ArticleBreast (Edinburgh, Scotland)2020
Evaluation of 2014 margin guidelines on re-excision and recurrence rates after breast conserving surgery: A multi-institution retrospective study.
Article in Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- The INTEND 1 randomized controlled trial of duct endoscopy as an indicator of margin excision in breast conservation surgery.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2021Trial
- Habitat-based imaging and peritumoral radiomics on ultrasound images for predicting lymphovascular invasion in breast invasive ductal carcinoma: a two-center study.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2026Article
- Article
- Time-Resolved Fluorescence and Diffuse Reflectance (TRF-DR) Spectroscopy for Heterogeneous Breast Tissue Classification and Tumor Margin Assessment.Journal of biophotonics · 2026Article
- Insurer and patient costs for repeat breast surgery after initial lumpectomy for breast cancer.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2025Article
- The Impact of Breast-Conserving Surgery Re-excision on Patient-Reported Outcomes Using the BREAST-Q.Annals of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- Quantitative analysis of shear wave elastic heterogeneity for prediction of lymphovascular invasion in breast cancer.The British journal of radiology · 2021Article
- Granuloma after breast conserving surgery-a report of three cases.Journal of surgical case reports · 2021Article
- Does Surgical Margin Width Remain a Challenge for Triple-Negative Breast Cancer? A Retrospective Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionA 2014 consensus statement from the Society of Surgical Oncology and American Society for Radiation Oncology supported "no ink on tumor" as an adequate margin for breast conserving therapy (BCT). This study evaluates this statement in a multi-institution cohort.
methodsA retrospective review of BCT cases at 3 comprehensive cancer centers was performed. Women age >18 receiving BCT for T1-2 breast cancer from 2008-2012 were included. Pre-2014, all sites considered 2 mm adequate. Estimated re-excision rates using the 2014 guidelines were calculated and factors predictive of re-excision were analyzed.
results542 patients (545 lumpectomies) were eligible. Using a ≥2 mm margin standard, 32.8% of patients underwent re-excision compared to 14.1% after 2014 (p < 0.0001). Tumor size (p= 0.003), grade (p=0.015), and lymphovascular invasion (p=0.021) were predictive of re-excision. Patients with additional intraoperative margins excised were less likely to require reoperation (p=0.002). Local recurrence was unaffected by re-excision after mean followup of 66 months.
conclusionsThe 2014 margin guidelines markedly reduce re-excision rates. There is no difference in local recurrence for patients after re-excision for a close margin versus without Powered.
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.