ライフサイエンスコーパス: surgical margin

1 ssociated with an increased risk of positive surgical margin.

2 ients at especially high risk for a positive surgical margin.

3 The pattern of failure correlates with surgical margin.

4 , adequate lymph node sampling, and negative surgical margin.

5 ion, lymphatic invasion, and completeness of surgical margin.

6 ly in order for the surgeon to attain a safe surgical margin.

7 xplore the prognostic significance of a 1-mm surgical margin.

8 ful patient selection and achieving negative surgical margins.

9 nts with microscopically positive (R1) final surgical margins.

10 erving surgery and microscopic assessment of surgical margins.

11 ing breast tissue allows resection with wide surgical margins.

12 n a reexcision would be recommended based on surgical margins.

13 evealing organ-confined disease and negative surgical margins.

14 Only 4% had positive surgical margins.

15 e, node status, tumor status, and pathologic surgical margins.

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

17 by cancer were all associated with positive surgical margins.

18 cancer is guided by histologic assessment of surgical margins.

19 ndings were calculated and compared with the surgical margins.

20 ed in minimal repair that was limited to the surgical margins.

21 y evaluates the extent of the lesion and its surgical margins.

22 leted trials excluded patients with positive surgical margins.

23 ivo imaging device that can accurately trace surgical margins.

24 5 enables safe, intraoperative adjustment of surgical margins.

25 n vivo and ex vivo breast tissue samples and surgical margins.

26 ssified by histopathology as having negative surgical margins.

27 technique for accurate detection of positive surgical margins.

28 extend aggressively far beyond conventional surgical margins.

29 re >/=7, vascular infiltration, and positive surgical margins.

30 ergone a mastectomy or lumpectomy with clear surgical margins.

31 even of the 104 patients (6.7%) had positive surgical margins.

32 , such as tarsal tumor location and positive surgical margins.

33 %; this improved to 83% when including close surgical margins ( 1 mm).

34 ancers, 15% had invasive cancer at the final surgical margin, 23% had IPMN without invasive cancer at

35 or T4, 65%; node-positive, 53%; and positive surgical margins, 24%.

36 5 (40.4%) patients had recurrence: 21 at the surgical margin, 56 at another intrahepatic site, 82 at

37 atectomy (27.3% v 14.4%; P < .001), positive surgical margins (9.8% v 5.9%; P = .02), and higher Canc

38 h node sampling (3278 [34.0%]), and negative surgical margin (9312 [96.7%]).

39 wer comorbidity index, low T stage, negative surgical margins, absence of tumor necrosis or distant m

40 ve standard of care with respect to negative surgical margins, adequate lymphadenectomies, and use of

41 ariable analysis, pre-SRT PSA, GS, EPE, SVI, surgical margins, ADT use, and SRT dose were associated

42 ica (NA) and Europe define negative or close surgical margins after lumpectomy and to determine the f

43 11 were identified with a positive or close surgical margin and 9 were identified with a negative ma

44 ere evaluated for enhancement pattern at the surgical margin and for the presence of dural enhancemen

45 .48), whereas surgeon-related variables (ie, surgical margin and resected extrahepatic disease) deter

46 ith pterygia was generally treated with wide surgical margins and cryotherapy, whereas unexpected OSS

47 e interval (CI) 1.2-21.1, P=0.028), positive surgical margins and higher stage disease at diagnosis.

48 Surgical margins and histologic characteristics identifi

49 rognosis in the first year, whereas positive surgical margins and resected extrahepatic disease deter

50 xamination was routinely performed to assess surgical margins and rule out invasive malignancy.

51 nctive tool for intraoperative assessment of surgical margins and surgical decision-making.

52 Immunohistochemical analysis of surgical margins and tumors with an antibody to eIF4E wa

53 , negative lymphovascular invasion, negative surgical margin, and adjuvant chemotherapy were also ass

54 firmed adenocarcinoma at the circumferential surgical margin, and furthermore detected extensive resi

55 s with only one or two liver lesions, a 1-cm surgical margin, and low CEA levels have a 5-year diseas

56 sites, clinical type and size of the lesion, surgical margin, and risk habits.

57 vailable: primary site, size, mitotic index, surgical margins, and 2 or more years of follow-up.

58 le invasion (SVI), 1,434 (58%) with positive surgical margins, and 390 (16%) who received ADT (median

59 an extended lymph node dissection, negative surgical margins, and a continent urinary diversion.

60 Pre-SRT PSA, GS, SVI, surgical margins, and ADT use were associated with DM, w

61 d for patients with microscopically involved surgical margins, and anti-HER2 therapy was optional.

62 ated, does not increase the risk of positive surgical margins, and can achieve similar lymph node cou

63 Positive surgical margins, and development of local recurrence pr

64 ential to guide core needle biopsies, assess surgical margins, and evaluate nodal involvement in brea

65 s, a trend toward increased risk of positive surgical margins, and higher biochemical failure rates a

66 or unresectable disease at surgery, positive surgical margins, and indolent tumor types (islet cell t

67 pheral-nerve tumor, microscopically positive surgical margins, and lower extremity site were adverse

68 se at presentation, microscopically positive surgical margins, and the histologic subtypes fibrosarco

69 n score, extraprostatic extension, status of surgical margins, and time to disease progression after

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

71 factors beyond the presence of disease at a surgical margin are responsible for the abbreviated surv

72 and cancer who have either close or positive surgical margins are at increased risk for poorer local

73 Surgical margins are determined by histopathologic analy

74 es, stained, and imaged to determine whether surgical margins are free of tumor cells-a costly and ti

75 Re-excisions to obtain clear surgical margins are required more often in patients wit

76 nt to perform pancreaticoduodenectomy unless surgical margins are widely clear, choosing rather to pe

77 ve or in situ disease that touched the inked surgical margin) as one of the following: negative, clos

78 ated positively with Gleason score, positive surgical margin, as well as lymph node involvement (P =

79 y could be routinely used for intraoperative surgical margin assessment of pancreatic cancer.

80 ve assay for the early detection and for the surgical-margin assessment of epithelial cancers of the

81 polymer buttress, to be implanted along the surgical margin at the time of tumor resection, for achi

82 f these patients were found to have negative surgical margins at final pathologic examination.

83 nical ability of the surgeon to obtain clear surgical margins at the initial resection remains crucia

84 y-calibrated models that help select optimal surgical margins based upon the patient's histopathologi

85 ery results in a lower incidence of positive surgical margins, but impact on survival is unknown.

86 ch as extra-prostatic extension and positive surgical margins, but not lymph-node metastases.

87 have disease-free survival advantage despite surgical margin clearance (9 months for <1-mm vs 12 mont

88 s associated with higher rates of tumor-free surgical margins compared with LE (95% v 76%; P < .001).

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

90 Surgical margin contrast enhancement was present and inc

91 eIF4E elevation in histologically tumor-free surgical margins correlated with a higher local-regional

92 verexpression in histologically "tumor-free" surgical margins correlates with a high recurrence rate.

93 red fluorescent (NIRF)-guided delineation of surgical margins could greatly enhance the diagnosis, st

94 ide field early epithelial cancer diagnosis, surgical margin detection and energy-based tissue fusion

95 wed nonsignificant improvements with shorter surgical margin distance (1- to 5-mm margins), and no as

96 l; longer survival was observed with greater surgical margin distance among patients with oral cavity

97 findings support variable interpretation of surgical margin distance based on the primary site and H

98 ) was calculated to examine association with surgical margin distance, primary site, and survival, wi

99 The width of a negative surgical margin does not affect survival, recurrence ris

100 sulted in an increased incidence of negative surgical margin during the period examined.

101 les accurate real-time detection of positive surgical margins during nerve-sparing, increasing the li

102 surgery, showing promise in the detection of surgical margins during robot-assisted radical prostatec

103 In histologically tumor-free surgical margins, elevated levels of eIF4E predict a sig

104 Surgical margin enhancement was absent after day 30, alt

105 efits to patients of the use of DESI-MSI for surgical margin evaluation is also needed to determine i

106 tate volume and high-grade disease, positive surgical margins, extracapsular extension (all P < or =

107 the outcomes of high-grade disease, positive surgical margins, extracapsular extension (all P < or =

108 ific antigen, clinical stage, Gleason score, surgical margin, extraprostatic extension, and seminal v

109 tomy (ie, seminal vesicle invasion, positive surgical margins, extraprostatic extension) and salvage

110 who underwent upfront surgery with positive surgical margins followed by PORT.

111 Positive surgical margins following radical prostatectomy increas

112 dence of residual tumor (defined as negative surgical margins) following radical prostatectomy and no

113 for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) guideline on surgical margins for breast-conserving surgery with whol

114 To describe surgeons' approach to surgical margins for invasive breast cancer, and changes

115 roborate the utility of DESI-MS in assessing surgical margins for maximal safe tumor resection.

116 used to estimate the odds ratio of positive surgical margins for patients who underwent MR imaging a

117 a Mohs surgeon can enhance determination of surgical margins for the first stage of MMS, potentially

118 levels, determine potential curability, and surgical margin governs the patterns of failure and outc

119 studies demonstrate lower rates of positive surgical margins, high 10-year and 15-year biochemical r

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

121 2.39; 95% CI, 1.88-3.04; P < .001), positive surgical margins (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.34-1.65; P < .001)

122 I, 1.117-1.465]; P < .001 for all), positive surgical margins (HR, 1.609; 95% CI, 1.512-1.712; P < .0

123 (HR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.7-3.2; P<.001), negative surgical margins (HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.5; P<.001), PSA

124 ale sex (HR 4.5; 95% CI, 2.1-10.0), positive surgical margins (HR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.2-6.0), nodal posit

125 s of inferior 5-year LRRFS, whereas positive surgical margins (HR, 3.5; 95% CI, 2.0-6.3), positive ly

126 rstanding of residual disease biology at the surgical margin, identifies mechanisms of therapy resist

127 nt to standard pathology for examining close surgical margins, identifying lymph node involvement, an

128 ages II to III disease) and documented clear surgical margins (ie, stages II to III disease).

129 nts with organ-confined disease and negative surgical margins, implying that this risk is not related

130 VR-SIM confirmed detection of positive surgical margins in 3 out of 4 prostates with pathology-

131 Clearance of surgical margins in cervical cancer prevents the need fo

132 es in nine (22%), and at anterior or lateral surgical margins in four (9%).

133 Postoperative radiation therapy for close surgical margins in low- to intermediate-grade salivary

134 Achieving cancer-free surgical margins in oncologic surgery is critical to red

135 nd the likelihood of surgeons obtaining wide surgical margins in preparation for breast-conserving ra

136 ty to identify microscopic tumors and assess surgical margins in real-time during oncologic surgery l

137 The assessment and management of surgical margins in stage I and II oral cavity squamous

138 nology that might have the ability to assess surgical margins intraoperatively during prostatectomy u

139 luminescence imaging (CLI) for assessment of surgical margins intraoperatively during radical prostat

140 location, depth, size, microscopic status of surgical margins, invasion of bone or neurovascular stru

141 Notably, three out of four surgical margins involved with cancer cells were accurat

142 Surgical margin is an important prognostic factor in pat

143 During MMS, unlike WLE, the entire cutaneous surgical margin is evaluated intraoperatively for tumor

144 ss of margin width, as a progressively wider surgical margin is unlikely to reduce LR.

145 Adequacy of surgical margins is a subject of debate in the literatur

146 within PDACs of advanced stage and negative surgical margins, K17 at both mRNA and IHC level is suff

147 ed adjuvant therapy associated with positive surgical margins, large-scale studies on the accuracy of

148 ber of lymph nodes removed, rate of positive surgical margins, length of stay, or readmissions.

149 local recurrence, select patients with close surgical margins (<=1 mm) may safely be considered for o

150 %; this improved to 83% when including close surgical margins (<=1 mm).

151 ariables plus 4 additional clinical factors (surgical margin, LVSI, pathologic LN metastasis, and adj

152 The use of molecular markers to establish surgical margins may decrease local recurrence.

153 al prostate-specific antigen level, positive surgical margins) may benefit from adjuvant radiotherapy

154 preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen, clear surgical margins, medical oncology referral for stages I

155 e data related to the definitions related to surgical margins, methods for assessment, specimen vs tu

156 r grade (well differentiated: 2.2; 1.5-3.0), surgical margin (negative: 1.9; 1.4-2.6), pathologic M s

157 ound that in patients with PTC-TCM, positive surgical margins, node positive disease, and tumor size

158 Surgical margin, number of lesions, and carcinoembryonic

159 ength of stay, unplanned 30-day readmission, surgical margins, number of lymph nodes harvested, and r

160 Inadequate surgical margins occur frequently in oral squamous cell

161 As a result, positive surgical margins occur in a significant portion of tumor

162 Group 3 (n = 1) had invasion of the surgical margin of the optic nerve and/or microscopic ex

163 Mohs micrographic surgery stages with final surgical margins of at least 10 mm were defined as ASE l

164 sion of eIF4E in histologically "tumor-free" surgical margins of head and neck squamous cell cancer (

165 covering 1 cm(2) regions were acquired from surgical margins of lumpectomy specimens, registered wit

166 xpression of p53 and eIF4E in the tumors and surgical margins of squamous cell cancers of the larynx

167 tive histopathology identifies cancer in the surgical margins of the excised specimen.

168 hese mechanisms help to explain why generous surgical margins offer no greater protection against loc

169 Patients with microscopically positive surgical margins or patients who present with locally re

170 There were higher rates of clear surgical margins (OR: 1.64, 95%CI: 1.32 to 2.05, p < 0.0

171 confined to the prostate but with a positive surgical margin) or T3 (with histologic extension beyond

172 Positive surgical margins, or cancer cells found at the boundary

173 e cancer (extraprostatic extension, positive surgical margins, or seminal vesicle invasion) were rand

174 , 1.25; 95% CI, 0.81-1.91; P = .31; positive surgical margins: OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.93-2.22; P = .11).

175 sparities in preoperative breast MRI use and surgical margin outcomes among patients with recently di

176 r detection and characterization of positive surgical margins over traditional histopathology.

177 likely than White patients to have negative surgical margins overall (odds ratio [OR], 0.96 [95% CI,

178 de (P < .001), PSA doubling time (P < .001), surgical margins (P < .001), androgen-deprivation therap

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

180 e patients also more frequently had positive surgical margins (P = .0005), transcapsular tumor spread

181 xtracapsular extension (P < .0001), positive surgical margins (P = .028), seminal vesicle invasion (P

182 Positive surgical margins (P =.003), intra-abdominal primary tumo

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

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

185 son score of 8 to 10 (P: =.04), and positive surgical margins (P: =.0001).

186 he naked eye that may result in tumor at the surgical margins ('positive margins').

187 iven sampling may be associated with reduced surgical margin positivity rates, which often necessitat

188 cle invasion, capsular penetration, positive surgical margin, prostate weight, and preoperative prost

189 Gleason score, preradiotherapy PSA level, surgical margins, PSADT, and seminal vesicle invasion ar

190 The positive surgical margin (PSM) and biochemical recurrence (BCR) a

191 cored for the likelihood of being a positive surgical margin (PSM) using a 5-point Likert scale.

192 time (WIT) greater than 30 minutes, positive surgical margin (PSM), 30-day emergency department (ED)

193 ogic features of pathologic ENE and positive surgical margins (PSM) that are indications for possible

194 to assess the outcomes of ECE, SVI, positive surgical margins (PSM), and postoperative PSA failure.

195 e of 10 men had histopathologically positive surgical margins (PSMs), and 2 of 3 PSMs were accurately

196 b+pT4 vs pT2: HR, 1.91 [95% CI, 1.39-2.67]), surgical margins (R0 vs R1+R2+Rx: HR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.48

197 ntermediate-grade tumors, with the following surgical margins: R0 in 673 (78%), R1 in 168 (19%), and

198 mour-positive lymph nodes (ypN+) or positive surgical margins (R1) following neoadjuvant chemotherapy

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

200 o preoperative MRI and had a higher positive surgical margin rate.

201 Positive surgical margin rates are similar between the approaches

202 MRI use and positive surgical margin rates were determined for all patients a

203 Acceptable positive surgical margin rates, thorough extended lymph node diss

204 e pathology identifies residual tumor at the surgical margins, re-excision surgeries are often necess

205 Patients with a positive surgical margin received radiotherapy.

206 th positive margins were more likely to have surgical margin recurrence (P = 0.003).

207 verse biologic factors and increased risk of surgical-margin recurrence.

208 Location and incidence of positive surgical margins, recurrence, and time to recurrence wer

209 Clear surgical margins reduce the risk of local recurrence, im

210 had one-seventh the risk of having positive surgical margins relative to control patients (adjusted

211 Achieving a clean surgical margin represents a technical challenge with im

212 ous OL, advanced age, female sex, inadequate surgical margin, retrospective data, and betel quid chew

213 0.0169) and in prostate tumor with positive surgical margins (rho = 0.265, P = 0.0161).

214 Surgical margins seem similar between most reported seri

215 r size, lack of nodal involvement, and clear surgical margins, she met recommended MammoSite criteria

216 d head and neck cancer (LAHNC) with negative surgical margins (SM negative) and no extracapsular exte

217 Multivariate analysis revealed that only surgical margin status (P = .050; hazard ratio [HR], 1.7

218 m assignment (1:1) was stratified by center, surgical margin status (R0 v R1), PSA before salvage tre

219 The surgical margin status after breast-conserving surgery i

220 al liver metastases, the association between surgical margin status and survival has become controver

221 son score, pathological T state, N stage and surgical margin status and that is also prognostic for d

222 Local disease control as measured by surgical margin status appears to be at least equivalent

223 sponse, whereas pT stage, Gleason score, and surgical margin status did not.

224 Surgical margin status in cancer surgery represents an i

225 uracy of frozen sections in predicting final surgical margin status in HPV-related OPSCC are imperati

226 ns, IFSH has limitations in predicting final surgical margin status in HPV-related OPSCC, particularl

227 ine the preoperative factors associated with surgical margin status in patients who underwent radical

228 specimens were independently associated with surgical margin status in patients who underwent radical

229 Final surgical margin status is the definitive assessment of t

230 Several large studies now indicate that the surgical margin status may be a more reliable indicator

231 clinical predictors, including PSA, T-stage, surgical margin status or Gleason score (P < 0.002).

232 Positive final surgical margin status was associated with worse disease

233 FSH for individual margins and overall final surgical margin status was evaluated through calculating

234 F-beta(1) level, pathologic Gleason sum, and surgical margin status were predictors of PSA progressio

235 dicators (lymph node status, tumor size, and surgical margin status) as well as duodenal invasion and

236 endent of Gleason grade, pT stage, pN stage, surgical margin status, and preoperative PSA.

237 ch as Gleason score, pathologic tumor stage, surgical margin status, and presurgery PSA (hazard ratio

238 After controlling for surgical margin status, BMI > or = 35 kg/m(2) remained a

239 rms of tumor number, tumor size, tumor type, surgical margin status, complexity of operation, or peri

240 gen concentration, seminal vesicle invasion, surgical margin status, extracapsular extension, lymph n

241 re, prostate-specific antigen concentration, surgical margin status, extracapsular extension, seminal

242 clinical predictors, including PSA, T stage, surgical margin status, or Gleason score (P < 0.002).

243 atterns 4 and 5, Gleason score, tumor stage, surgical margin status, preoperative prostate-specific a

244 en Gleason sum, prostatic capsular invasion, surgical margin status, seminal vesicle invasion, and ly

245 were resected lymph node status, tumor size, surgical margin status, time to progression, and time to

246 only 21.7% in determining the overall final surgical margin status, with 18 patients (7.1%) having a

247 pability of the tumor did not correlate with surgical margin status.

248 men was reviewed for each patient to confirm surgical margin status.

249 , and receptor status were not predictive of surgical margin status.

250 architectural distortion predicted positive surgical margin status.

251 stage (pT3/T4N0, pT3/T4Nx and pTanyN+), and surgical margin status.

252 ions of this modality in assessing the final surgical margin status.

253 pathologic T stage, pathologic N stage, and surgical margin status.

254 , and outpatient records, including detailed surgical margin status.

255 For WLE-treated tumors, the surgical margin taken was greater for tumors that recurr

256 cancer volumes and a higher rate of positive surgical margins than posterior prostate cancer.

257 cimens and were more likely to have negative surgical margins than were patients initially evaluated

258 d with a linear hypodense demarcation at the surgical margin that also demonstrates a symmetrical rim

259 age of cancer in the biopsy as predictors of surgical margins, the overall accuracy as measured by th

260 affect long-term survival, and attention to surgical margins together with improved radiotherapy tec

261 the definitions of clear, close, or positive surgical margins vary in both the literature and in prac

262 The presence of a microscopically positive surgical margin was an independent adverse prognostic fa

263 Positive surgical margin was defined as the presence of cancer ce

264 gin of 8 mm or more (equivalent to a >/=1 cm surgical margin) was associated with increased local and

265 r pT3 disease or pT2 disease with a positive surgical margin were recruited from 93 academic, communi

266 olling for patient age and previous surgery, surgical margins were a mean of 0.76 mm (95% CI, 0.67-0.

267 For cancer resections, negative surgical margins were achieved in 82% to 100% of reporte

268 Surgical margins were analysed for eIF4E in 23 patients.

269 , whereas number of positive lymph nodes and surgical margins were associated with the largest decrea

270 Final surgical margins were close, but negative in 100 patient

271 Rates of positive surgical margins were compared by means of the McNemar t

272 Positive surgical margins were found less frequently in the patie

273 Positive surgical margins were identified in 252 patients (30.1%)

274 raffin-embedded sections from the tumors and surgical margins were immunostained with antibodies to e

275 t-naive pT4aN0 oral cavity SCC with negative surgical margins were included.

276 Surgical margins were less often positive in the TEMS gr

277 umber for malignant cases was 13.5 to 27 and surgical margins were negative in all cases.

278 Surgical margins were negative.

279 cal stage II disease vs stage I and positive surgical margins were not associated with use of radiati

280 1%-76%) and of 22% (95% CI, 6%-38%) when the surgical margins were positive and negative, respectivel

281 Surgical margins were positive for 24% (n = 58) and 31%

282 Surgical margins were positive in 42% (n = 231) and nega

283 local failures occurred in 12 patients whose surgical margins were positive.

284 At the time of excision, surgical margins were statistically more frequently posi

285 As a proof of concept, breast surgical margins were swabbed in vivo during surgeries a

286 rgins more than 16 mm, corresponding to 2-cm surgical margins, were associated with better local cont

287 th negative (ie, no detectable cancer cells) surgical margins, were randomly assigned (1:1) using a b

288 rogression-capsular penetration and positive surgical margins-were not independently predictive of fa

289 current guidelines recommend at least a 2-cm surgical margin (which corresponds to a 16-mm histopatho

290 bese men leading to greater risk of positive surgical margins, which may contribute to poorer outcome

291 nt breast tissue are removed to achieve wide surgical margins while the remaining glandular tissue is

292 t have been completely excised with adequate surgical margins) who had not received previous systemic

293 The authors assess the effect of surgical margin width on recurrence rates after intestin

294 Fluorescent spots identified in the surgical margin with signal-to-background ratios (SBR) o

295 ation of high tumor cell percentage (TCP) at surgical margins with 93% sensitivity and 83% specificit

296 ssue to provide histologic-quality images of surgical margins without physical sectioning.