Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37041429›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2023

Breast-Conserving Surgery Margin Guidance Using Micro-Computed Tomography: Challenges When Imaging Radiodense Resection Specimens.

Samuel S Streeter, Rebecca A Zuurbier, Roberta M diFlorio-Alexander, Mark T Hansberry, Benjamin W Maloney, Brian W Pogue, Wendy A Wells, Keith D Paulsen, Richard J Barth

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Samuel S StreeterThayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA. samuel.s.streeter.th@Dartmouth.edu.
Rebecca A ZuurbierDepartment of Radiology, Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA.
Roberta M diFlorio-AlexanderDepartment of Radiology, Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA.
Mark T HansberryDepartment of Radiology, Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA.
Benjamin W MaloneyThayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA.
Brian W PogueThayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA.
Wendy A WellsDartmouth Cancer Center, Dartmouth Health, Lebanon, NH, USA.
Keith D PaulsenThayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA.
Richard J BarthDartmouth Cancer Center, Dartmouth Health, Lebanon, NH, USA. richard.j.barth.jr@hitchcock.org.
Dartmouth College · USDartmouth Health

Funding

Optical Scatter Imaging System for Surgical Specimen Margin Assessment during Breast Conserving SurgeryR01CA192803 · NCI · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI PAULSEN, KEITH D., POGUE, BRIAN WILLIAM · 2015 to 2019
$2.7M
Breast-conserving surgery resection margin assessment using optical light active line scanningF31CA257340 · NCI · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI STREETER, SAMUEL STEWART · 2021 to 2022
$68k
NCI NIH HHS F31 CA257340NCI NIH HHS F31CA257340NCI NIH HHS R01 CA192803NCI NIH HHS R01CA192803
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBreast-conserving surgery (BCS) is an integral component of early-stage breast cancer treatment, but costly reexcision procedures are common due to the high prevalence of cancer-positive margins on primary resections. A need exists to develop and evaluate improved methods of margin assessment to detect positive margins intraoperatively.

methodsA prospective trial was conducted through which micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) with radiological interpretation by three independent readers was evaluated for BCS margin assessment. Results were compared to standard-of-care intraoperative margin assessment (i.e., specimen palpation and radiography [abbreviated SIA]) for detecting cancer-positive margins.

resultsSix hundred margins from 100 patients were analyzed. Twenty-one margins in 14 patients were pathologically positive. On analysis at the specimen-level, SIA yielded a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 42.9%, 76.7%, 23.1%, and 89.2%, respectively. SIA correctly identified six of 14 margin-positive cases with a 23.5% false positive rate (FPR). Micro-CT readers achieved sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV ranges of 35.7-50.0%, 55.8-68.6%, 15.6-15.8%, and 86.8-87.3%, respectively. Micro-CT readers correctly identified five to seven of 14 margin-positive cases with an FPR range of 31.4-44.2%. If micro-CT scanning had been combined with SIA, up to three additional margin-positive specimens would have been identified. DISCUSSION: Micro-CT identified a similar proportion of margin-positive cases as standard specimen palpation and radiography, but due to difficulty distinguishing between radiodense fibroglandular tissue and cancer, resulted in a higher proportion of false positive margin assessments.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsMastectomy, SegmentalFemaleHumansMargins of ExcisionProspective StudiesRadiographyX-Ray Microtomography

Identifiers

PMID37041429
PMCPMC10600965
OpenAlexW4364379433

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.