ArticleBreast cancer (Tokyo, Japan)2026
Current practices and challenges in margin evaluation for breast-conserving surgery specimens: a nationwide survey in Japan with international benchmarking.
Article in Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan), 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate pathological evaluation and reporting of partial mastectomy specimens are essential for determining appropriate postoperative management in breast-conserving surgery. Although the Japanese Breast Cancer Society (JBCS) Guidelines provide recommendations regarding specimen handling, actual practices at individual institutions have not been fully clarified. This study aimed to assess the current status in Japan and identify aspects for improving the quality and standardization of pathological reporting.
methodsA nationwide survey was conducted among 247 institutions certified by the JBCS in Japan, and responses were obtained from 161 institutions. The questionnaire addressed various aspects of specimen handling, including sectioning orientation, definitions of margin positivity, and reporting formats. The responses were analyzed with reference to internationally recognized standards, and the same questionnaire was also distributed to selected international experts to enable supplementary comparison.
resultsMargin positivity in invasive carcinoma was defined as tumor exposure by 83% of institutions, while 17% also considered close margins positive. 85% of institutions documented the distance to close margins, but this was less frequent than documentation of margin direction (94%) and histologic components (96%). For superficial (skin-side) and muscle-side margins, some institutions reported findings only when positive. Taken together, these inconsistencies raise concerns that clinically important information may not always be captured and communicated.
conclusionsSpecimen handling practices were generally consistent with national guidelines, but documentation of certain elements, such as the distance to close margins, varied among institutions. Further standardization of pathology reporting, with attention to international standards, is warranted to improve clarity and clinical utility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41196469What 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.