ArticleVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2024
The misunderstanding of the R Classification-a survey amongst medical specialties treating breast cancer.
Article in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Frequent discussions in the tumour board about the Residual tumour (R) Classification of the UICC's "TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours", especially in the case of breast surgery specimens, raised the question about differing interpretations amongst different medical specialties. Thus, we designed a survey about the R Classification with a special focus on breast cancer specimens. An online survey was conducted, where a web link to the survey was distributed via email to various medical professional societies dealing with breast cancer in Austria and Germany with the request to distribute the link to their members. The study population consisted of physicians of all educational levels of different medical professions, who deal with breast carcinomas in their daily routine. Two hundred two participants, of which 160 (79.2%) have more than 10 years' professional experience, took part in the survey; 88 (43.6%) were surgeons/gynaecologists, 80 (39.6%) pathologists, 19 (9.4%) radiation oncologists/ therapists, 8 (4.0%) radiologists, and 7 (3.5%) oncologists. We show that the R Classification is not completely mastered by anyone and that there are significant differences in the interpretation of the R Classification between different medical specialties. For better differentiation between the residual tumour (R Classification) of the TNM and a pure resection margin assessment, we suggest the use of a Resection margin (Rm) Classification to avoid further misunderstandings. To assist better multidisciplinary cooperation and to ensure better patient care all medical disciplines should be educated about the actual meaning and correct application of the R Classification.
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.