ArticleBiomolecules & biomedicine2026
Intraoperative ultrasound in breast-conserving surgery for palpable breast cancer: Association with surgical margins and resection volume.
Article in Biomolecules & biomedicine, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate determination of surgical margins is a crucial aspect of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for early-stage breast cancer. Traditionally, tumor localization has been performed through palpation followed by frozen section analysis. However, intraoperative ultrasonography (US) presents a practical and cost-effective alternative, particularly for small or poorly palpable lesions. This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between the use of intraoperative US and surgical outcomes in BCS. We conducted a retrospective analysis of 180 female patients with early-stage breast cancer who underwent surgery from 2020 to 2023, excluding those who received neoadjuvant therapy. Patients were classified into two groups based on the application of intraoperative US. We compared demographic, histopathological, and surgical parameters, including tumor diameter, resection volume, tumor diameter-to-resection volume ratio, closest surgical margin, and the necessity for cavity re-excision. Intraoperative US was utilized in 51.1% of cases (n=92). Tumor size was notably smaller in the intraoperative US group compared to the palpation-guided group (median 15 mm vs. 20 mm, p=0.019). Additionally, the median resection volume was significantly lower in the US group (64.65 cm³ vs. 130.91 cm³, p=0.001). The tumor diameter-to-resection volume ratio was higher in the intraoperative US group (0.03 vs. 0.02, p=0.044), indicating more precise tumor-targeted excision. Cavity re-excision rates were comparable between the two groups (10.9% vs. 15.9%, p=0.482), and no postoperative positive margins were recorded. Intraoperative ultrasonography was associated with adequate surgical margins and reduced resection volumes in breast-conserving surgery, suggesting its potential to enhance tissue preservation without increasing re-excision rates.
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.