Impact of Surgical Margin Control in Index Tumors on Prognosis After Radical Prostatectomy: A Focus on Zonal Origin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the clinical significance of positive surgical margins (PSMs) in index tumors following radical prostatectomy (RP), with particular attention to the tumor’s zonal origin. Among 1148 patients with localized prostate cancer who underwent RPs, 973 were included after excluding those who received perioperative therapy or had incomplete data. Index tumors were categorized by zonal origin: transition zone, peripheral zone, or central zone (CZ). Overall, PSMs were observed in 26.4% of index tumors. Although CZ index tumors were relatively uncommon (6.5%), they exhibited the highest PSM rate (42.9%) and showed the most aggressive pathological features. The 5-year biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival rate was significantly lower in patients with PSMs in index tumors than in those with negative surgical margins (45.6% vs. 86.8%, p < 0.0001). Notably, patients with PSMs in CZ index tumors had the worst outcomes, with a 5-year BCR-free survival rate of 22.0%. Multivariate analysis identified PSMs in index tumors as an independent predictor of BCR (HR: 3.4; 95% CI: 2.5–4.5), with a similar trend observed in early recurrence. These findings highlight the prognostic significance of PSMs in index tumors during RP, especially in CZ tumors, and emphasize the importance of securing local control in these cases.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".