ArticleArchives of breast cancer2026
Impact of Cavity Shaving on Margin Status and Re-excision Rates in Breast-Conserving Surgery: Experience from a Single Institute.
Article in Archives of breast cancer, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The comparative outcomes of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) with and without cavity shave margins (CSM) are not well established, despite prior randomized and observational studies, due to heterogeneity in patient populations and margin definitions. We aim to evaluate the impact of each procedure on final margin status and subsequent re-excision rates. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study comprising 529 women who underwent either BCS with CSM or BCS without CSM between 2013 and 2015 for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), or both at Detroit Medical Center, Michigan. Data, including final margin status (inked and close margin) and re-excision status, were collected. Statistical analysis was performed using univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses. Results: Our analysis revealed no significant reduction in the incidence of positive margins (involved and tumor within 2 mm) among patients who underwent either procedure. In the univariable analysis, patients without lymph node (LN) metastases, those who underwent BCS with CSM, and those with pure IDC had a decreased risk of re-excision compared with those without LN sampling and those with only DCIS (all Conclusion: Although no significant difference was observed between the 2 procedures in reducing the incidence of positive margins among patients with only IDC, only DCIS, and both IDC and DCIS, CSM showed a lower need for re-excision, particularly in cases with pure IDC.
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.