4.6 Review

Positive surgical margin is associated with biochemical recurrence risk following radical prostatectomy: a meta-analysis from high-quality retrospective cohort studies

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 16, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12957-018-1433-3

关键词

Positive surgical margin; Prostate cancer; Radical prostatectomy; Biochemical recurrence; Meta-analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and purpose: Although numerous studies have shown that positive surgical margin (PSM) is linked to biochemical recurrence (BCR) in prostate cancer (PCa), the research results have been inconsistent. This study aimed to explore the association between PSM and BCR in patients with PCa following radical prostatectomy (RP). Materials and methods: In accordance with the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), PubMed, EMBASE and Wan Fang databases were searched for eligible studies from inception to November 2017. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias of the included studies. Meta-analysis was performed by using Stata 12.0. Combined hazard ratios (HRs) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects or fixed-effects models. Results: Ultimately, 41 retrospective cohort studies of high quality that met the eligibility criteria, comprising 37,928 patients (94-3294 per study), were included in this meta-analysis. The results showed that PSM was associated with higher BCR risk in both univariate analysis (pooled HR = 1.56; 95% CI 1.46, 1.66; p < 0.001) and multivariate analysis (pooled HR = 1.35; 95% CI 1.27, 1.43; p < 0.001). Moreover, no potential publication bias was observed among the included studies in univariate analysis (p-Begg = 0.971) and multivariate analysis (p-Begg = 0.401). Conclusions: Our meta-analysis demonstrated that PSM is associated with a higher risk of BCR in PCa following RP and could serve as an independent prognostic factor in patients with PCa.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据