264 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32209629)
21. High Gleason grade carcinoma at a positive surgical margin predicts biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy and may guide adjuvant radiotherapy.
Savdie R; Horvath LG; Benito RP; Rasiah KK; Haynes AM; Chatfield M; Stricker PD; Turner JJ; Delprado W; Henshall SM; Sutherland RL; Kench JG
BJU Int; 2012 Jun; 109(12):1794-800. PubMed ID: 21992536
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Radical prostatectomy and positive surgical margins: relationship with prostate cancer outcome.
De La Roca RL; Da Cunha IW; Bezerra SM; Da Fonseca FP
Int Braz J Urol; 2014; 40(3):306-15. PubMed ID: 25010296
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Clinical outcomes associated with prostate cancer conspicuity on biparametric and multiparametric MRI: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy.
Morka N; Simpson BS; Ball R; Freeman A; Kirkham A; Kelly D; Whitaker HC; Emberton M; Norris JM
BMJ Open; 2021 May; 11(5):e047664. PubMed ID: 33952556
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Differential prognostic impact of different Gleason patterns in grade group 4 in radical prostatectomy specimens.
Mori K; Sharma V; Comperat EM; Sato S; Laukhtina E; Schuettfort VM; Pradere B; Parizi MK; Karakiewicz PI; Egawa S; Tilki D; Boorjian SA; Shariat SF
Eur J Surg Oncol; 2021 May; 47(5):1172-1178. PubMed ID: 33371950
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Close surgical margins after radical prostatectomy mimic biochemical recurrence rates of positive margins.
Whalen MJ; Shapiro EY; Rothberg MB; Turk AT; Woldu SL; Roy Choudhury A; Patel T; Badani KK
Urol Oncol; 2015 Nov; 33(11):494.e9-494.e14. PubMed ID: 26259665
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. NeuroSAFE robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus standard robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy for men with localised prostate cancer (NeuroSAFE PROOF): protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility study.
Dinneen E; Haider A; Allen C; Freeman A; Briggs T; Nathan S; Brew-Graves C; Grierson J; Williams NR; Persad R; Oakley N; Adshead JM; Huland H; Haese A; Shaw G
BMJ Open; 2019 Jun; 9(6):e028132. PubMed ID: 31189680
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. The Role of Prostate-specific Antigen Persistence After Radical Prostatectomy for the Prediction of Clinical Progression and Cancer-specific Mortality in Node-positive Prostate Cancer Patients.
Bianchi L; Nini A; Bianchi M; Gandaglia G; Fossati N; Suardi N; Moschini M; Dell'Oglio P; Schiavina R; Montorsi F; Briganti A
Eur Urol; 2016 Jun; 69(6):1142-8. PubMed ID: 26749093
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Short (≤ 1 mm) positive surgical margin and risk of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy.
Shikanov S; Marchetti P; Desai V; Razmaria A; Antic T; Al-Ahmadie H; Zagaja G; Eggener S; Brendler C; Shalhav A
BJU Int; 2013 Apr; 111(4):559-63. PubMed ID: 22759270
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Prostate carcinoma with positive margins at radical prostatectomy: role of tumour zonal origin in biochemical recurrence.
O'Neil LM; Walsh S; Cohen RJ; Lee S
BJU Int; 2015 Oct; 116 Suppl 3():42-8. PubMed ID: 26218868
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. The significance of micro-lymphatic invasion and pathological Gleason score in prostate cancer patients with pathologically organ-confined disease and negative surgical margins after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.
Hashimoto T; Nakashima J; Inoue R; Komori O; Yamaguchi Y; Kashima T; Satake N; Nakagami Y; Namiki K; Nagao T; Ohno Y
Int J Clin Oncol; 2020 Feb; 25(2):377-383. PubMed ID: 31673831
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Significant reduction in positive surgical margin rate after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by application of the modified surgical margin recommendations of the 2009 International Society of Urological Pathology consensus.
Maxeiner A; Magheli A; Jöhrens K; Kilic E; Braun TL; Kempkensteffen C; Hinz S; Stephan C; Miller K; Busch J
BJU Int; 2016 Nov; 118(5):750-757. PubMed ID: 26915345
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Prostate-specific antigen level, stage or Gleason score: which is best for predicting outcomes after radical prostatectomy, and does it vary by the outcome being measured? Results from Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital database.
Mithal P; Howard LE; Aronson WJ; Kane CJ; Cooperberg MR; Terris MK; Amling CL; Freedland SJ
Int J Urol; 2015 Apr; 22(4):362-6. PubMed ID: 25728968
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Learning curve of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy: Comprehensive evaluation and cumulative summation analysis of oncological outcomes.
Sivaraman A; Sanchez-Salas R; Prapotnich D; Yu K; Olivier F; Secin FP; Barret E; Galiano M; Rozet F; Cathelineau X
Urol Oncol; 2017 Apr; 35(4):149.e1-149.e6. PubMed ID: 28117215
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Superior Biochemical Recurrence and Long-term Quality-of-life Outcomes Are Achievable with Robotic Radical Prostatectomy After a Long Learning Curve-Updated Analysis of a Prospective Single-surgeon Cohort of 2206 Consecutive Cases.
Thompson JE; Egger S; Böhm M; Siriwardana AR; Haynes AM; Matthews J; Scheltema MJ; Stricker PD
Eur Urol; 2018 May; 73(5):664-671. PubMed ID: 29273404
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. [Not Available].
Susperregui J; Pierry C; Bonhomme B; Pasticier G; Bernhard JC; Capon G; Bensadoun H; Ballanger P; Ferrière JM; Robert G
Prog Urol; 2017 Oct; 27(12):632-639. PubMed ID: 28869168
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. External beam radiotherapy versus radical prostatectomy for clinical stage T1-2 prostate cancer: therapeutic implications of stratification by pretreatment PSA levels and biopsy Gleason scores.
Kupelian P; Katcher J; Levin H; Zippe C; Suh J; Macklis R; Klein E
Cancer J Sci Am; 1997; 3(2):78-87. PubMed ID: 9099457
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Importance of Reporting the Gleason Score at the Positive Surgical Margin Site: Analysis of 4,082 Consecutive Radical Prostatectomy Cases.
Kates M; Sopko NA; Han M; Partin AW; Epstein JI
J Urol; 2016 Feb; 195(2):337-42. PubMed ID: 26264998
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Evaluation of Oncological Outcomes and Data Quality in Studies Assessing Nerve-sparing Versus Non-Nerve-sparing Radical Prostatectomy in Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.
Moris L; Gandaglia G; Vilaseca A; Van den Broeck T; Briers E; De Santis M; Gillessen S; Grivas N; O'Hanlon S; Henry A; Lam TB; Lardas M; Mason M; Oprea-Lager D; Ploussard G; Rouviere O; Schoots IG; van der Poel H; Wiegel T; Willemse PP; Yuan CY; Grummet JP; Tilki D; van den Bergh RCN; Cornford P; Mottet N
Eur Urol Focus; 2022 May; 8(3):690-700. PubMed ID: 34147405
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Impact of metabolic syndrome on oncologic outcomes at radical prostatectomy.
Morlacco A; Dal Moro F; Rangel LJ; Carlson RE; Schulte PJ; Jeffrey KR
Urol Oncol; 2018 Dec; 36(12):528.e1-528.e6. PubMed ID: 30446466
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Radical prostatectomy and the effect of close surgical margins: results from the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital (SEARCH) database.
Herforth C; Stroup SP; Chen Z; Howard LE; Freedland SJ; Moreira DM; Terris MK; Aronson WJ; Cooperberg MR; Amling CL; Kane CJ
BJU Int; 2018 Oct; 122(4):592-598. PubMed ID: 29473992
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
