Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38720674›Full record

ReviewGland surgery2024

Pathology and resection margins following mastectomy prior to immediate breast reconstruction.

Annemette Kirkegaard Jørgensen, Camilla Bille, Anne Marie Bak Jylling, Orit Kaidar-Person, Trine Tramm

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Gland surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Annemette Kirkegaard JørgensenDepartment of Pathology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Camilla BilleDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Anne Marie Bak JyllingDepartment of Pathology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Orit Kaidar-PersonBreast Cancer Radiation Therapy Unit, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4023-1869
Trine TrammDepartment of Pathology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3894-4552

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Risk of local recurrence (LR) (and even distant disease-free survival) after mastectomy is associated with margin status. Furthermore, the vast majority of LR are located at the anterior (superficial) margin. Margins in mastectomy are considered anatomical borders and not true resection margins; such a conception may erroneously lead to underestimation of the risk of LR after mastectomy. If dissection is accurate along the fascia, only skin, subcutaneous tissue and minimal residual breast gland tissue (rBGT) are expected to remain in the patient. However, the subcutaneous fascia is an inconsistent anatomical structure that may be absent in almost half of patients. Studies and routine clinical practice suggest that resection may frequently, though often focally, be within the breast glandular tissue leaving various amounts of rBGT. Such areas may be nidus for subsequent de novo or recurrent premalignant or malignant disease. There is no consensus on handling of close/positive margins and intervention is extrapolated from studies on breast conserving surgery with subsequent radiotherapy. Handling of a close/positive margin is complicated by poor correlation between the

Indexed as

breastmastectomyPathologyreconstructionsuperficial margin

Identifiers

PMID38720674
PMCPMC11074653

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.