The DOI matches its Crossref record.
INCIDENCE, ETIOLOGY, LOCATION, PREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF POSITIVE SURGICAL MARGINS AFTER RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY FOR PROSTATE CANCER
Abstract
PURPOSE: During radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer tumor at the surgical margin is a relatively frequent finding. We summarize the literature on the incidence, etiology, location, prevention and treatment of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The literature was reviewed for data on positive margins during radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. RESULTS: Positive surgical margins may result from artifacts induced by tissue processing, incising inadvertently into the prostate or incising into extraprostatic tumor that has extended beyond the limits of resection. Patients with 10 ng./ml. or greater preoperative prostate specific antigen, biopsy Gleason score 7, multiple positive biopsies, or clinical stage T2b, T2c or T3 cancer have a higher risk of positive margins. Preoperative endorectal magnetic resonance imaging may be useful in staging a select group of patients. Neoadjuvant androgen deprivation reduces the incidence of positive margins but does not appear to delay progression or improve survival. The surgical approach, retropubic or perineal, may influence the location and etiology of positive margins. In general, nerve and bladder neck sparing procedures do not compromise tumor removal in appropriately selected patients. Positive margins increase the risk of progression and correlate with decreased cancer specific and overall survival. There is no consensus on the management of positive margins. External beam radiation and androgen deprivation may be administered as adjuvant therapy or at the time of recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Tumor at the specimen edge is an adverse prognostic factor. With appropriate patient selection and meticulous surgical technique some positive margins can be prevented. Controlled prospective randomized studies of postoperative therapy are needed before definitive recommendations can be made for treating positive margins.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Prognostic Factors in Prostate Cancer: College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999
Bostwick, D. G., Grignon, D. J., Hammond, M. E. H., Amin, M. B., Cohen, M., Crawford, D., Gospadarowicz, M., Kaplan, R. S., Miller, D. S., Montironi, R., et al. (2000) · Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine · doi:10.5858/2000-124-0995-pfipc · Cited by 1,239
CANCER CONTROL WITH RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY ALONE IN 1,000 CONSECUTIVE PATIENTS
HULL, G. W., RABBANI, F., ABBAS, F., WHEELER, T. M., KATTAN, M. W., & SCARDINO, P. T. (2002) · Journal of Urology · doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(01)69079-7 · Cited by 964
Fluorescence-guided surgery with live molecular navigation — a new cutting edge
Nguyen, Q. T., & Tsien, R. Y. (2013) · Nature Reviews Cancer · doi:10.1038/nrc3566 · Cited by 553
Nagaya, T., Nakamura, Y. A., Choyke, P. L., & Kobayashi, H. (2017) · Frontiers in Oncology · doi:10.3389/fonc.2017.00314 · Cited by 398
LAPAROSCOPIC RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY
TRABULSI, E. J., & GUILLONNEAU, B. (2005) · Journal of Urology · doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000154970.63147.90 · Cited by 393
Metadata
- Authors
- WIEDER, J. A., & SOLOWAY, M. S.
- Venue
- Journal of Urology
- Published
- 1998-08
- Volume
- 160
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 299-315
- ISSN
- 0022-5347 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-3792
- OpenAlex
- W2083276521
- Cited by
- 381
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 13.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: INCIDENCE, ETIOLOGY, LOCATION, PREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF POSITIVE SURGICAL MARGINS AFTER RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY FOR PROSTATE CANCER. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0022-5347(01)62881-7
- The paper
- WIEDER, J. A., & SOLOWAY, M. S. (1998). INCIDENCE, ETIOLOGY, LOCATION, PREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF POSITIVE SURGICAL MARGINS AFTER RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY FOR PROSTATE CANCER. Journal of Urology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(01)62881-7
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.