ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2026
Margin Assessment in Breast-Conserving Surgery: A Comparative Analysis of Frozen Section and Cavity Shave Techniques.
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. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMargin status is a critical determinant of local recurrence after breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Achieving negative margins at the initial operation remains a key goal to optimize oncologic outcomes and minimize the need for additional surgery. Techniques to reduce positive margins include intraoperative frozen section (FS) analysis and cavity shave margins (CSMs). This study aimed to compare re-excision rates and operative times between these approaches.
methodsA retrospective cohort study analyzed adults undergoing BCS with or without sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) from January 2017 to February 2025. Margin assessment technique, clinicopathologic characteristics, re-excision for margin clearance, and operative time were collected. Cases using both FS and CSM were excluded.
resultsAmong 2224 BCS cases, 1431 (64.4 %) used FS and 793 (35.7 %) used CSM. During 2017-2022, FS was more commonly used, but CSM utilization surpassed FS in 2023. Re-excision rates were similar between FS and CSM overall (12.8 % vs 12.1 %; p = 0.65) and across invasive histologic subtypes, multifocality, bilateral disease, and receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (all p > 0.05). Stratification by procedure type showed that CSM reduced operative time compared with FS by approximately 18 min for BCS alone (53.5 ± 26.9 vs 71.2 ± 22.4 min; p <0.001) and by approximately 5 min for BCS with SLNB (72.8 ± 30.0 vs 77.8 ± 29.1 min; p = 0.005).
conclusionsAfter BCS, FS and CSM achieved comparable re-excision rates across histologic subtypes. The CSM technique was associated with significantly shorter operative times, supporting its use as an efficient margin assessment strategy.
Identifiers
42753063What 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.