ArticleCancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center
Evaluating Incidence, Location, and Predictors of Positive Surgical Margin Among Chinese Men Undergoing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy.
Article in Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Initial experience with the novel modular robotic system Carina in urology: a prospective study on safety feasibility and surgical settings.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Development of preoperative nomograms to predict the risk of overall and multifocal positive surgical margin after radical prostatectomy.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2024Article
- Intravoxel incoherent motion predicts positive surgical margins and Gleason score upgrading after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer.La Radiologia medica · 2023Article
- Multiparametric MRI-based nomograms in predicting positive surgical margins of prostate cancer after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the incidence and locations of positive surgical margin (PSM) among Chinese men undergoing RARP and identify the preoperative predictors for PSM.
methodsWe retrospectively identified 393 patients who underwent RARP according to inclusion criteria by single surgeon in our hospital. PSM was defined as the presence of cancer adjacent to inked surface of the specimen and categorized into four groups based on locations: apex, posterolateral, base, and multifocal. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the predictors of overall and location-specific PSM.
resultsThe overall PSM rate was 133/393 (34%). The PSM rates for pT2, pT3, and pT4 stage were 63/278 (23%), 50/89 (56%), and 20/26 (77%), respectively. The estimated rates for apical, posterolateral, basal, and multifocal PSM were 8%, 4%, 7%, and 14%, respectively. In univariate analysis, overall PSM related to tPSA, f/tPSA, percentage of positive needles, and Gleason score. Multifocal PSM correlated with smoking history, drinking history, tPSA, f/tPSA, percentage of positive needles, and Gleason score. In multivariate analysis, percentage of positive needles reminded the only independent predictor for overall (OR = 10.5, 95% CI: 2.58-44.4) and basal PSM (OR = 24.0, 95% CI: 3.22-179.4). The f/tPSA (OR = 2.59, 95% CI: 2.18-5.71) and percentage of positive needles (OR = 31.0, 95% CI: 3.17-303) were independent risk factors for multifocal PSM.
conclusionThe multifocal sites were the most common location of positive surgical margin, followed by apical and basal sites among Chinese patients undergoing RARP. The percentage of positive needles was an independent predictor for overall, basal, and multifocal PSM.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.