ArticleInternational journal of breast cancer2026
Vacuum-Assisted Excision and Assessing Residual Tumor Burden in Patients With Breast Cancer Following Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (A Pilot Study).
Article in International journal of breast cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Vacuum-Assisted Excision and Assessing Residual Tumor Burden in Patients With Breast Cancer Following Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (A Pilot Study).International journal of breast cancer · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: The objective of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of vacuum-assisted excision as a minimally invasive method for assessing residual tumor burden in distinct breast cancer subtypes following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Materials and Methods: In this pilot clinical trial, 20 patients with breast cancer scheduled for neoadjuvant chemotherapy were assessed. Upon completion of chemotherapy, patients underwent ultrasound-guided vacuum-assisted excision of the tumor site, performed by a radiologist. Subsequently, surgical excision of the tumor was carried out. The pathology reports from the vacuum excision were compared with the surgical specimens to determine the concordance in detecting residual tumor tissue. Results: Among the 20 patients who underwent vacuum-assisted excision, 13 patients demonstrated no residual tumor in both vacuum pathology and surgical pathology. However, in four patients, including three cases of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS) and one case of Invasive Ductal Carcinoma (IDC), a false negative vacuum excision was reported. In three patients, residual tumor was reported both in surgical and vacuum pathology. The positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of vacuum excision for detecting residual tumor were 100%, 76.5%, and 80%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of vacuum excision were 42.9% and 100%, respectively. Conclusion: Based on the findings of this study and considering the accuracy of vacuum excision in identifying residual tumors (80%), it is evident that vacuum excision cannot currently serve as a substitute modality for surgery in the management of patients with post-neoadjuvant breast cancer. Further research with a larger sample size is warranted to enhance our understanding in this area. Trial Registration: IRCT20241204063942N1.
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.