[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-446235-105":59,"doc-detail-446235-en":134},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":127,"head_meta":129,"extra_data":131,"updated_unix":133},105,"en","predictors-of-biochemical-recurrence-in-patients-with-positive-surgical-margin-after-radical-prostatectomy","Predictors of Biochemical Recurrence in Patients with Positive Surgical Margin After Radical Prostatectomy","","Objective: investigate predictors of biochemical recurrence (BCR) in patients with positive surgical margins (PSMs) after radical prostatectomy (RP). Methods: retrospectively review open RP patients from 2003–2011; include only PSM with negative lymph node invasion. Use multivariable Cox regression to assess associations between clinicopathologic criteria and BCR. Results: 80/116 (69%) developed BCR; 5- and 10-year BCR-free survival 43% and 28%. PV, highest margin Gleason grade, and tumor Gleason groups were significant, while multivariable analysis retained PV as independent predictor.",{"@graph":69,"@context":126},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":35,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/healthcare/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/predictors-of-biochemical-recurrence-in-patients-with-positive-surgical-margin-after-radical-prostatectomy/446235/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/predictors-of-biochemical-recurrence-in-patients-with-positive-surgical-margin-after-radical-prostatectomy/446235.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"นรินทร์","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-07","2026-09-29",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":39},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118,122],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What question does the study address about positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"It examines which clinical and pathological factors predict biochemical recurrence in patients who have positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"Who were the included patients and what analyses were performed?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"Patients who underwent open radical prostatectomy between 2003 and 2011 were reviewed; only those with positive surgical margins and negative lymph node invasion were analyzed. Multivariable Cox regression evaluated correlations between clinicopathologic factors and biochemical recurrence.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"Which predictor remained significant in multivariable analysis?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"Prostate volume (PV) remained an independent predictor of biochemical recurrence, with smaller prostates showing a higher probability of BCR.",{"name":123,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":124},"What is the study’s practical implication for pathology reporting at the surgical margin?",{"text":125,"@type":113},"The highest Gleason grade at the margin showed important predictive accuracy and should be reported in the pathology report.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":128,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":130,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":132,"site_id":62},446235,1790740126,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":135},{"doc_id":132,"user_id":136,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":137,"doc_module":4,"category_id":34,"category_name":35,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":138,"file_id":139,"file_url":140,"file_type":141,"file_size":142,"view_count":39,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":24,"language":143,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":144,"faqs":145,"seo_title":146,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":147,"read_time":148,"preview_page_count":4},2336475104957,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/22000c4c6bd8a5076e1?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1787554080175789136","UROLOGY  \nRESEARCH & PRACTICE  \nORIGINAL ARTICLE Urooncology  \nUrology Research and Practice 2025;51(5):198-202  \nDOI: 10.5152/tud.2025.25052  \nPredictors of Biochemical Recurrence in Patients with Positive Surgical Margin After Radical Prostatectomy  \nABSTRACT  \nObjective: To investigate the predictors of biochemical recurrence (BCR) in patients with positive surgical margins (PSMs) after radical prostatectomy (RP) .  \nMethods: The data of patients who underwent open RP between 2003 and 2011 were reviewed. Only patients with PSM and negative lymph node invasion were considered for further analysis. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed to evaluate the correlation between clinicopathologic criteria and BCR.  \nResults: Out of 116 patients, 80 (69%) developed BCR with a median (interquartile range [IQR]) time to recurrence of 19 (9-50) months. Median (IQR) time of follow-up in non-recurrent patients was 121 (47-148) months. The 5-and 10-year BCR-free survival rates were 43% and 28%, respectively. Complete data regarding margin parameters were available only for 98 patients, of which 71 (72%) developed BCR. Univariable analysis demonstrated that prostate volume (PV) (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.95-0.99, P = .005), highest Gleason grade (GG) atthe margin (HR 1.73, 95% CI: 1-2.83, P = .028 for GG 4-5 vs. 3), tumor GG group 2 (HR [Hazard Ratio] 2, 95% CI 1.09-3.94, P = .025) and 4-5 (HR 2.34, 95% CI 1-4.98, P = .028) were significant predictors of BCR. In multivariable analysis, only PV remained an independent predictor of BCR (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.96-0.99, P = .03) .  \nConclusion: In patients with PSM after RP, smaller prostates have a higher probability of BCR. Further studies are needed to investigate this association. The highest GG atthe margin has important predictive accuracy and should be reported in the pathology report.  \nKeywords: Biochemical recurrence, prostate cancer, prostate size, radical prostatectomy  \nIntroduction  \nAlthough a positive surgical margin (PSM) after radical prostatectomy (RP) is considered an unfavorable pathologic feature with worse oncologic outcomes, in some large studies up to 45% of patients with PSM do not develop tumor recurrence at long-term follow-up.1-3 Management of PSM remains a dilemma as a clear consensus is still lacking. In the ARTISTIC (a prospective meta-analysis of RADICALS, RAVES, and GETUG-17) meta-analysis including the results of 3 randomized trials (RADICALS-RT (a phase III trial of adjuvant radiotherapy vs observation + salvage radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy), GETUG-17(a randomised, phase III trial of adjuvant radiotherapy versus early salvage radiotherapy plus short-term androgen deprivation therapy in men with localised prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy), and Adjuvant Versus Early Salvage [RAVES]), adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) did not improve the biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival (HR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.75-1.21, P = .70) compared to salvage RT. Most patients were in the high-risk category, including 71% with PSM, suggesting that marginal status alone is not sufficient to recommend adjuvant RT.4 The decision may be easier by the presence of other associated unfavorable pathologic features, such as pT3b disease and Gleason-group 4-5, for which adjuvant therapy is recommended in many reports.5 On the other hand, the management is challenging in low-risk PSM cohorts, i.e., patients  \nCopyright @ Author(s)– Available online at [http://urologyresearchandpractice.org/](http://urologyresearchandpractice.org/)  \nContent of this journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 International License.  \nOsama Mahmuod1,2 Mulham Al-Nader1 Andreas Grevendieck1 Ulrich Krafft1 Christopher Darr1 Lukas Puellen1 Jan Philipp Radtke1,3 Andrej Panic1,4  \n1Department of Urology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany  \n2Department of Urology, Qena Faculty of Medicine, South Valley University, Qena, Egypt 3Department of Urology, University Hospital ","cbCaikHESUpb4BFx","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaikHESUpb4BFx","pdf",480912,"English","# Abstract\n## Objective\n## Methods\n## Results\n## Conclusion\n# Introduction\n# Materials and Methods","[{\"question\":\"What question does the study address about positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy?\",\"answer\":\"It examines which clinical and pathological factors predict biochemical recurrence in patients who have positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy.\"},{\"question\":\"Who were the included patients and what analyses were performed?\",\"answer\":\"Patients who underwent open radical prostatectomy between 2003 and 2011 were reviewed; only those with positive surgical margins and negative lymph node invasion were analyzed. Multivariable Cox regression evaluated correlations between clinicopathologic factors and biochemical recurrence.\"},{\"question\":\"Which predictor remained significant in multivariable analysis?\",\"answer\":\"Prostate volume (PV) remained an independent predictor of biochemical recurrence, with smaller prostates showing a higher probability of BCR.\"},{\"question\":\"What is the study’s practical implication for pathology reporting at the surgical margin?\",\"answer\":\"The highest Gleason grade at the margin showed important predictive accuracy and should be reported in the pathology report.\"}]","Predictors of Biochemical Recurrence in Patients with Positive Surgical Margin After Radical Prostatectomy | PDF",1790714534,13]