Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15798465›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgery2005

Current perceptions regarding surgical margin status after breast-conserving therapy: results of a survey.

Alphonse Taghian, Majid Mohiuddin, Reshma Jagsi, Saveli Goldberg, Elizabeth Ceilley, Simon Powell

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

56 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. The approach to an isolated close anterior margin in breast conserving surgery.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2019
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Alphonse TaghianDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Cox 302, 100 Blossom Street, Boston, MA 02114, USA. ataghian@partners.org
Majid Mohiuddin
Reshma Jagsi
Saveli Goldberg
Elizabeth Ceilley
Simon Powell

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Attitude of Health PersonnelBiopsy, NeedleBreast NeoplasmsEuropeFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHealth Care SurveysHumansImmunohistochemistryMaleMastectomy, SegmentalMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm StagingPractice Patterns, Physicians'Probability

Identifiers

PMID15798465
PMCPMC1357067

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.