Preoperative staging using magnetic resonance imaging and risk of positive surgical margins after prostate-cancer surgery

[1]  D. Margolis,et al.  MRI‐Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate‐Cancer Diagnosis , 2018, The New England journal of medicine.

[2]  M. Parmar,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confi rmatory study , 2018 .

[3]  P. J. Donker,et al.  Impotence Following Radical Prostatectomy: Insight into Etiology and Prevention. , 1982, The Journal of urology.

[4]  M. Terris,et al.  Long-term oncological outcomes of apical positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy in the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital cohort , 2016, Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases.

[5]  J Alfred Witjes,et al.  Accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Local Staging of Prostate Cancer: A Diagnostic Meta-analysis. , 2016, European urology.

[6]  F. Montorsi,et al.  Evaluation of positive surgical margins in patients undergoing robot-assisted and open radical prostatectomy according to preoperative risk groups. , 2016, Urologic oncology.

[7]  Katarzyna J Macura,et al.  Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 Guidelines for Multiparametric Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Recommendations for Use. , 2016, European urology.

[8]  A. Costello,et al.  Preservation of the neurovascular bundles is associated with improved time to continence after radical prostatectomy but not long-term continence rates: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2015, European urology.

[9]  A. Svindland,et al.  Does preoperative magnetic resonance imaging reduce the rate of positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy in a randomised clinical trial? , 2015, European urology.

[10]  T. Ahlering,et al.  Surgical margin length and location affect recurrence rates after robotic prostatectomy. , 2015, Urologic oncology.

[11]  L. Egevad,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 , 2015, BJU international.

[12]  J. Nesland,et al.  The Length of a Positive Surgical Margin Is of Prognostic Significance in Patients with Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Treated with Radical Prostatectomy , 2014, Urologia Internationalis.

[13]  B. Park,et al.  Influence of magnetic resonance imaging in the decision to preserve or resect neurovascular bundles at robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. , 2014, The Journal of urology.

[14]  Markus Graefen,et al.  Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and contemporary update. , 2014, European urology.

[15]  C. Claussen,et al.  Accuracy of preoperative endorectal MRI in predicting extracapsular extension and influence on neurovascular bundle sparing in radical prostatectomy , 2013, World Journal of Urology.

[16]  Fang-Ming Deng,et al.  Prostate cancer: multiparametric MRI for index lesion localization--a multiple-reader study. , 2012, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[17]  A. Haese*,et al.  Neurovascular structure-adjacent frozen-section examination (NeuroSAFE) increases nerve-sparing frequency and reduces positive surgical margins in open and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: experience after 11,069 consecutive patients. , 2012, European urology.

[18]  F. Beuvon,et al.  Endorectal 3D T2-weighted 1mm-slice thickness MRI for prostate cancer staging at 1.5Tesla: should we reconsider the indirects signs of extracapsular extension according to the D'Amico tumor risk criteria? , 2012, European journal of radiology.

[19]  J. Fütterer,et al.  ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012 , 2012, European Radiology.

[20]  Liang Cheng,et al.  International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 5: surgical margins , 2011, Modern Pathology.

[21]  Rodolfo Montironi,et al.  International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 3: extraprostatic extension, lymphovascular invasion and locally advanced disease , 2011, Modern Pathology.

[22]  P. Choyke,et al.  Prostate cancer: value of multiparametric MR imaging at 3 T for detection--histopathologic correlation. , 2010, Radiology.

[23]  Madeleine Moussa,et al.  Interobserver Variability Between Expert Urologic Pathologists for Extraprostatic Extension and Surgical Margin Status in Radical Prostatectomy Specimens , 2008, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[24]  L. Collette,et al.  Impact of pathology review of stage and margin status of radical prostatectomy specimens (EORTC trial 22911) , 2006, Virchows Archiv.

[25]  T. Scheenen,et al.  Prostate cancer: local staging at 3-T endorectal MR imaging--early experience. , 2006, Radiology.

[26]  L. Egevad,et al.  The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma , 2005, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[27]  D. Mitchell,et al.  Prostate carcinoma: assessment of diagnostic criteria for capsular penetration on endorectal coil MR images. , 1994, Radiology.

[28]  P. J. Donker,et al.  Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. , 1982, The Journal of urology.