Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41674780›Full record

ArticleEuropean urology open science2026

Histology-specific Prognostic Impact of Microscopic Positive Surgical Margins in Renal Cell Carcinoma: Implications for Postoperative Surveillance.

Giacomo Musso, Margaret F Meagher, Mai Dabbas, Giuseppe Garofano, Natalie Birouty, Kit L Yuen, Benjamin Baker, Cesare Saitta, Dattatraya Patil, Kazutaka Saito and 11 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European urology open science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

21 authors.

Giacomo MussoDivision of Experimental Oncology, Unit of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Margaret F MeagherDepartment of Urology, University of California-San Diego School of Medicine, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Mai DabbasDepartment of Urology, University of California-San Diego School of Medicine, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Giuseppe GarofanoDepartment of Urology, University of California-San Diego School of Medicine, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Natalie BiroutyDepartment of Urology, University of California-San Diego School of Medicine, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Kit L YuenDepartment of Urology, University of California-San Diego School of Medicine, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Benjamin BakerDepartment of Urology, University of California-San Diego School of Medicine, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Cesare SaittaDepartment of Urology, University of California-San Diego School of Medicine, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Dattatraya PatilDepartment of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Kazutaka SaitoDepartment of Urology, University of Science Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Yosuke YasudaDepartment of Urology, University of Science Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Hajime TanakaDepartment of Urology, University of Science Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Francesco MontorsiDivision of Experimental Oncology, Unit of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Alberto BrigantiDivision of Experimental Oncology, Unit of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Andrea SaloniaDivision of Experimental Oncology, Unit of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Umberto CapitanioDivision of Experimental Oncology, Unit of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Alessandro LarcherDivision of Experimental Oncology, Unit of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Giuseppe RosielloDivision of Experimental Oncology, Unit of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Yasuhisa FujiiDepartment of Urology, University of Science Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Viraj A MasterDepartment of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Ithaar H DerweeshDepartment of Urology, RUSH-MD Anderson Cancer Center, Chicago, IL, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and objective: Microscopic positive surgical margins (m-PSM) have been associated with adverse outcomes after surgery in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). However, their role in survival outcomes across RCC histologies remains unclear. Our aim was to evaluate the prognostic impact of m-PSM in clear-cell RCC (ccRCC) versus non-clear-cell RCC (nccRCC). Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data for 8270 patients who underwent partial (PN) or radical nephrectomy (RN) for RCC. Patients were grouped as ccRCC or nccRCC (including papillary and chromophobe RCC). Outcomes included overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and recurrence-free survival (RFS). Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariable Cox regression (CoxPH) were used to assess associations between m-PSM and survival endpoints according to histology. Key findings and limitations: Of the 307/8270 patients (3.7%) with m-PSM, 231/6649 (3.5%) were in the ccRCC cohort and 76/1621 (4.7%) in the nccRCC cohort. Patients with m-PSM were more likely to have higher comorbidity, higher pathological grade, locally advanced disease, and PN. Median follow-up was 75 mo (interquartile range 36-126). In ccRCC, m-PSM was negatively associated with OS (5-yr rate: 69% vs 79% for negative margin group; Conclusions and clinical implications: In ccRCC, m-PSM showed consistent associations with overall, cancer-specific and recurrence-free survival. By contrast, in nccRCC, m-PSM was statistically associated with recurrence, while no statistically significant association was observed with OS or CSS within the available follow-up. These findings highlight histology-specific associations between margin status and postoperative outcomes, and further research should focus on investigating the prognostic role of positive surgical margins in the non-clear cell setting. Patient summary: We looked at the presence of a microscopic margin positive for tumor after surgery for kidney cancer (KC) and its association with survival. Positive margins were associated with survival outcomes in clear-cell KC, but not in less common histological KC subtypes. Our results provide subtype-specific information on outcomes for these patients after surgery and show that further research is needed for the different KC subtypes.

Indexed as

Clear cell histologyHistology subtypesNephrectomyNon–clear-cell renal cell carcinomaPositive surgical marginsPrognostic factorsRenal cell carcinomaSurvival analysis

Identifiers

PMID41674780
PMCPMC12887165

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.