MD, Cookson MS, Chang SS et al. Adverse prognostic significance of capsular incision with radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 2004; 172: 11923
  • 27
    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: 135763
  • 28
    Blute ML, Bostwick DG, Bergstralh EJ et al. Anatomic site-specific positive margins in organ-confined prostate cancer and its impact on outcome after radical prostatectomy. Urology 1997; 50: 7339
  • 29
    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: 14138
  • 30
    Eastham JA, Kuroiwa K, Ohori M et al. Prognostic significance of location of positive margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology 2007; 70: 9659