ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
Metabolic characteristics of the various incision margins for breast cancer conservation surgery.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Discrimination of superficial lymph nodes using ultrasonography and tissue metabolomics coupled with machine learning.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Breast cancer (BC) has recently become the most prevalent malignancy in women. There are many alternative treatments for BC, and for aesthetic and postoperative quality of life concerns, breast-conserving surgery and corresponding adjuvant therapy have become the predominant treatment for early invasive BC. Currently, the main method used to assess the margins for breast-conserving surgery is intraoperative pathological diagnosis. However, the designation of surgical margins is controversial, and metabolomics may be a novel approach to evaluate surgical margins. Methods: We collected specimens from 10 breast cancer patients and samples from its surrounding tissues and divided them into cancerous tissue and 1 mm, 2 mm, 3 mm, 5 mm and 10 mm cutting edge tissues, with a total of 60 samples. The samples were analyzed by mass spectrometry on an ultra-performance liquid chromatography-quadrupole/Orbitrap high resolution platform. The data were then statistically analyzed to detect metabolic changes in the different cutting edges and to identify possible surgical cutting edges with statistically significant findings. Abnormal metabolic pathways were identified by Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG), which elucidated potential markers. Results: Statistical analysis indicated that there were substantial differences between the 1 mm margin tissue and the cancer tissue, while there were no statistically significant differences between the 1 mm tissue and tissues from the other margins. The levels of 6 metabolites in the 1 mm tissue were significantly different from those in the cancer tissue and were not significantly different from those in the 2 mm tissue. The six metabolites were pyruvate, N-acetyl-L-aspartate, glutamic acid, γ-aminobutyric acid, fumaric acid, and citric acid. Metabolic pathways such as amino acid metabolism and amino t-RNA synthesis in the margin tissue were significantly distinct from those in cancer tissues based on KEGG analysis. Conclusion: There was a significant difference between the 1 mm margin tissue and the cancerous tissue. Based on metabolomic analysis, the 1 mm negative margin is sufficient for surgery, and the six metabolites that we identified as abnormal, including pyruvic acid, N-acetyl-L-aspartic acid, glutamic acid, gamma-aminobutyric acid, fumaric acid and citric acid, may serve as biomarkers for a negative margin and help surgeons select an appropriate surgical margin.
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.