Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35625972›Full record

ArticleCancers2022

Radiological Underestimation of Tumor Size as a Relevant Risk Factor for Positive Margin Rate in Breast-Conserving Therapy of Pure Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS).

Gesche Schultek, Bernd Gerber, Toralf Reimer, Johannes Stubert, Steffi Hartmann, Annett Martin, Angrit Stachs

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Gesche SchultekDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Rostock, 18059 Rostock, Germany.
Bernd GerberDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Rostock, 18059 Rostock, Germany.
Toralf ReimerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Rostock, 18059 Rostock, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3014-370X
Johannes StubertDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Rostock, 18059 Rostock, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1284-6164
Steffi HartmannDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Rostock, 18059 Rostock, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0145-1589
Annett MartinDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Rostock, 18059 Rostock, Germany.
Angrit StachsDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Rostock, 18059 Rostock, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Radiological underestimation of the actual tumor size is a relevant problem in reaching negative margins in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) associated with microcalcifications in breast-conserving therapy (BCT). The aim of this study is to evaluate whether the radiological underestimation of tumor size has an influence on the histopathological margin status. Methods: Patients who underwent BCT with preoperatively diagnosed pure DCIS were included (pooled analysis of two trials). Multiple factors were analysed regarding radiological underestimation ≥10 mm. Radiological underestimation was defined as mammographic minus histological tumor size in mm. Results: Positive margins occurred in 75 of 189 patients. Radiological underestimation ≥10 mm was an independent influencing factor (OR 5.80; 95%CI 2.55−13.17; p < 0.001). A radiological underestimation was seen in 70 patients. The following parameters were statistically significant associated with underestimation: pleomorphic microcalcifications (OR 3.77; 95%CI 1.27−11.18), clustered distribution patterns (OR 4.26; 95%CI 2.25−8.07), and mammographic tumor sizes ≤20 mm (OR 7.47; 95%CI 3.49−15.99). Only a mammographic tumor size ≤20 mm was an independent risk factor (OR 6.49; 95%CI 2.30−18.26; p < 0.001). Grading, estrogen receptor status, and comedo necrosis did not influence the size estimation. Conclusion: Radiological underestimation is an independent risk factor for positive margins in BCT of DCIS associated with microcalcifications predominantly occurring in mammographic small tumors.

Indexed as

breast-conserving surgeryductal carcinoma in situpositive margin rateradiological underestimation

Identifiers

PMID35625972
PMCPMC9139437

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.