Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28211006›Full record

ReviewCurrent urology reports2017

Surgical Margins in Nephron-Sparing Surgery for Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Dean D Laganosky, Christopher P Filson, Viraj A Master

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current urology reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Observational
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Dean D LaganoskyDepartment of Urology, Emory University, 1365 Clifton Road, Clinic B, 5th Floor, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA.
Christopher P FilsonDepartment of Urology, Atlanta Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Emory University, 1365 Clifton Road, Clinic B, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA.
Viraj A MasterDepartment of Urology, Emory University, 1365 Clifton Road, Clinic B, 5th Floor, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA. vmaster@emory.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The oncologic impact of positive surgical margins after nephron-sparing surgery is controversial. Herein, we discuss current data surrounding surgical margins in the operative management of renal cell carcinoma. The prevalence, risk factors, outcomes, and subsequent management of positive surgical margins will be reviewed. Literature suggests that the prevalence of positive surgical margins following kidney surgery varies by practice setting, tumor characteristics, and operation type. For patients undergoing nephron-sparing surgery, it is not necessary to remove a margin of healthy tissue. Tumor enucleation may be appropriate and is associated with comparable outcomes. Reflexive intraoperative frozen section use does not provide beneficial information and many patients with positive margins can be monitored closely with serial imaging. The impact of positive surgical margins on recurrence and survival remains conflicting. Though every effort must be performed to obtain negative margins, a positive surgical margin appears to have a marginal impact on recurrence and survival.

Indexed as

Margins of ExcisionUrologic Surgical ProceduresCarcinoma, Renal CellHumansKidney NeoplasmsNephronsRisk FactorsNephron-sparing surgeryPartial nephrectomyPositive surgical marginsRenal cell carcinomaRenal tumorTumor enucleation

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.