ライフサイエンスコーパス: resection margin

1 oscopically, biopsies were obtained from the resection margin.

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

3 sibly forming the equivalent of an oncologic resection margin.

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

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

6 imary outcome was a positive circumferential resection margin.

7 of the high risk of positive circumferential resection margin.

8 enhanced intraoperative delineation of tumor resection margins.

9 a treatment of superficial tumors and close resection margins.

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

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

12 patients to the dipole localization and the resection margins.

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

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

15 enced centers may result in reduced positive resection margins.

16 ead of abdominoperineal excision may improve resection margins.

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

18 r objective intraoperative assessment of the resection margins.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

35 0int myeloid-derived suppressor cells at the resection margin and increased the number of natural kil

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

46 (11%) had involvement of the circumferential resection margin, and the plane of surgery achieved was

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

48 =18.0% for readmission, </=3.1% for positive resection margins, and >/=23 for lymph node yield.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

56 Negative resection margins are associated with improved outcomes,

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

58 Therefore, extensive resection margins are unnecessary.

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

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

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

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

63 22% less risk of a positive circumferential resection margin compared with an open approach (OR 0.88

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

73 Resection margin did not predict local control for retro

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

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

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

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

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

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

80 92%) demonstrated a negative circumferential resection margin (> 1 mm).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

90 % [one of 98] vs 20% [ten of 50], p<0.0001), resection margin involvement (4% [four of 99] vs 20% [te

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

108 > 60 years (n = 61; 50%), and gross positive resection margin (n = 36; 32%) were predictive of poor s

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

130 Resection margin-positive pancreatic tumors represent a

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

140 Although positive resection margin rates did not significantly change with

141 The positive resection margin rates for abdominoperineal excision wer

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

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

144 udies reported higher than expected positive resection margin rates.

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

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

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

148 Resection margin remained significantly associated with

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

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

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

152 Microscopic resection margins should be considered for inclusion in

153 Positive microscopic resection margins significantly decrease the local recur

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

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

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

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

158 Resection margin status influences survival and a multid

159 Resection margin status is more important than primary o

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

161 Resection margin status remained an independent factor i

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

163 Resection margin status was a significant predictor for

164 Resection margin status was confirmed as an influential

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

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

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

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

169 Resection margin status, resected lymph node status, and

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

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

172 andomization was stratified prospectively by resection margin status.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

198 Resection margins were free of tumor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

206 Resection margin width is independently associated with

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

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

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

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