ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2023
Positive surgical margins after breast-conserving surgery for ductal carcinoma in-situ: does histologic grade or estrogen receptor status matter?
Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prospective Phase II Multicenter Trial of Ablation after Breast Lumpectomy Added To Extend (ABLATE) Intraoperative Margins for the Sole Local Treatment of Breast Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Trial
- Impact of Cavity Shaving on Margin Status and Re-excision Rates in Breast-Conserving Surgery: Experience from a Single Institute.Archives of breast cancer · 2026Article
- Article
- Assessing the malignancy of suspicious breast microcalcifications: the role of contrast enhanced mammography.La Radiologia medica · 2024Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDCIS has been shown to have a higher rate of positive margins following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) than invasive breast cancer. We aim to analyze certain factors of DCIS, specifically histologic grade and estrogen receptor (ER) status, in patients with positive surgical margins following BCS to determine if there is an association.
methodsA retrospective review of our institutional patient registry was performed to identify women with DCIS and microinvasive DCIS who underwent BCS by a single surgeon from 1999 to 2021. Demographics and clinicopathologic characteristics between patients with and without positive surgical margins were compared using chi-square or Student's t-test. We assessed factors associated with positive margins using univariate and multivariable logistic regression.
resultsOf the 615 patients evaluated, there was no significant difference in demographics between the patients with and without positive surgical margins. Increasing tumor size was an independent risk factor for margin positivity (P = < 0.001). On univariate analysis both high histologic grade (P = 0.009) and negative ER status (P = < 0.001) were significantly associated with positive surgical margins. However, when adjusted in multivariable analysis, only negative ER status remained significantly associated with margin positivity (OR = 0.39 [95% CI 0.20-0.77]; P = 0.006).
conclusionThe study confirms increased tumor size as a risk factor for positive surgical margins. We also demonstrated that ER negative DCIS was independently associated with a higher rate of positive margins after BCS. Given this information, we can modify our surgical approach to reduce rate of positive margins in patients with large-sized ER negative DCIS.
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.