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

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

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

7 erving surgery and microscopic assessment of surgical margins.

8 ing breast tissue allows resection with wide surgical margins.

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

10 evealing organ-confined disease and negative surgical margins.

11 Only 4% had positive surgical margins.

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

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

14 by cancer were all associated with positive surgical margins.

15 cancer is guided by histologic assessment of surgical margins.

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

17 ndings were calculated and compared with the surgical margins.

18 ssified by histopathology as having negative surgical margins.

19 extend aggressively far beyond conventional surgical margins.

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

21 ergone a mastectomy or lumpectomy with clear surgical margins.

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

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

24 ful patient selection and achieving negative surgical margins.

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

26 5 (40.4%) patients had recurrence: 21 at the surgical margin, 56 at another intrahepatic site, 82 at

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

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

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

30 11 were identified with a positive or close surgical margin and 9 were identified with a negative ma

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

44 Positive surgical margins, and development of local recurrence pr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

53 Surgical margins are determined by histopathologic analy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

67 Surgical margin contrast enhancement was present and inc

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

75 Surgical margin enhancement was absent after day 30, alt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

89 (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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

99 Surgical margin is an important prognostic factor in pat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

107 Surgical margin, number of lesions, and carcinoembryonic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

132 Positive surgical margin rates are similar between the approaches

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

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

135 Patients with a positive surgical margin received radiotherapy.

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

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

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

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

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

141 0.0169) and in prostate tumor with positive surgical margins (rho = 0.265, P = 0.0161).

142 Surgical margins seem similar between most reported seri

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

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

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

146 The surgical margin status after breast-conserving surgery i

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

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

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

150 Surgical margin status in cancer surgery represents an i

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

168 architectural distortion predicted positive surgical margin status.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

181 Surgical margins were analysed for eIF4E in 23 patients.

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

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

184 Positive surgical margins were found less frequently in the patie

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

186 Surgical margins were less often positive in the TEMS gr

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

188 Surgical margins were negative.

189 1%-76%) and of 22% (95% CI, 6%-38%) when the surgical margins were positive and negative, respectivel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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