ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2021
Implementation of Intraoperative Ultrasound Localization for Breast-Conserving Surgery in a Large, Integrated Health Care System is Feasible and Effective.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2021. 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- May the Completion Lead to Conservation: Impact of Partial and Complete Intraoperative Ultrasound Application on Resection Margin Management During Breast-Conserving Surgery for Invasive Breast Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Observational
- Core needle biopsy of breast tumours: comparison of diagnostic performance between surgery and radiology services at a national cancer centre in Latin America.Ecancermedicalscience · 2024Article
- Surgeon and Radiologist Evaluation of Electromagnetic Chip Localization for Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions.Annals of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- Breast-Conserving Surgery Margin Guidance Using Micro-Computed Tomography: Challenges When Imaging Radiodense Resection Specimens.Annals of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- Ultrasound Guided Intraoperative Wire Localization Under General Anesthesia in Breast-Conserving Surgery.Cureus · 2023Article
- Technique of intraoperative ultrasound-guided excision of impalpable breast lesions.Australasian journal of ultrasound in medicine · 2023Article
- Economic Impact of Reducing Reexcision Rates after Breast-Conserving Surgery in a Large, Integrated Health System.Annals of surgical oncology · 2022Article
- The Beneficial Impact of Intraoperative Ultrasound on Resection Margin Status during Breast Conserving Surgery.International journal of surgical oncology · 2022Article
- 22nd Annual Virtual Meeting of the American Society of Breast Surgeons: Science, Innovation, and Practice Changes.Annals of surgical oncology · 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
15 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntraoperative ultrasound (IUS) localization for breast cancer is a noninvasive localization technique. In 2015, an IUS program for breast-conserving surgery (BCS) was initiated in a large, integrated health care system. This study evaluated the clinical results of IUS implementation.
methodsThe study identified breast cancer patients with BCS from 1 January to 31 October 2015 and from 1 January to 31 October 2019. Clinicopathologic characteristics were collected, and localization types were categorized. Clinical outcomes were analyzed, including localization use, surgeon adoption of IUS, day-of-surgery intervals, and re-excision rates. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate predictors of re-excision.
resultsThe number of BCS procedures increased 23%, from 1815 procedures in 2015 to 2226 procedures in 2019. The IUS rate increased from 4% of lumpectomies (n = 79) in 2015 to 28% of lumpectomies (n = 632) in 2019 (p < 0.001). Surgeons using IUS increased from 6% (5 of 88 surgeons) in 2015 to 70% (42 of 60 surgeons) in 2019. In 2019, 76% of IUS surgeons performed at least 25% of lumpectomies with IUS. The mean time from admission to incision was shorter with IUS or seed localization than with wire localization (202 min with IUS, 201 with seed localization, 262 with wire localization in 2019; p < 0.001). The IUS re-excision rates were lower than for other localization techniques (13.6%, vs 19.6% for seed localization and 24.7% for wire localization in 2019; p = 0.006), and IUS predicted lower re-excision rates in a multivariable model (odds ratio [OR], 0.59).
conclusionsIn a high-volume integrated health system, IUS was adopted for BCS by a majority of surgeons. The use of IUS decreased the time from admission to incision compared with wire localization, and decreased re-excision rates compared with other localization techniques.
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.