ArticleAmerican journal of surgery2009
Margin assessment after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in invasive lobular cancer.
Article in American journal of surgery, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Breast-Conserving Therapy in Patients with cT3 Breast Cancer with Good Response to Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy Results in Excellent Local Control: A Comprehensive Cancer Center Experience.Annals of surgical oncology · 2021Article
- A nomogram for determining the disease-specific survival in invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: A population study.Medicine · 2020Article
- Success rates of re-excision after positive margins for invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast.NPJ breast cancer · 2019Article
- Surgical Management of Breast Cancer Treated with Neoadjuvant Therapy.Breast care (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Review
- Clinical benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy in oestrogen receptor-positive invasive ductal and lobular carcinomas.British journal of cancer · 2013Article
- Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in invasive lobular carcinoma may not improve rates of breast conservation.Annals of surgical oncology · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOptimal surgical management of patients with invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) who undergo neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is unknown. We evaluated optimal margin distance and local recurrence (LR) rates for these patients.
methodsNinety-three (30%) of 311 patients with ILC received NAC. We examined margin status, residual disease after re-excision, and clinical outcomes.
resultsMargin positivity rates after the final operative procedure were similar between the NAC and surgery-first group (P > .05). The proportion of patients, stratified by margin status, who were taken back for re-excision was not different between the 2 groups, and, similarly, there were no differences in frequency of residual disease (all P > .05). At a median follow-up of 3.1 years, 1 patient in the NAC group and 2 in the surgery-first group developed LR (P = 1.0).
conclusionsPatients with ILC who have undergone NAC and have margins >1 mm have a low probability of residual disease and LR.
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.