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

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

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

6 Only 4% had positive surgical margins.

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

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

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

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

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

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

13 Positive surgical margins, and development of local recu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

28 2, Gleason score 7 to 10, pT3b/pT4 stage, or positive surgical margins (HR, 0.30; P = .002); and (2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

39 .0006), extracapsular extension (P < .0001), positive surgical margins (P = .028), seminal vesicle in

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

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

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

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

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

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

46 Positive surgical margin rates are similar between the a

47 Acceptable positive surgical margin rates, thorough extended lymph

48 Patients with a positive surgical margin received radiotherapy.

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

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

51 .275, P = 0.0169) and in prostate tumor with positive surgical margins (rho = 0.265, P = 0.0161).

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

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

54 Positive surgical margin was defined as the presence of

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

56 Positive surgical margins were found less frequently in

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

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