Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 90

1.

Preoperative characteristics of the P.R.O.S.T.A.T.E. scores: a novel predictive tool for the risk of positive surgical margin after radical prostatectomy.

Xu B, Luo C, Zhang Q, Jin J.

J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2017 Apr;143(4):687-692. doi: 10.1007/s00432-016-2313-2. Epub 2016 Dec 5.

PMID:
27921275
2.

UK radical prostatectomy outcomes and surgeon case volume: based on an analysis of the British Association of Urological Surgeons Complex Operations Database.

Vesey SG, McCabe JE, Hounsome L, Fowler S.

BJU Int. 2012 Feb;109(3):346-54. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10334.x. Epub 2011 Jul 19.

3.

Impact of surgical margin status on prostate-cancer-specific mortality.

Chalfin HJ, Dinizo M, Trock BJ, Feng Z, Partin AW, Walsh PC, Humphreys E, Han M.

BJU Int. 2012 Dec;110(11):1684-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11371.x. Epub 2012 Jul 12.

4.

Number of positive preoperative biopsy cores is a predictor of positive surgical margins (PSM) in small prostates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).

Tuliao PH, Koo KC, Komninos C, Chang CH, Choi YD, Chung BH, Hong SJ, Rha KH.

BJU Int. 2015 Dec;116(6):897-904. doi: 10.1111/bju.12888. Epub 2015 Jun 2.

5.

A multinational, multi-institutional study comparing positive surgical margin rates among 22393 open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy patients.

Sooriakumaran P, Srivastava A, Shariat SF, Stricker PD, Ahlering T, Eden CG, Wiklund PN, Sanchez-Salas R, Mottrie A, Lee D, Neal DE, Ghavamian R, Nyirady P, Nilsson A, Carlsson S, Xylinas E, Loidl W, Seitz C, Schramek P, Roehrborn C, Cathelineau X, Skarecky D, Shaw G, Warren A, Delprado WJ, Haynes AM, Steyerberg E, Roobol MJ, Tewari AK.

Eur Urol. 2014 Sep;66(3):450-6. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.11.018. Epub 2013 Nov 24.

PMID:
24290695
6.

The impact of prior TURP on radical prostatectomy surgical margins: a multicenter analysis.

Gacci M, Simonato A, Lanciotti M, Ennas M, Varca V, Maffezzini M, Imbimbo C, Gontero P, Schiavina R, Carini M, Martorana G, Nicita G, Mirone V, Carmignani G.

Urol Int. 2013;91(1):62-8. doi: 10.1159/000346748. Epub 2013 May 28.

PMID:
23735440
7.

Predictors of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy at a single institution: preoperative and pathologic factors, and the impact of surgeon variability and technique on incidence and location.

Lallas CD, Fashola Y, Den RB, Gelpi-Hammerschmidt F, Calvaresi AE, McCue P, Birbe R, Gomella LG, Trabulsi EJ.

Can J Urol. 2014 Oct;21(5):7479-86.

PMID:
25347375
8.

Primary Gleason grade 4 at the positive margin is associated with metastasis and death among patients with Gleason 7 prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy.

Viers BR, Sukov WR, Gettman MT, Rangel LJ, Bergstralh EJ, Frank I, Tollefson MK, Thompson RH, Boorjian SA, Karnes RJ.

Eur Urol. 2014 Dec;66(6):1116-24. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.07.004. Epub 2014 Jul 19.

PMID:
25052213
9.
10.

Impact of positive surgical margins on prostate-specific antigen failure after radical prostatectomy in adjuvant treatment-naïve patients.

Ploussard G, Agamy MA, Alenda O, Allory Y, Mouracade P, Vordos D, Hoznek A, Abbou CC, de la Taille A, Salomon L.

BJU Int. 2011 Jun;107(11):1748-54. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09728.x. Epub 2010 Sep 30.

11.

Pre-biopsy 3-Tesla MRI and targeted biopsy of the index prostate cancer: correlation with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Patel U, Dasgupta P, Challacombe B, Cahill D, Brown C, Patel R, Kirby R.

BJU Int. 2017 Jan;119(1):82-90. doi: 10.1111/bju.13525. Epub 2016 Jun 3.

12.
13.

Preoperative characteristics of high-Gleason disease predictive of favourable pathological and clinical outcomes at radical prostatectomy.

Pierorazio PM, Ross AE, Lin BM, Epstein JI, Han M, Walsh PC, Partin AW, Pavlovich CP, Schaeffer EM.

BJU Int. 2012 Oct;110(8):1122-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.10986.x. Epub 2012 Feb 28.

14.

Prediction of pathological and oncological outcomes based on extended prostate biopsy results in patients with prostate cancer receiving radical prostatectomy: a single institution study.

Ishizaki F, Hara N, Koike H, Kawaguchi M, Tadokoro A, Takizawa I, Nishiyama T, Takahashi K, Hohenfellner R.

Diagn Pathol. 2012 Jun 14;7:68.

15.

Stage T1-2 prostate cancer: a multivariate analysis of factors affecting biochemical and clinical failures after radical prostatectomy.

Kupelian PA, Katcher J, Levin HS, Klein EA.

Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997 Mar 15;37(5):1043-52.

PMID:
9169811
16.

Comparison of positive surgical margin rates in high risk prostate cancer: open versus minimally invasive radical prostatectomy.

Harty NJ, Kozinn SI, Canes D, Sorcini A, Moinzadeh A.

Int Braz J Urol. 2013 Sep-Oct;39(5):639-46; discussion 647-8. doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2013.05.05.

17.

Significant reduction in positive surgical margin rate after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by application of the modified surgical margin recommendations of the 2009 International Society of Urological Pathology consensus.

Maxeiner A, Magheli A, Jöhrens K, Kilic E, Braun TL, Kempkensteffen C, Hinz S, Stephan C, Miller K, Busch J.

BJU Int. 2016 Nov;118(5):750-757. doi: 10.1111/bju.13451. Epub 2016 Mar 19.

18.

Positive surgical margins: rate, contributing factors and impact on further treatment: findings from the Prostate Cancer Registry.

Evans SM, Millar JL, Frydenberg M, Murphy DG, Davis ID, Spelman T, Bolton DM, Giles GG, Dean J, Costello AJ, Frauman AG, Kearns PA, Day L, Daniels C, McNeill JJ.

BJU Int. 2014 Nov;114(5):680-90. doi: 10.1111/bju.12509. Epub 2014 Feb 14.

19.
20.

A solitary positive prostate cancer biopsy does not predict a unilateral lesion in radical prostatectomy specimens.

Koie T, Mitsuzuka K, Narita S, Yoneyama T, Kawamura S, Kaiho Y, Tsuchiya N, Tochigi T, Habuchi T, Arai Y, Ohyama C.

Scand J Urol. 2015 Apr;49(2):103-7. doi: 10.3109/21681805.2014.951959. Epub 2014 Aug 28.

PMID:
25165894

Supplemental Content

Support Center