ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2026
Surgical and Oncologic Impact of Cavity Shave Margins in Breast-Conserving Surgery.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 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.
- ASO Author Reflections: Beyond Margin Clearance-Reconsidering the Oncologic Role of Cavity Shave Margins.Annals of surgical oncology · 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
backgroundSurgical margin status is a critical determinant of local control in breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Circumferential cavity shave margins (CSM) reduce positive margin rates and re-excisions, but their impact on recurrence remains incompletely defined.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing BCS for stage 0-III breast cancer within a single integrated health system between 2017 and 2022. Patients were stratified according to operative technique into those undergoing BCS with circumferential CSM and those undergoing BCS without (non-CSM). The primary oncologic endpoint was recurrence; the secondary outcome was re-excision for a positive margin. Multivariable logistic regression identified factors independently associated with recurrence.
resultsA total of 2,648 patients met inclusion criteria, including 1762 (66.5%) treated with non-CSM and 886 (33.5%) with CSM. Adoption of CSM increased progressively over the study period. Re-excision for positive margins was significantly lower in the CSM cohort (7.3% vs. 19.2%, p < 0.001). Overall, 122 relapses (4.6%) were documented. Recurrence was observed in 3.5% of patients undergoing CSM and 5.2% treated with non-CSM, although this difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.067). On multivariable analysis, CSM was not independently associated with recurrence, whereas higher clinical stage and omission of radiotherapy remained significant predictors.
conclusionsAlthough CSM was not independently associated with recurrence after adjustment, routine CSM substantially reduced re-excision for positive margins. Reducing the need for subsequent surgical procedures may lessen patient burden while improving healthcare utilization and lowering associated costs, supporting CSM as a valuable strategy in contemporary BCS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42616326What 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.