ArticleEuropean journal of breast health2021
Radiological Underestimation of Tumor Size Influences the Success Rate of Re-Excision after Breast-conserving Surgery.
Article in European journal of breast health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors Associated With Preoperative Radiological Tumor Size Underestimation in Clinical T1-2 Breast Cancer Patients.The breast journal · 2026Article
- Clinicopathological Factors Affecting Positive Margins after Breast-Conserving Surgery: A Comparative Study of Low- and High-Volume Hospitals.Breast care (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging identify feasibility of breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer patients.Gland surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveFailure to achieve adequate margins after breast-conserving surgery often leads to re-excision, either by repeat breast-conserving surgery (BCS) or by mastectomy. Despite the high frequency of this problem, the success rate of achieving adequate margins by repeat BCS is not well documented. The objective of this study was to determine the success rate of repeat BCS and identify the factors influencing that rate. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective review was performed of all women undergoing repeat BCS for inadequate margins after initial BCS in our breast unit between 2013 and 2019. Univariate and multivariate analyses were carried out to identify the factors influencing how often adequate margins were achieved after repeat BCS.
resultsOne hundred fifty-four patients underwent repeat BCS after initially inadequate margins, of which adequate margins were achieved in 82%. Patients with successful repeat BCS had smaller tumors, had less underestimation of tumor size on imaging, and were less likely to have had cavity shaves taken at their initial BCS. A tumor size more than 50% larger than predicted by imaging was independently associated with failure of repeat BCS in multivariate analysis (odds ratio: 3.6, 95% CI: 1.41-9.20, p = 0.007). Underestimation of tumor size by imaging was commoner and more extensive in patients with larger tumors and those with ductal carcinoma in situ.
conclusionRe-excision by cavity shaves has a high success rate and should be offered to all patients who are deemed suitable for the procedure. Patients whose tumors are more than 50% larger than predicted by imaging should be counseled about the higher risk of failure.
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.