ライフサイエンスコーパス: positive surgical margin

1 4) were associated with an increased risk of positive surgical margin.

2 f ILC patients at especially high risk for a positive surgical margin.

3 imaging technique for accurate detection of positive surgical margins.

4 eason score >/=7, vascular infiltration, and positive surgical margins.

5 Seven of the 104 patients (6.7%) had positive surgical margins.

6 excision, such as tarsal tumor location and positive surgical margins.

7 Only 4% had positive surgical margins.

8 Only five (17%) of 30 exhibited positive surgical margins.

9 involved by cancer were all associated with positive surgical margins.

10 ntly completed trials excluded patients with positive surgical margins.

11 were pT3 or T4, 65%; node-positive, 53%; and positive surgical margins, 24%.

12 at prostatectomy (27.3% v 14.4%; P < .001), positive surgical margins (9.8% v 5.9%; P = .02), and hi

13 confidence interval (CI) 1.2-21.1, P=0.028), positive surgical margins and higher stage disease at di

14 minated prognosis in the first year, whereas positive surgical margins and resected extrahepatic dise

15 nal vesicle invasion (SVI), 1,434 (58%) with positive surgical margins, and 390 (16%) who received AD

16 ell tolerated, does not increase the risk of positive surgical margins, and can achieve similar lymph

17 Positive surgical margins, and development of local recu

18 ade tumors, a trend toward increased risk of positive surgical margins, and higher biochemical failur

19 tastatic or unresectable disease at surgery, positive surgical margins, and indolent tumor types (isl

20 nant peripheral-nerve tumor, microscopically positive surgical margins, and lower extremity site were

21 ent disease at presentation, microscopically positive surgical margins, and the histologic subtypes f

22 All patients had >/= pT3a disease, positive surgical margins, and/or pathologic lymph node

23 livary gland cancer who have either close or positive surgical margins are at increased risk for poor

24 nd correlated positively with Gleason score, positive surgical margin, as well as lymph node involvem

25 r to surgery results in a lower incidence of positive surgical margins, but impact on survival is unk

26 tcome, such as extra-prostatic extension and positive surgical margins, but not lymph-node metastases

27 The significantly lower rate of positive surgical margins compared with that in control

28 sis, enables accurate real-time detection of positive surgical margins during nerve-sparing, increasi

29 ured prostate volume and high-grade disease, positive surgical margins, extracapsular extension (all

30 ted with the outcomes of high-grade disease, positive surgical margins, extracapsular extension (all

31 prostatectomy (ie, seminal vesicle invasion, positive surgical margins, extraprostatic extension) and

32 ted NSCLC who underwent upfront surgery with positive surgical margins followed by PORT.

33 Positive surgical margins following radical prostatectom

34 model was used to estimate the odds ratio of positive surgical margins for patients who underwent MR

35 al cohort studies demonstrate lower rates of positive surgical margins, high 10-year and 15-year bioc

36 2, Gleason score 7 to 10, pT3b/pT4 stage, or positive surgical margins (HR, 0.30; P = .002); and (2)

37 III: HR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.88-3.04; P < .001), positive surgical margins (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.34-1.65;

38 79 [95% CI, 1.117-1.465]; P < .001 for all), positive surgical margins (HR, 1.609; 95% CI, 1.512-1.71

39 5-7.0), male sex (HR 4.5; 95% CI, 2.1-10.0), positive surgical margins (HR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.2-6.0), no

40 predictors of inferior 5-year LRRFS, whereas positive surgical margins (HR, 3.5; 95% CI, 2.0-6.3), po

41 VR-SIM confirmed detection of positive surgical margins in 3 out of 4 prostates with p

42 f increased adjuvant therapy associated with positive surgical margins, large-scale studies on the ac

43 nt in number of lymph nodes removed, rate of positive surgical margins, length of stay, or readmissio

44 ostsurgical prostate-specific antigen level, positive surgical margins) may benefit from adjuvant rad

45 t study found that in patients with PTC-TCM, positive surgical margins, node positive disease, and tu

46 As a result, positive surgical margins occur in a significant portion

47 Patients with microscopically positive surgical margins or patients who present with l

48 e of T2 (confined to the prostate but with a positive surgical margin) or T3 (with histologic extensi

49 Positive surgical margins, or cancer cells found at the

50 d prostate cancer (extraprostatic extension, positive surgical margins, or seminal vesicle invasion)

51 sease: OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.81-1.91; P = .31; positive surgical margins: OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.93-2.22;

52 value for detection and characterization of positive surgical margins over traditional histopatholog

53 sidents, and have lymph node involvement and positive surgical margins (P < .05 for all comparisons).

54 These patients also more frequently had positive surgical margins (P = .0005), transcapsular tum

55 .0006), extracapsular extension (P < .0001), positive surgical margins (P = .028), seminal vesicle in

56 Positive surgical margins (P =.003), intra-abdominal pri

57 In univariate models, positive surgical margins (P =.004), tumor size > or = 5

58 associated with a trend for higher rates of positive surgical margins (P =.008).

59 tomy Gleason score of 8 to 10 (P: =.04), and positive surgical margins (P: =.0001).

60 inal vesicle invasion, capsular penetration, positive surgical margin, prostate weight, and preoperat

61 The positive surgical margin (PSM) and biochemical recurrenc

62 son and scored for the likelihood of being a positive surgical margin (PSM) using a 5-point Likert sc

63 ischemia time (WIT) greater than 30 minutes, positive surgical margin (PSM), 30-day emergency departm

64 stopathologic features of pathologic ENE and positive surgical margins (PSM) that are indications for

65 findings to assess the outcomes of ECE, SVI, positive surgical margins (PSM), and postoperative PSA f

66 Three of 10 men had histopathologically positive surgical margins (PSMs), and 2 of 3 PSMs were a

67 a with tumour-positive lymph nodes (ypN+) or positive surgical margins (R1) following neoadjuvant che

68 Gleason sum of 8-10, and 43 of 86 (50%) had positive surgical margins (R1).

69 to undergo preoperative MRI and had a higher positive surgical margin rate.

70 Positive surgical margin rates are similar between the a

71 MRI use and positive surgical margin rates were determined for all p

72 Acceptable positive surgical margin rates, thorough extended lymph

73 Patients with a positive surgical margin received radiotherapy.

74 Location and incidence of positive surgical margins, recurrence, and time to recur

75 g and IFS had one-seventh the risk of having positive surgical margins relative to control patients (

76 .275, P = 0.0169) and in prostate tumor with positive surgical margins (rho = 0.265, P = 0.0161).

77 ies, only architectural distortion predicted positive surgical margin status.

78 h larger cancer volumes and a higher rate of positive surgical margins than posterior prostate cancer

79 However, the definitions of clear, close, or positive surgical margins vary in both the literature an

80 The presence of a microscopically positive surgical margin was an independent adverse prog

81 Positive surgical margin was defined as the presence of

82 ith either pT3 disease or pT2 disease with a positive surgical margin were recruited from 93 academic

83 Rates of positive surgical margins were compared by means of the

84 Positive surgical margins were found less frequently in

85 Positive surgical margins were identified in 252 patient

86 ts, clinical stage II disease vs stage I and positive surgical margins were not associated with use o

87 tors of progression-capsular penetration and positive surgical margins-were not independently predict

88 rate on obese men leading to greater risk of positive surgical margins, which may contribute to poore