Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40783876›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2025

The perks of combining extension and Gleason score of positive surgical margins after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Stefano Tappero, Daniele Amparore, Mike Wenzel, Riccardo Campi, Francesco Barletta, Umberto Anceschi, Francesco Prata, Edoardo Dibilio, Federico Piramide, Ofir Maltzman and 18 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

28 authors.

Stefano TapperoDepartment of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Piazza dell'Ospedale Maggiore 3, Milan, Italy. stefano.m.tappero@gmail.com.
Daniele AmparoreDivision of Urology, Department of Oncology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Mike WenzelDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Riccardo CampiDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Francesco BarlettaUnit of Urology, Division of Oncology, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Umberto AnceschiDepartment of Urology, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy.
Francesco PrataDepartment of Urology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy.
Edoardo DibilioDepartment of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Piazza dell'Ospedale Maggiore 3, Milan, Italy.
Federico PiramideDivision of Urology, Department of Oncology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Ofir MaltzmanDepartment of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Piazza dell'Ospedale Maggiore 3, Milan, Italy.
Cristina Cano GarciaDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Marco ColomboDepartment of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Piazza dell'Ospedale Maggiore 3, Milan, Italy.
Alfredo TravinoResearch Unit of Urology, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Mariavittoria VescovoOperative Research Unit of Anatomical Pathology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy.
Sabrina De CillisDivision of Urology, Department of Oncology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Carolin SiechDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Alberto CavigliaDepartment of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Piazza dell'Ospedale Maggiore 3, Milan, Italy.
Lorenzo MasieriDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Rossella NicolettiDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Philipp MandelDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Cristian FioriDivision of Urology, Department of Oncology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Giuseppe SimoneDepartment of Urology, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy.
Rocco PapaliaDepartment of Urology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy.
Felix K H ChunDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Sergio SerniDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Francesco PorpigliaDivision of Urology, Department of Oncology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Antonio GalfanoDepartment of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Piazza dell'Ospedale Maggiore 3, Milan, Italy.
Paolo Dell'OglioDepartment of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Piazza dell'Ospedale Maggiore 3, Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe role of positive surgical margins' (PSM) features in terms of cancer control outcomes is unclear. We aimed to test the association between PSM extension combined to highest Gleason score (GS) at margin and PSA persistence, biochemical recurrence (BCR) and clinical recurrence (CR) in prostate cancer (PCa) patients undergone robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). MATERIALS AND

methods2617 PCa patients treated with RARP at six European centers were stratified according to the PSM status and features, as follows): (a) negative SM; (b) focal PSM-GS 3; (c) extensive PSM-GS 3; (d) focal PSM-GS 4-5; (d) extensive PSM-GS 4-5. Multivariable logistic regression models addressed PSA persistence. Kaplan-Meier plots and multivariable Cox regression models addressed BCR and CR according to PSM status and features. Sensitivity analyses in patients with and without adverse pathological features were performed.

resultsOverall, 790 (30%) patients harbored PSM, 31% with GS 3 and 69% with GS 4-5, whereas 51% were focal and 49% were extensive. PSA persistence was independently predicted by "focal and extensive PSM-GS 4-5" combinations (odds ratios 1.57 and 2.17, respectively). BCR free survival at 36 months was 92 vs. 82% in respectively NSM and PSM patients. Only "extensive PSM-GS 4-5" combination was independently associated with BCR (hazard ratio [HR] 2.53). CR free survival at 36 months was 95 vs. 91% in respectively NSM and PSM patients. Only "extensive PSM-GS 4-5" combination was independently associated with CR (HR 1.45).

conclusionsPCa patients harboring "extensive PSM-GS 4-5" combination at final pathology have worse oncological outcomes compared to their NSM counterparts or PSM patients with less unfavorable PSM features. These findings may help to improve patients counselling, especially in case of additional treatments' decision making.

Indexed as

Margins of ExcisionProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresAgedHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalProstate-Specific AntigenRetrospective StudiesProstate-Specific AntigenBiochemical recurrenceClinical recurrencePositive surgical marginsProstate cancerRadical prostatectomy

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.