ArticleBJS open2026
Margin status after breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer in the Netherlands from 2009 to 2022.
Article in BJS open, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTumour-positive margins after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for breast cancer increase the risk of local recurrence and require additional therapy. Intraoperative imaging techniques in high-risk patients could improve margin determination. This study describes margin status after BCS in the Netherlands between 2009 and 2022, focusing on trends in surgical margin status and identifying subgroups at higher risk of tumour-positive margins.
methodsAll patients undergoing BCS for non-metastatic breast cancer in the Netherlands from 2009 to 2022 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Data included patient and tumour characteristics, treatment details, and surgical margin status. Descriptive statistics and trend analyses were performed. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to identify risk factors and patient subgroups at higher risk of margin involvement. Marginal effects analyses quantified tumour-positive margin risks.
resultsIn total, 109 475 women were included in the study. The mean tumour-positive margin rate was 10.8%. An extensively positive margin (> 4 mm involvement) occurred in 3.9% of patients, with a decreasing trend seen until 2013. Risk factors for a positive margin were invasive lobular carcinoma, multifocal disease, clinical tumour (cT) category 2 or 3, and neoadjuvant chemo- or hormonal systemic therapy without pathological complete response (pCR), with odds ratios (ORs) ranging from 1.56 to 2.96. One or more of these risk factors was present in 44 772 patients (40.9% of total cohort). The probability of positive margins increased with the number of risk factors, from 6.8% (no risk factors) to 49.1% (all four risk factors). Preoperative understaging (cT<pathological tumour) was also associated with an increased margin risk (OR 3.69). Two prediction tools were developed based on these outcomes (for total positive margins and for extensively positive margins only).
conclusionOver the past decade, tumour-positive margin rates in the Netherlands have remained stable at 10.8%. Patients with invasive lobular carcinoma, cT2/3 tumours, multifocal disease, or those receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy or hormonal systemic therapy without pCR remain at substantially higher risk. There is room for improvement in these patient subgroups, highlighting the need for intraoperative imaging innovations to reduce positive margins.
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.