SEER coding standards result in underestimation of positive surgical margin incidence at radical prostatectomy: Results of a systematic audit

Journal of Urology

Volumn 186, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 855-859

  Shah, Satyan K ^a   Fleet, Trisha M ^a   Williams, Virginia ^b   Smith, Anthony Y ^a   Skipper, Betty ^a   Wiggins, Charles ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

forms and records control; prostate; prostatectomy; prostatic neoplasms; SEER program

Indexed keywords

CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER REGISTRY; CANCER STAGING; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL AUDIT; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE ADENOCARCINOMA; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; REVIEW;

EID: 80051547295     PISSN: 00225347     EISSN: 15273792     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.04.079     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. M.R. Cooperberg, J.M. Broering, and P.R. Carroll Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer J Clin Oncol 28 2010 1117
2. O. Yossepowitch, A. Bjartell, and J.A. Eastham Positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy: outlining the problem and its long-term consequences Eur Urol 55 2009 87
3. J.I. Epstein, J. Srigley, and D. Grignon Recommendations for the reporting of prostate carcinoma Hum Pathol 38 2007 1305
4. P. Swindle, J.A. Eastham, and M. Ohori Do margins matter? The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens J Urol 179 2008 S47
5. A.Y. Chuang, M.E. Nielsen, and D.J. Hernandez The significance of positive surgical margin in areas of capsular incision in otherwise organ confined disease at radical prostatectomy J Urol 178 2007 1306
6. E.M. Schaeffer, S. Loeb, and P.C. Walsh The case for open radical prostatectomy Urol Clin North Am 37 2010 49
7. J.L. Wright, B.L. Dalkin, and L.D. True Positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy predict prostate cancer specific mortality J Urol 183 2010 2213
8. J. Jayachandran, L.L. Banez, and D.E. Levy Risk stratification for biochemical recurrence in men with positive surgical margins or extracapsular disease after radical prostatectomy: results from the SEARCH database J Urol 179 2008 1791
9. Y.M. Hong, J.C. Hu, and A.T. Paciorek Impact of radical prostatectomy positive surgical margins on fear of cancer recurrence: results from CaPSURE Urol Oncol 28 2010 268
10. W.L. Liu, S. Kasl, and J.T. Flannery The accuracy of prostate cancer staging in a population-based tumor registry and its impact on the black-white stage difference (Connecticut, United States) Cancer Causes Control 6 1995 425
11. B. Furlow Accuracy of US cancer surveillance under threat Lancet Oncol 8 2007 762
12. D. Schreiber, J. Rineer, and J.B. Yu Analysis of pathologic extent of disease for clinically localized prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy and subsequent use of adjuvant radiation in a national cohort Cancer 116 2010 5757
13. M.M. Nguyen, and I.S. Gill Coded tumor size may be unreliable for small metastatic renal cancers in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results dataset Urology 75 2010 266
14. H. Nathan, and T.M. Pawlik Limitations of claims and registry data in surgical oncology research Ann Surg Oncol 15 2008 415
15. M. Han, A.W. Partin, and D.Y. Chan An evaluation of the decreasing incidence of positive surgical margins in a large retropubic prostatectomy series J Urol 171 2004 23
16. J.A. Smith Jr, R.C. Chan, and S.S. Chang A comparison of the incidence and location of positive surgical margins in robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and open retropubic radical prostatectomy J Urol 178 2007 2385
17. J.A. Eastham, K. Kuroiwa, and M. Ohori Prognostic significance of location of positive margins in radical prostatectomy specimens Urology 70 2007 965