ArticleAnnals of surgery2005
Current perceptions regarding surgical margin status after breast-conserving therapy: results of a survey.
Article in Annals of surgery, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
56 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Does cavity margin shaving reduce residual tumor and re-excision rates? A systematic review.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2023Pooled it
- Specimen mammography for intraoperative margin assessment in breast conserving surgery: a meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2022Pooled it
- Accuracy of frozen section in intraoperative margin assessment for breast-conserving surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stages I and II invasive breast cancer.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2014Guideline
- The association of surgical margins and local recurrence in women with early-stage invasive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy: a meta-analysis.Annals of surgical oncology · 2014Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Intraoperative evaluation of breast tumor margins with optical coherence tomography.Cancer research · 2009Trial
- Impact of Cavity Shaving on Margin Status and Re-excision Rates in Breast-Conserving Surgery: Experience from a Single Institute.Archives of breast cancer · 2026Article
- Article
- Spatial and Spectral Reconstruction of Breast Lumpectomy Hyperspectral Images.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Does Nipple-Ward Positive Margin Contribute to a Higher Rate of Re-Excision Procedures After a Lumpectomy with Pathology-Confirmed Positive Margins? A Retrospective Study.Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press) · 2024Article
- Article
- Comparison of Recurrence Rate Between Re-Excision With Radiotherapy and Radiotherapy-Only Groups in Surgical Margin Involvement ofJournal of breast cancer · 2022Article
- Similar rates of residual disease in patients with DCIS within 2 mm of lumpectomy margin regardless of the presence of invasive carcinoma.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2021Article
- A Modified Communication and Optimal Resolution Program for Intersystem Medical Error Discovery: Protocol for an Implementation Study.JMIR research protocols · 2019Article
- The approach to an isolated close anterior margin in breast conserving surgery.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2019Article
- Ultrasound-guided preoperative localization of breast lesions: a good choice.Journal of ultrasound · 2019Article
- Positive margins (R1) risk factors in breast cancer conservative surgery.Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press) · 2019Article
- Article
- Margins in breast cancer: How much is enough?Cancer · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe surgical margin status after breast-conserving surgery is considered the strongest predictor for local failure. The purpose of this study is to survey how radiation oncologists in North America (NA) and Europe define negative or close surgical margins after lumpectomy and to determine the factors that govern the decision to recommend reexcision based on the margins status.
methodsA questionnaire was sent to active members of the European Society of Therapeutic Radiation Oncology and the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology who had completed training in radiation oncology. Respondents were asked whether they would characterize margins to be negative or close for a variety of scenarios. A second survey was sent to 500 randomly selected radiation oncologists in the United States to assess when a reexcision would be recommended based on surgical margins.
resultsA total of 702 responses were obtained from NA and 431 from Europe to the initial survey. An additional 130 responses were obtained from the United States to the second survey regarding reexcision recommendations. Nearly 46% of the North American respondents required only that there be "no tumor cells on the ink" to deem a margin negative (National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project definition). A total of 7.4% and 21.8% required no tumor cells seen at <1 mm and <2 mm, respectively. The corresponding numbers from European respondents were 27.6%, 11.2%, and 8.8%, respectively (P <0.001). Europeans more frequently required a larger distance (>5 mm) between tumor cells and the inked edges before considering a margin to be negative.
conclusionThis study revealed significant variation in the perception of negative and close margins among radiation oncologists in NA and Europe. Given these findings, a universal definition of negative margins and consistent recommendations for reexcision are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.