Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30369108›Full record

ReviewJournal of biomedical optics2018

Review of methods for intraoperative margin detection for breast conserving surgery.

Benjamin W Maloney, David M McClatchy, Brian W Pogue, Keith D Paulsen, Wendy A Wells, Richard J Barth

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of biomedical optics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

66 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 137 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Polarimetry terahertz imaging of human breast cancer surgical specimens.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Benjamin W MaloneyDartmouth College, Thayer School of Engineering, Hanover, New Hampshire, United States.
David M McClatchyDartmouth College, Thayer School of Engineering, Hanover, New Hampshire, United States.
Brian W PogueDartmouth College, Thayer School of Engineering, Hanover, New Hampshire, United States.
Keith D PaulsenDartmouth College, Thayer School of Engineering, Hanover, New Hampshire, United States.
Wendy A WellsNorris Cotton Cancer Center, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire, United States.
Richard J Barth
Dartmouth College · USCotton (United States) · USDartmouth–Hitchcock Medical Center · US

Funding

Optical Scatter Imaging System for Surgical Specimen Margin Assessment during Breast Conserving SurgeryR01CA192803 · NCI · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI PAULSEN, KEITH D., POGUE, BRIAN WILLIAM · 2015 to 2019
$2.7M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA192803
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Breast conserving surgery (BCS) is an effective treatment for early-stage cancers as long as the margins of the resected tissue are free of disease according to consensus guidelines for patient management. However, 15% to 35% of patients undergo a second surgery since malignant cells are found close to or at the margins of the original resection specimen. This review highlights imaging approaches being investigated to reduce the rate of positive margins, and they are reviewed with the assumption that a new system would need high sensitivity near 95% and specificity near 85%. The problem appears to be twofold. The first is for complete, fast surface scanning for cellular, structural, and/or molecular features of cancer, in a lumpectomy volume, which is variable in size, but can be large, irregular, and amorphous. A second is for full, volumetric imaging of the specimen at high spatial resolution, to better guide internal radiologic decision-making about the spiculations and duct tracks, which may inform that surfaces are involved. These two demands are not easily solved by a single tool. Optical methods that scan large surfaces quickly are needed with cellular/molecular sensitivity to solve the first problem, but volumetric imaging with high spatial resolution for soft tissues is largely outside of the optical realm and requires x-ray, micro-CT, or magnetic resonance imaging if they can be achieved efficiently. In summary, it appears that a combination of systems into hybrid platforms may be the optimal solution for these two very different problems. This concept must be cost-effective, image specimens within minutes and be coupled to decision-making tools that help a surgeon without adding to the procedure. The potential for optical systems to be involved in this problem is emerging and clinical trials are underway in several of these technologies to see if they could reduce positive margin rates in BCS.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsBreastDiagnostic ImagingFemaleHumansMammographyMastectomy, Segmentalbreast cancerbreast conserving surgeryimaginglumpectomymammographyopticalspectroscopy

Identifiers

PMID30369108
PMCPMC6210801
OpenAlexW2898257314

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.