Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34779520›Full record

ArticleJournal of surgical oncology2022

Tumor margins that lead to reoperation in breast cancer: A retrospective register study of 4,489 patients.

Maiju Lepomäki, Ulla Karhunen-Enckell, Jalmari Tuominen, Pauliina Kronqvist, Niku Oksala, Teemu Murtola, Antti Roine

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of surgical oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05257577 (Factors Influencing Breast Cancer Resection Volumes And Their Impact on Treatment Outcome), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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.

NCT05257577 active not recruitingnot on this map

Factors Influencing Breast Cancer Resection Volumes And Their Impact on Treatment Outcome: a Prospective Multicenter Study (FIBRATIO)

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorTampere University HospitalRan2022 to 2027Enrolled220ConditionsBreast Cancer, Quality of Life, Patient Satisfaction, Resection MarginArmsBreast conserving surgery
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Maiju LepomäkiSurgery, Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland.
Ulla Karhunen-EnckellSurgery, Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland.
Jalmari TuominenSurgery, Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland.
Pauliina KronqvistDepartment of Pathology, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
Niku OksalaSurgery, Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland.
Teemu MurtolaSurgery, Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland.
Antti RoineSurgery, Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland.
Tampere University · FITampere University · FISeinäjoki University of Applied Sciences · FITurku University Hospital · FI

Funding

Cancer Foundation of Finland Kauppaneuvos Satu Tiivolan rahastoCompetitive State Research Financing of the Expert Responsibility Area of Tampere University Hospital and Pirkanmaa Hospital District 9AA057Competitive State Research Financing of the Expert Responsibility Area of Tampere University Hospital and Pirkanmaa Hospital District 9v044Competitive State Research Financing of the Expert Responsibility Area of Tampere University Hospital and Pirkanmaa Hospital District 9x040Noncompetitive Research Funding of the Expert Responsibility Area of Pirkanmaa Hospital District 9AA049The Finnish Medical Foundation 2167The Finnish Medical Foundation 4038
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesOptimal margins for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) remain controversial in breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and mastectomy. We examine the association of positive margins, reoperations, DCIS and age.

methodsA retrospective study of histopathological reports (4489 patients). Margin positivity was defined as ink on tumor for invasive carcinoma. For DCIS, we applied 2 mm anterior and side margin thresholds, and ink on tumor in the posterior margin.

resultsThe incidence of positive side margins was 20% in BCS and 5% in mastectomies (p < 0.001). Of these patients, 68% and 14% underwent a reoperation (p < 0.001). After a positive side margin in BCS, the reoperation rates according to age groups were 74% (<49), 69% (50-64), 68% (65-79), and 42% (80+) (p = 0.013). Of BCS patients with invasive carcinoma in the side margin, 73% were reoperated on. A reoperation was performed in 70% of patients with a close (≤1 mm) DCIS side margin, compared to 43% with a wider (1.1-2 mm) margin (p = 0.002). The reoperation rates were 55% in invasive carcinoma with close DCIS, 66% in close extensive intraductal component (EIC), and 83% in close pure DCIS (p < 0.001).

conclusionsIndividual assessment as opposed to rigid adherence to guidelines was used in the decision on reoperation.

Indexed as

Margins of ExcisionAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Ductal, BreastCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingCarcinoma, LobularFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMastectomyMiddle AgedPrognosisReoperationRetrospective Studiesbreast-conserving surgeryDCISmastectomypositive marginsreoperation

Identifiers

PMID34779520
PMCPMC9298886
OpenAlexW3212552557

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.