Kausik SJ, Blute ML, Sebo TJ, Leibovich BC, Bergstralh EJ, Slezak J, et al. Prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in patients with extraprostatic carcinoma after radical prostatectomy. Cancer. 2002;95:1215–9.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Swindle P, Eastham JA, Ohori M, Kattan MW, Wheeler T, Maru N, et al. Do margins matter? The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol. 2008;179:S47–51.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Savdie R, Horvath LG, Benito RP, Rasiah KK, Haynes AM, Chatfield M, et al. High Gleason grade carcinoma at a positive surgical margin predicts biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy and may guide adjuvant radiotherapy. BJU Int. 2012;109:1794–1800.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Viers BR, Sukov WR, Gettman MT, Rangel LJ, Bergstralh EJ, Frank I, et al. Primary Gleason grade 4 at the positive margin is associated with metastasis and death among patients with Gleason 7 prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2014;66:1116–24.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Boorjian SA, Tollefson MK, Rangel LJ, Bergstralh EJ, Karnes RJ. Clinicopathological predictors of systemic progression and prostate cancer mortality in patients with a positive surgical margin at radical prostatectomy. Prostate cancer Prostatic Dis. 2012;15:56–62.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Chalfin HJ, Dinizo M, Trock BJ, Feng Z, Partin AW, Walsh PC, et al. Impact of surgical margin status on prostate-cancer-specific mortality. BJU Int. 2012;110:1684–9.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Mauermann J, Fradet V, Lacombe L, Dujardin T, Tiguert R, Tetu B, et al. The impact of solitary and multiple positive surgical margins on hard clinical end points in 1712 adjuvant treatment-naive pT2-4 N0 radical prostatectomy patients. Eur Urol. 2013;64:19–25.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Wright JL, Dalkin BL, True LD, Ellis WJ, Stanford JL, Lange PH, et al. Positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy predict prostate cancer specific mortality. J Urol. 2010;183:2213–8.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL, the IGC. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J surgical Pathol. 2005;29:1228–42.

Article  Google Scholar 

Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Wells G, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, Tugwell P. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. 2013. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp.

Shikanov S, Marchetti P, Desai V, Razmaria A, Antic T, Al-Ahmadie H, et al. Short (≤1 mm) positive surgical margin and risk of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2013;111:559–63.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Marks RA, Koch MO, Lopez-Beltran A, Montironi R, Juliar BE, Cheng L. The relationship between the extent of surgical margin positivity and prostate specific antigen recurrence in radical prostatectomy specimens. Hum Pathol. 2007;38:1207–11.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Preisser F, Coxilha G, Heinze A, Oh S, Chun FK, Sauter G, et al. Impact of positive surgical margin length and Gleason grade at the margin on biochemical recurrence in patients with organ-confined prostate cancer. Prostate. 2019;79:1832–6.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Dev HS, Wiklund P, Patel V, Parashar D, Palmer K, Nyberg T, et al. Surgical margin length and location affect recurrence rates after robotic prostatectomy. Urol Oncol. 2015;33:109.e107–13.

Article  Google Scholar 

Cao D, Kibel AS, Gao F, Tao Y, Humphrey PA. The Gleason score of tumor at the margin in radical prostatectomy is predictive of biochemical recurrence. Am J Surg Pathol. 2010;34:994–1001.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Hollemans E, Verhoef EI, Bangma CH, Rietbergen J, Helleman J, Roobol MJ, et al. Prostate Carcinoma grade and length but not cribriform architecture at positive surgical margins are predictive for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Am J Surg Pathol. 2020;44:191–7.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Hsu M, Chang SL, Ferrari M, Nolley R, Presti JC Jr, Brooks JD. Length of site-specific positive surgical margins as a risk factor for biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy. Int J Urol. 2011;18:272–9.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Huang JG, Pedersen J, Hong MK, Harewood LM, Peters J, Costello AJ, et al. Presence or absence of a positive pathological margin outperforms any other margin-associated variable in predicting clinically relevant biochemical recurrence in Gleason 7 prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2013;111:921–7.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Kates M, Sopko NA, Han M, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Importance of reporting the gleason score at the positive surgical margin site: Analysis of 4,082 consecutive radical prostatectomy cases. J Urol. 2016;195:337–42.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Kim K, Ku J, Lee C, Park W, Ha HK. Cribriform pattern at the surgical margin is highly predictive of biochemical recurrence in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Kosin Med J. 2019;34:95.

Article  Google Scholar 

Ploussard G, Drouin SJ, Rode J, Allory Y, Vordos D, Hoznek A, et al. Location, extent, and multifocality of positive surgical margins for biochemical recurrence prediction after radical prostatectomy. World J Urol. 2014;32:1393–1400.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Servoll E, Vlatkovic L, Sæter T, Nesland JM, Axcrona U, Waaler G, et al. The length of a positive surgical margin is of prognostic significance in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy. Urologia Internationalis. 2014;93:289–95.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Martini A, Gandaglia G, Fossati N, Scuderi S, Bravi CA, Mazzone E, et al. Defining clinically meaningful positive surgical margins in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for localised prostate cancer. Eur Urol Oncol. 2021;4:42–48.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Lee S, Kim KB, Jo JK, Ho JN, Oh JJ, Jeong SJ, et al. Prognostic value of focal positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2016;14:e313–19.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Sooriakumaran P, Ploumidis A, Nyberg T, Olsson M, Akre O, Haendler L, et al. The impact of length and location of positive margins in predicting biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. BJU Int. 2015;115:106–13.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Maxeiner A, Magheli A, Jöhrens K, Kilic E, Braun TL, Kempkensteffen C, et al. Significant reduction in positive surgical margin rate after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by application of the modified surgical margin recommendations of the 2009 International Society of Urological Pathology consensus. BJU Int. 2016;118:750–7.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Sammon JD, Trinh QD, Sukumar S, Ravi P, Friedman A, Sun M, et al. Risk factors for biochemical recurrence following radical perineal prostatectomy in a large contemporary series: a detailed assessment of margin extent and location. Urol Oncol. 2013;31:1470–6.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Porcaro AB, Tafuri A, Sebben M, Amigoni N, Shakir A, Corsi P, et al. Linear extent of positive surgical margin impacts biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in a high-volume center. J Robot Surg. 2020;14:663–75.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Chapin BF, Nguyen JN, Achim MF, Navai N, Williams SB, Prokhorova IN, et al. Positive margin length and highest Gleason grade of tumor at the margin predict for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy in patients with organ-confined prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2018;21:221–7.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Bartoletti R, Johansen T, Bonkat G, Bruyère F, Cek M, Grabe M, et al. European Association of Urology Guidelines - Urological Infections. In, 2016.

Martini A, Marqueen KE, Falagario UG, Waingankar N, Wajswol E, Khan F, et al. Estimated costs associated with radiation therapy for positive surgical margins during radical prostatectomy. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3:e201913.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

John A, John H, Catterwell R, Selth LA, Callaghan MO. Primary Gleason grade and Gleason grade group at positive surgical margins: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int. 2021;127:13–22.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Yossepowitch O, Briganti A, Eastham JA, Epstein J, Graefen M, Montironi R, et al. Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: A systematic review and contemporary update. Eur Urol. 2014;65:303–13.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Fontenot PA, Mansour AM. Reporting positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: Time for standardization. BJU Int. 2013;111:E290–99.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Babaian RJ, Troncoso P, Bhadkamkar VA, Johnston DA. Analysis of clinicopathologic factors predicting outcome after radical prostatectomy. Cancer. 2001;91:1414–22.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Brimo F, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Tumor grade at margins of resection in radical prostatectomy specimens is an independent predictor of prognosis. Urology. 2010;76:1206–9.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Udo K, Cronin AM, Carlino LJ, Savage CJ, Maschino AC, Al-Ahmadie HA, et al. Prognostic impact of subclassification of radical prostatectomy positive margins by linear extent and Gleason grade. J Urol. 2013;189:1302–7.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Psutka SP, Feldman AS, Rodin D, Olumi AF, Wu CL, McDougal WS. Men with organ-confined prostate cancer and positive surgical margins develop biochemical failure at a similar rate to men with extracapsular extension. Urology. 2011;78:121–5.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar