ArticlePhotoacoustics2025
Utility of photoacoustic patterns in intra-operative margin assessment of breast cancer post neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
Article in Photoacoustics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the feasibility and accuracy of ultrasound-guided photoacoustic tomography (US-PA) for intraoperative margin assessment in breast-conserving surgery (BCS) following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). Methods: This study, approved by the local Institutional Review Board, included 21 women with histologically confirmed breast cancer referred for BCS post-NACT. Data from 4 participants were used for training while 17 participants were analyzed. US-PA imaging was performed using the MSOT inVision 512-ECHO system, capturing chromophores like lipids, collagen, and hemoglobin up to a 5 mm depth. Imaging results were compared to histopathological findings, and diagnostic accuracy was calculated. Results: US-PA imaging demonstrated a high diagnostic accuracy of 89.0 %, with a sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) of 100 %, specificity of 86.9 %, and positive predictive value (PPV) of 59.4 %. Excellent inter-observer agreement (kappa = 1) was observed. No laser-induced tissue damage was noted. The average scan time per specimen was approximately 20 minutes. False positives (n = 11) were primarily due to post-therapy fibrotic changes and extremely close tumor extensions (<2 mm). Conclusion: US-PA provided clear visualization of tissue components, accurately correlating with histopathology. The method's high NPV minimizes the risk of re-operations and locoregional recurrence. Although the PPV was lower, it did not impact clinical management as surgeons typically excise wider margins in such cases. The study highlighted US-PA's potential as a promising tool for intraoperative margin assessment in BCS post-NACT, offering a rapid, accurate, and safe method. Further studies with larger sample sizes are needed to confirm these findings and enhance quantitative assessment methods.
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.