ArticleCancer medicine2019
Polygon method: A systematic margin assessment for breast conservation.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Polygon method: A systematic margin assessment for breast conservation.Cancer medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRadiation therapy (RT) for women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) undergoing breast-conserving surgery (BCS) may be overtreatment for some, especially for those in which DCIS is eradicated, and ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) risk approaches the contralateral breast cancer (CBC) level. The aim of this study was to clarify whether the polygon method, a new systematic method of en face (tangential, shaved) margin assessment, can identify a subset of DCIS that can be safely treated by BCS alone.
methodsA key tool of the polygon method is an adjustable mold that prevents the "pancake phenomenon" (flattening) of breast tissue after surgical removal so that the specimen is fixed in the shape of a polygonal prism. This preanalytical procedure enables us to command a panoramic view of entire en face margins 3-5-mm deep from the real peripheral cut surfaces. Competing risk analysis was used to quantify rates of IBTR and CBC and to evaluate risk factors.
resultsFrom 2000 to 2013, we identified 146 DCIS patients undergoing BCS with a contralateral breast at risk. In 100 DCIS patients whose margin was negative by the polygon method, 5 IBTR (3 DCIS and 2 invasive ductal carcinoma [IDC]) and 10 CBC (6 DCIS and 4 IDC) cases were identified during a median follow-up of 7.6 years (range, 0.9-17.4). Five- and 10-year cumulative incidence rates were 3.0% and 5.3% for IBTR, and 7.1% and 13.3% for CBC, respectively. Thus, patients with a negative margin consistently showed at least twofold lower IBTR than CBC despite omission of RT.
conclusionsJapanese women classified with a negative margin by the polygon method show a very low risk of IBTR and account for approximately half of CBC cases. In this subset of DCIS patients, additional RT is not beneficial.
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.