Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34956865›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021

Frozen Section Analysis and Real-Time Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Surgical Specimen Oriented on 3D Printed Tongue Model to Assess Surgical Margins in Oral Tongue Carcinoma: Preliminary Results.

Caterina Giannitto, Giuseppe Mercante, Luca Disconzi, Riccardo Boroni, Elena Casiraghi, Federica Canzano, Michele Cerasuolo, Francesca Gaino, Armando De Virgilio, Barbara Fiamengo and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

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

17 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Caterina GiannittoDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS), Milan, Italy.
Giuseppe MercanteOtorhinolaryngology Unit, Humanitas Clinical and Research Centre Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS), Milan, Italy.
Luca DisconziDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS), Milan, Italy.
Riccardo BoroniDepartment of Supply Chain, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS), Rozzano, Milan, Italy.
Elena CasiraghiDepartment of Computer Science (DI), Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Federica CanzanoOtorhinolaryngology Unit, Humanitas Clinical and Research Centre Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS), Milan, Italy.
Michele CerasuoloOtorhinolaryngology Unit, Humanitas Clinical and Research Centre Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS), Milan, Italy.
Francesca GainoOtorhinolaryngology Unit, Humanitas Clinical and Research Centre Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS), Milan, Italy.
Armando De VirgilioOtorhinolaryngology Unit, Humanitas Clinical and Research Centre Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS), Milan, Italy.
Barbara FiamengoDepartment of Pathology, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS), Milan, Italy.
Fabio FerreliOtorhinolaryngology Unit, Humanitas Clinical and Research Centre Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS), Milan, Italy.
Andrea Alessandro EspositoDepartment of Radiology, Azienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale di Bergamo Ovest, Treviglio, Italy.
Paolo OlivaDepartment of Supply Chain, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS), Rozzano, Milan, Italy.
Flavio RonzoniDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
Luigi TerraccianoDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
Giuseppe SprianoOtorhinolaryngology Unit, Humanitas Clinical and Research Centre Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS), Milan, Italy.
Luca BalzariniDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS), Milan, Italy.
Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico · ITHumanitas University · ITAzienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale Lariana · ITUniversity of Milan · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA surgical margin is the apparently healthy tissue around a tumor which has been removed. In oral cavity carcinoma, a negative margin is considered ≥ 5 mm, a close margin between 1 and 5 mm, and a positive margin ≤ 1 mm. Currently, the intraoperative surgical margin status is based on the visual inspection and tissue palpation by the surgeon and intraoperative histopathological assessment of the resection margins by frozen section analysis (FSA). FSA technique is limited and susceptible to sampling errors. Definitive information on the deep resection margins requires postoperative histopathological analysis.

methodsWe described a novel approach for the assessment of intraoperative surgical margins by examining a surgical specimen oriented through a 3D-printed specific patient tongue with real-time Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). We reported the preliminary results of a case series of 10 patients, prospectively enrolled, with oral tongue carcinoma who underwent surgery between February 2020 and April 2021. Two radiologists with 5 and 10 years of experience, respectively, in Head and Neck radiology in consensus evaluated specimen MRI and measured the distance between the tumor and the specimen surface. We performed intraoperative bedside FSA. To compare the performance of bedside FSA and MRI in predicting definitive margin status we computed the weighted sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), accuracy (ACC), area under the ROC curve (AUC), F1-score, Positive Predictive Value (PPV), and Negative Predictive Value (NPV). To express the concordance between FSA and

resultsIntraoperative bedside FSA showed SE of 90%, SP of 100%, F1 of 95%, ACC of 0.9%, PPV of 100%, NPV (not a number), and jaccard of 90%, and

conclusionThe presented method allows a more accurate evaluation of surgical margin status, and the first clinical experiences underline the high potential of integrating FSA with

Indexed as

3D printingex-vivohead and neckresectionsurgical marginstumorvirtual surgical planning

Identifiers

PMID34956865
PMCPMC8698483
OpenAlexW4200006605

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.