ライフサイエンスコーパス: resection margin

1 vasion, tumour deposits, and circumferential resection margin).

2 imary outcome was a positive circumferential resection margin.

3 of the high risk of positive circumferential resection margin.

4 oscopically, biopsies were obtained from the resection margin.

5 is lost when the tumor is within 1 mm of the resection margin.

6 sibly forming the equivalent of an oncologic resection margin.

7 o the skin as potential retroareolar en-face resection margin.

8 ssue is associated with tissue damage at the resection margin.

9 ation of the tumor infiltration and thus the resection margin.

10 n-hospital mortality, and the presence of R0 resection margin.

11 n-hospital mortality, and the presence of R0 resection margin.

12 pecimen's surface to detect PC tissue at the resection margin.

13 enhanced intraoperative delineation of tumor resection margins.

14 a treatment of superficial tumors and close resection margins.

15 ents had negative and 460 (22%) had positive resection margins.

16 patients (41%) had positive/close/uncertain resection margins.

17 patients to the dipole localization and the resection margins.

18 for HNSCC, with potential for defining clear resection margins.

19 crease when microscopic CD is present at the resection margins.

20 the histological confirmation of tumour-free resection margins.

21 e to IACC, and prognostic impact of positive resection margins.

22 g surgery with at least 1 mm of clear radial resection margins.

23 xis is beneficial for patients with positive resection margins.

24 nts a medical unmet need to achieve adequate resection margins.

25 2), all fluorescence was observed within the resection margins.

26 enced centers may result in reduced positive resection margins.

27 ead of abdominoperineal excision may improve resection margins.

28 nd there were no positive distal or proximal resection margins.

29 r objective intraoperative assessment of the resection margins.

30 resection was defined as tumor cells at the resection margin (0 mm).

31 %, P < 0.001), and microscopically irradical resection margins (10.1% vs. 13.8%, P = 0.015), and shor

32 Seven patients had involved circumferential resection margins (2.5%), and there were no positive dis

33 margin and 20 (90.9%) had a negative distal resection margin, 2 (9.1%) experienced conversion to ope

34 eas: (1) residual microscopic disease at the resection margin, (2) intraparenchymal spread of neoplas

35 s. 16) and were less likely to have positive resection margins (22.2% vs. 43.7%) (total pancreatectom

36 es (73% v 48%; P < .01), and higher positive resection margin (24% v 17%; P < .01).

37 patients are at high risk of tumor-positive resection margins (51% incidence) after the initial rese

38 ) or perineural (24%) invasion; and positive resection margin (8%).

39 median survival was associated with negative resection margins (87.3 [IQR, 28.5-161.9] months vs 22.9

40 p = 0.02) and higher incidences of negative resection margins (98% vs. 73%, p < 0.0001) and negative

41 enocarcinoma, tumor diameter <3 cm, negative resection margins, absence of lymph node metastases, wel

42 One-mm cancer-free resection margin achieved in patients with colorectal li

43 gic standard of care, as defined by negative resection margin, adequate lymphadenectomy, and receipt

44 ctives of this study were to establish if R1 resection margin after esophagectomy was (i) a poor prog

45 A positive resection margin after PD is considered to be a poor pro

46 atients with positive compared with negative resection margins after abdominoperineal excision [hazar

47 the purpose of reducing the rate of positive resection margins after resection of low rectal cancers.

48 o significant effect of negative microscopic resection margins (AHR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.4 to 2.2; P = 0.8

49 e found that both a negative circumferential resection margin and a superior plane of surgery achieve

50 ype: more microscopic tumour infiltration at resection margin and increased perineural invasion.

51 0int myeloid-derived suppressor cells at the resection margin and increased the number of natural kil

52 Multivariable analysis identified resection margin and nodal status as significant determi

53 We evaluated the relationship between resection margin and OS utilizing high-resolution histol

54 Recognition of the postsurgical resection margin and peri-marginal zones as important an

55 Negative resection margin and the absence of associated venous in

56 ct of the involvement of the circumferential resection margin and the plane of surgery achieved.

57 cision, of whom 93 had microscopically clear resection margins and 21 had pathological complete respo

58 SLSRFA is an effective tool for extending resection margins and for ablating superficial small tum

59 opriate with adequate radiologically-defined resection margins and no portal adenopathy; other factor

60 Information about positive resection margins and subsequent treatment failure was p

61 Resection margins and volumes were compared with histopa

62 oma in situ treated by lumpectomy with clear resection margins and whole breast irradiation were rand

63 oma in situ treated by lumpectomy with clear resection margins and whole-breast irradiation were enro

64 sion, perineural invasion, T-stage, N-stage, resection margin, and adjuvant chemotherapy were correla

65 mber of metastatic tumors < or = 3, negative resection margin, and CEA < 100.

66 rall recurrence, including recurrence at the resection margin, and chance for salvage therapy, define

67 logic outcomes (eg, positive circumferential resection margin, and complete mesorectal excision) were

68 (11%) had involvement of the circumferential resection margin, and the plane of surgery achieved was

69 rcumferential resection margin (CRM), distal resection margin, and TME completeness rates were determ

70 =18.0% for readmission, </=3.1% for positive resection margins, and >/=23 for lymph node yield.

71 r 146 (12.7%) patients with R1<1 mm positive resection margins, and 18.7 (17.2-21.1) months for 359 (

72 c evidence of adenocarcinoma at the surgical resection margins, and 62 consecutive patients found to

73 pT3 disease, positive lymph nodes, positive resection margins, and extended cholecystectomy.

74 n associated with advanced T-stage, positive resection margins, and higher postoperative morbidity an

75 ee survival, disease relapse, positive tumor resection margins, and tumor stage at presentation.

76 ameter, intraoperative blood loss, status of resection margins, and use of postoperative adjuvant the

77 N, for Nodal staging; C, for Circumferential resection margin; and E, for Extramural vascular invasio

78 TS levels in hepatic tumors and resection margin are independent predictors of survival

79 Tumor-positive resection margins are a major problem in oral cancer sur

80 Negative resection margins are associated with improved outcomes,

81 , in up to 18.6% of patients, tumor-positive resection margins are detected on histopathology.

82 could be used to determine whether surgical resection margins are free of tumor cells, or more widel

83 Therefore, extensive resection margins are unnecessary.

84 peutic strategies to target the glioblastoma resection margin as well as emerging opportunities offer

85 reduces the risk of positive circumferential resection margin, as compared with the conventional abdo

86 Current mapping techniques preclude a full resection margin assessment in real time.

87 resection, but an improved understanding of resection margin assessment is required to aid tailored

88 To compare the rate of positive resection margins between radioactive seed localization

89 included tumor site, size, depth, grade, and resection margin but not treatment other than resection.

90 studies suggested a benefit of covering the resection margin by a teres ligament patch.

91 22% less risk of a positive circumferential resection margin compared with an open approach (OR 0.88

92 Robotic surgery resulted in longer distal resection margins compared with open, laparoscopic, and

93 h open, and in more involved circumferential resection margins compared with transanal.

94 ore surgery without any increase in positive resection margins compared with WGL.

95 e risk factors for, positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) after transanal total mesorectal

96 esorectal fascia involvement, circumfrential resection margin (CRM) and local staging in patients wit

97 nvestigate the impact of the circumferential resection margin (CRM) in esophageal cancer on survival

98 Circumferential resection margin (CRM) in rectal cancer surgery is a maj

99 ed with an increased risk of circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement after rectal cancer s

100 imaging (MRI) assessment of circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement is unknown.

101 The rate of positive circumferential resection margin (CRM), defined as 1 mm or less from the

102 The circumferential resection margin (CRM), distal resection margin, and TME

103 iority margins (DeltaNI) for circumferential resection margin (CRM), plane of mesorectal excision (PM

104 or resection with a positive circumferential resection margin (CRM+).

105 Negative circumferential resection margins (CRM) are the cornerstone for the cura

106 The rate of positive circumferential resection margin decreased significantly after perineal

107 Resection margin did not predict local control for retro

108 patients with R0 versus R1 margins but wider resection margins do not confer a survival benefit [57 m

109 , plane of mesorectal excision (PME), distal resection margin (DRM), and a composite outcome ("succes

110 ting the surgeon's ability to best determine resection margins during prostatectomy.

111 complex; N, nodal status; C, circumferential resection margin; E, extramural venous invasion; D, tumo

112 residual occult tumor that can remain at the resection margin following surgery.

113 m, while the distance of distal and proximal resection margin from tumor site was 6.5 and 11.5 respec

114 sections and prospectively evaluate surgical resection margins from pancreatic cancer surgery.

115 No predictive factor of LN+ (base, resection margins, grade, mesoappendix, lymphovascular,

116 Data were stratified by resection margin (group I: FS-R0 --> PS-R0; group II: FS

117 The 5-year OS rates for patients with R0 resection (margin >/=1 mm) and R1 resection were 55% and

118 92%) demonstrated a negative circumferential resection margin (> 1 mm).

119 ial margin (>/=1 mm), and (3) a clear distal resection margin (>/=1 mm).

120 On multivariate analysis, a positive resection margin (hazard ratio, 4.04; P < 0.001) and pos

121 iated with risk of initial recurrence at the resection margin (HR[95% CI] for positive, <1 mm, 1-9.9

122 95% CI 0.85-3.18); positive circumferential resection margins (HR 2.31, 95% CI 1.40-3.79); positive

123 ospital mortality with the presence of an R0 resection margin in case of malignancy.

124 of a clinical trial designed to evaluate the resection margin in patients with oral squamous cell car

125 regular laparoscopy to guide and assess the resection margin in real time.

126 these patients, but 0.0 to 17.6mm behind the resection margin in the 8 patients without VFD.

127 yer's loop was 4.4 to 18.7mm anterior to the resection margin in these patients, but 0.0 to 17.6mm be

128 ONM-100 enables detection of tumor-positive resection margins in 9/9 subjects and four additional ot

129 determine the long-term oncologic impact of resection margins in patients with locally advanced rect

130 Extent of distal resection margins in rectal cancer surgery remains contr

131 Detection of positive resection margins in surgical procedures of high-risk pr

132 n awake craniotomy procedure to confirm safe resection margins in the treatment of her epilepsy.

133 sease, as well as circumferential and distal resection margins, in rectal cancer treated with preoper

134 factors significantly associated with an R1 resection margin included an upper third esophageal tumo

135 need for more accurate techniques to assess resection margins intraoperatively, because on average 2

136 tric cancers that can aid decision-making of resection margins intraoperatively.

137 % [one of 98] vs 20% [ten of 50], p<0.0001), resection margin involvement (4% [four of 99] vs 20% [te

138 The distal resection margin involvement (RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.34-3.6

139 node involvement, pT stage, circumferential resection margin involvement (tumor at < 1 mm from cut e

140 Resection margin involvement rate was significantly lowe

141 Overall postoperative morbidity and resection margin involvement rate were the primary endpo

142 Resection margin involvement was also associated with an

143 Although nodal metastases and resection margin involvement were also associated with p

144 r deposits, and MRI-detected circumferential resection margin involvement were categorised as MRI hig

145 een hospital volume and CRM (circumferential resection margin) involvement, adjusted for other confou

146 to disease being inadvertently close to the resection margin is a major challenge in breast conservi

147 re is consensus that a histological positive resection margin is a predictor of disease recurrence af

148 vides evidence to support the notion that R1 resection margin is a prognostic indication of aggressiv

149 Positive circumferential resection margin is associated with a high rate of local

150 s the infiltration of the proximal or distal resection margin is associated with poor survival and hi

151 SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Resection margin is important to guide therapy and to ev

152 A microscopically clear resection margin is most important in predicting overall

153 The circumferential resection margin is the primary determinant of local rec

154 r, in practice intraoperative delineation of resection margins is challenging.

155 local-regional tumour removal with negative resection margins--is the only curative modality.

156 Survival analyses were stratified by resection margins, lymph node status, and cancer antigen

157 Although this suggests that close resection margins may be used for sphincter preservation

158 s, aggressive attempts at achieving negative resection margins may result in unnecessary morbidity.

159 tality rate, morbidity rate, circumferential resection margin, mesorectal grade, local recurrence (4%

160 End points were circumferential resection margin, mesorectal grade, local recurrence, su

161 oint was quality of surgery (circumferential resection margin, mesorectum grade, and lymph nodes).

162 Circumferential resection margin missingness rates.

163 Patients with an R1 resection margin (n = 242) were compared with those with

164 > 60 years (n = 61; 50%), and gross positive resection margin (n = 36; 32%) were predictive of poor s

165 ents with involvement of the circumferential resection margin (n=676).

166 9-27.2) months for 646 (56.1%) patients with resection margin negative (R0 >1 mm) tumors, 25.4 (21.6-

167 The R0 (circumferential resection margin negative) resection rate was 28%.

168 The impact of resection margin, nodal status, bone resection, and use

169 ir pathology specimens showed smaller distal resection margins; OCR patients had some worse pathology

170 dependent factor of positive circumferential resection margin (odds ratio = 5.25; 95% confidence inte

171 iated with the lowest likelihood of positive resection margins (odds ratio [OR], 0.45; 95% CI: 0.28,

172 .0131) and were less likely to achieve an R0 resection margin [odds ratio 0.19, 95% confidence interv

173 and was associated with extension beyond the resection margin of the optic nerve and scleral involvem

174 ptic nerve invasion, and 7 with tumor at the resection margin of the optic nerve) were evaluated at t

175 distal margin (DM) and/or a circumferential resection margin of the tumor (CRM-T) or of involved nod

176 th 100% for patients with closest histologic resection margins of >/= 1 cm (P =.04).

177 Patients with closest histologic resection margins of less than 1 cm had a 10-year local

178 ations for sphincter preservation, as distal resection margins of only 1 cm may be acceptable for rec

179 s masquerading as microcalcifications at the resection margins of the lumpectomy specimens, but had n

180 icant predictors of positive circumferential resection margin on multivariable analysis.

181 s looking at the role of the circumferential resection margin on survival and local recurrence after

182 In 17.4% of the patients, the initial resection margin on the frozen section histology was not

183 mors and the assessment of residual tumor in resection margins or metastatic lesions in patients with

184 Multivariate analysis identified positive resection margin (OR 48.1, P<0.001) and large tumour siz

185 cer cells present at less than 1 mm from the resection margin) or negative (if the distance between t

186 (P <.001), grade (P <.001), and microscopic resection margin (P <.001) independently predicted DSS f

187 rahepatic disease (P = 0.001), with negative resection margins (P < 0.001), with well/moderately diff

188 idenced by high pathological circumferential resection margin (pCRM) rates and unacceptable variation

189 ad ypT0, ypT1, or ypT2 tumours, and negative resection margins (per-protocol group).

190 node metastasis, high tumor grade, positive resection margin, perineural, and vascular invasion.

191 ic features (lymph node metastases, positive resection margin, poor grade, and tumor size) were recor

192 Invasive component and resection margin positive for IPMN were predictors of re

193 Positive circumferential resection margin, positive distal margin, and inadequate

194 Resection margin-positive pancreatic tumors represent a

195 postoperative complications, circumferential resection margin positivity (CRM+) and other pathologica

196 e vs incomplete radiation dose had a similar resection margin positivity (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.72-1.35

197 lyses of benefit based on lymph node (LN) or resection margin positivity (R1) were prespecified.

198 able regression methods were used to compare resection margin positivity, permanent colostomy rate, 3

199 Tumor size, grade, and resection margin predict outcome for completely resected

200 Intraoperative identification of positive resection margins (PRMs) in high-risk prostate cancer (P

201 ty rates of circumferential and longitudinal resection margins, proportion of Dukes' C2 tumours, and

202 ling was assessed by gastroscopy, histology (resection margin [R] positivity of polypectomy or biopsy

203 Negative resection margin (R0 resection) was achieved in 79.9%.

204 Attainment of negative resection margins (R0) is the key to survival.

205 e resection with no tumor within 1 mm of the resection margins (R0) was achieved in 92% of patients i

206 primary end-point was the rate of tumor-free resection margins (R0); secondary end-points were postop

207 ncer and a microscopically positive surgical resection margin (R1 resection) may be offered chemoradi

208 eural invasion, and microscopically positive resection margin (R1 vs. R0).

209 The prognostic relevance of a positive resection margin (R1) and degrees of dysplasia at the pa

210 Patients with positive microscopic resection margins (R1) have a worse survival, but it is

211 All lesions had negative resection margins (range, 2-45 mm).

212 Although positive resection margin rates did not significantly change with

213 The positive resection margin rates for abdominoperineal excision wer

214 nd a regression analysis to analyze positive resection margin rates reported in the literature.

215 A significant decrease in positive resection margin rates was identified over time for abdo

216 udies reported higher than expected positive resection margin rates.

217 The resection-margin recurrence rate was significantly highe

218 role in the treatment of patients with close resection margins, regional nodal metastasis, or unresec

219 creased with positive compared with negative resection margins (relative risk 4.8, 95% CI 3.2-7.2).

220 y therapy, rates of positive circumferential resection margin remain high in the United States.

221 Resection margin remained significantly associated with

222 BM result in residual tumor at neurosurgical resection margins, representing the source of relapse in

223 pute, however, over the width of cancer-free resection margin required is ongoing.

224 re negative and positive for circumferential resection margin, respectively.

225 SCC received mitomycin in case of tumoral resection margins, respectively (P = .018).

226 Microscopic resection margins should be considered for inclusion in

227 Positive microscopic resection margins significantly decrease the local recur

228 d to an ex vivo sample of a low-grade glioma resection margin, SM-OCT is able to resolve the brain tu

229 En-bloc resection (P = 0.005) but not resection margin status (P > 0.05) was associated with l

230 The aim of this study was to assess resection margin status and its impact on survival after

231 ty of life (QoL), and for those with cancer, resection margin status and time to adjuvant systemic th

232 of the study was to assess the relevance of resection margin status for survival after resection of

233 To assess the relevance of resection margin status for survival outcome after resec

234 Resection margin status influences survival and a multid

235 Resection margin status is more important than primary o

236 alysis was performed to assess the impact of resection margin status on survival, and a regression an

237 Resection margin status remained an independent factor i

238 In the context of adjuvant therapy, the resection margin status remains an important independent

239 Resection margin status was a significant predictor for

240 Resection margin status was confirmed as an influential

241 For the 281 (84.6%) patients with cancer, R0 resection margin status was similar (laparoscopic 106 [7

242 nalysis, adjuvant HAI chemotherapy and an R0 resection margin status were the only independent predic

243 ficiency gain curves for lymph node harvest, resection margin status, and reoperation incidence were

244 , tumor morphology on the primary outcome of resection margin status, and secondary outcomes of overa

245 inical tumor stage, lymphovascular invasion, resection margin status, and surgical resection type.

246 tion, presence of residual disease, T stage, resection margin status, lymph node involvement, and pos

247 lysis showed that overall R1-direct positive resection margin status, positive lymph node status, WHO

248 Resection margin status, resected lymph node status, and

249 the tumor distance from the anal verge, the resection margin status, the T stage, and the use of adj

250 pendent overall survival predictors, but not resection margin status.

251 te, size, depth, histologic type, grade, and resection margin status.

252 andomization was stratified prospectively by resection margin status.

253 tion, lymph node status, tumor diameter, and resection margin status.

254 thological tumor stage, tumor histology, and resection margin status.

255 findings were observed after correcting for resection margin status.

256 Lymph node involvement, resection margins status, tumor differentiation, and com

257 ch as strictureplasty techniques and limited resection margins, such practices by themselves are ofte

258 umor volume reduction ratio, circumferential resection margin, T stage, and occurrence of downstaging

259 oducible system for pathologic evaluation of resection margins, the absence of R2 resections, and the

260 oing abdominoperineal excision with positive resection margins, the reported tumor sites were 57% ant

261 antigen level, and operative factors such as resection margin, use of cryotherapy, intraoperative ult

262 excision (TME)-based resection, in terms of resection margins using whole-mount sections, has not be

263 ility for detecting residual cancer on tumor resection margins, using a genetically engineered primar

264 anatomic resections the optimal width of the resection margin varies with the pathological type of tu

265 gery, tumor size or grade, nodal metastases, resection margin, vascular invasion, perineural invasion

266 The rate of positive circumferential resection margin was 9% and the mesorectum was graded co

267 In addition, resection margin was a significant independent factor fo

268 On multivariate analysis, only a positive resection margin was a significant predictor of reduced

269 Histological cancer-free resection margin was classified as positive (if cancer c

270 The circumferential resection margin was clear in 222 patients (93%) in the

271 of atypia or carcinoma in situ at the ductal resection margin was not associated with a poor outcome.

272 A positive circumferential resection margin was noted in 2859 (17.2%) of the 16,619

273 rahepatic disease, large tumors, or positive resection margin was predictive of poorer outcome.

274 Higher positivity of the circumferential resection margin was reported after laparoscopic anterio

275 ropensity matched analysis confirmed that R1 resection margin was significantly associated with reduc

276 A 1-mm cancer-free resection margin was sufficient to achieve 33% 5-year ov

277 RI findings in identifying residual tumor at resection margins was assessed using histopathology of s

278 erall POM, intraoperative complications, and resection margins, was performed.

279 maximum tumor size, and R1-direct posterior resection margin were all independently significantly as

280 d and the involvement of the circumferential resection margin were assessed by local pathologists, us

281 onent, lymph node positivity, and a positive resection margin were predictors for both survival and r

282 esections were major (>3 segments) in 75 and resection margins were > or = 1 cm in 52.

283 Resection margins were analyzed by two independent patho

284 Resection margins were free of tumor.

285 The resection margins were negative (R0) in 300 patients (83

286 Resection margins were negative in 217 (66.2%) patients

287 Tumor-free resection margins were observed in 78% to 93%, resulting

288 Curative, negative resection margins were obtained in 45% of patients; in t

289 Here, resection margins were positive in 23 cases (11.8%) in t

290 section for rectal cancer, rates of positive resection margins were similar between treatment groups.

291 e patients with local recurrence or positive resection margins were treated.

292 ication of presence or absence of CIN at the resection margins; were tested by cytology or HPV assay

293 a transition zone and proximal pull-through resection margin where ENS was present.

294 emoradiation targets residual disease at the resection margin, which remains poorly defined.

295 Resection margin width is independently associated with

296 imization of selection criteria and surgical resection margins will improve outcome.

297 from the muscularis propria to the mesocolic resection margin with mesocolic plane surgery (mean 44 [

298 samples of the oral tumour and the surgical resection margin with more than 95% sensitivity and spec

299 Also, change-points were observed for resection margin with tumor involvement at 17 cases, wit

300 included MRI-predicted safe circumferential resection margins, with MRI-predicted T2/T3a/T3b (less t