ArticleTranslational cancer research2021
Assisted computer and imaging system improve accuracy of breast tumor size assessment after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
Article in Translational cancer research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reconstructing virtual large slides can improve the accuracy and consistency of tumor bed evaluation for breast cancer after neoadjuvant therapy.Diagnostic pathology · 2022Article
- Progress on deep learning in digital pathology of breast cancer: a narrative review.Gland surgery · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) in patients with early breast cancer is becoming increasingly common. The purpose of this study was to explore the combined use of breast pathology cabinet X-ray system (CXS) to accurately assess the response to neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer and establish a standard evaluation system.
methodsA total of 100 patients with breast cancer after neoadjuvant treatment were randomly selected. Preoperative imaging evaluation of tumor masses were significantly degenerated, and they were randomly divided into experimental and control groups of 50 cases each. Compared with the traditional two methods of material extraction, the effective material extraction rate is comparative. Take the two largest diameters of the largest two-dimensional surface of the tumor bed as the measurement object, the macro-description value is D1/D2, the radiographic system description measurement value is the experimental group d1/d2, and the correction under the microscope is worth the true size of the tumor bed H1/H2 as the final test standard, calculate the difference between D1/D2 and d1/d2 with H1 and H2, and compare the difference between d1- H1, d2 - H2 and D1- H1, D2 - H2.
resultsThe average group of tissue samples in the experimental group was 16.4, and the average group of tissue samples in the control group was 16.7, and there was no difference between the two groups; The effective tissue blocks of tumor bed samples in the experimental group were11.8, and the control group was 7.5. There is difference between the two groups. The average effective percentage of tumor bed in the experimental group was 72%, and the average effective percentage of tumor bed in the control group was 44.8%. The difference was also statistically significant; d1- H1, d2 - H2 and D1- H1, D2 - H2 are all different.
conclusionsCXS assists the collection of breast tumor bed, which can significantly improve the efficiency of tumor bed collection and save the cost of collection. Compared with the maximum diameter of the tumor bed by eyes, the CXS mapping value is closer to the value measured under the microscope.
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.