371 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11597009)
1. A comparison of ink-directed and traditional whole-cavity re-excision for breast lumpectomy specimens with positive margins.
Gibson GR; Lesnikoski BA; Yoo J; Mott LA; Cady B; Barth RJ
Ann Surg Oncol; 2001 Oct; 8(9):693-704. PubMed ID: 11597009
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Lumpectomy cavity shaved margins do not impact re-excision rates in breast cancer patients.
Coopey SB; Buckley JM; Smith BL; Hughes KS; Gadd MA; Specht MC
Ann Surg Oncol; 2011 Oct; 18(11):3036-40. PubMed ID: 21947583
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Involved margins after lumpectomy for breast cancer: Always to be re-excised?
Sorrentino L; Agozzino M; Albasini S; Bossi D; Mazzucchelli S; Vanna R; Papadopoulou O; Villani L; Corsi F
Surg Oncol; 2019 Sep; 30():141-146. PubMed ID: 31500779
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The safety of multiple re-excisions after lumpectomy for breast cancer.
Coopey S; Smith BL; Hanson S; Buckley J; Hughes KS; Gadd M; Specht MC
Ann Surg Oncol; 2011 Dec; 18(13):3797-801. PubMed ID: 21630123
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Sampling of secondary margins decreases the need for re-excision after partial mastectomy.
Guidroz JA; Larrieux G; Liao J; Sugg SL; Scott-Conner CE; Weigel RJ
Surgery; 2011 Oct; 150(4):802-9. PubMed ID: 22000194
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The influence of additional surgical margins on the total specimen volume excised and the reoperative rate after breast-conserving surgery.
Huston TL; Pigalarga R; Osborne MP; Tousimis E
Am J Surg; 2006 Oct; 192(4):509-12. PubMed ID: 16978962
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The effect of intraoperative specimen inking on lumpectomy re-excision rates.
Singh M; Singh G; Hogan KT; Atkins KA; Schroen AT
World J Surg Oncol; 2010 Jan; 8():4. PubMed ID: 20082705
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Implications of New Lumpectomy Margin Guidelines for Breast-Conserving Surgery: Changes in Reexcision Rates and Predicted Rates of Residual Tumor.
Merrill AL; Coopey SB; Tang R; McEvoy MP; Specht MC; Hughes KS; Gadd MA; Smith BL
Ann Surg Oncol; 2016 Mar; 23(3):729-34. PubMed ID: 26467458
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Intra-operative touch preparation cytology; does it have a role in re-excision lumpectomy?
Valdes EK; Boolbol SK; Cohen JM; Feldman SM
Ann Surg Oncol; 2007 Mar; 14(3):1045-50. PubMed ID: 17206481
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Short term safety of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery for larger tumors.
Wijgman DJ; Ten Wolde B; van Groesen NR; Keemers-Gels ME; van den Wildenberg FJ; Strobbe LJ
Eur J Surg Oncol; 2017 Apr; 43(4):665-671. PubMed ID: 28041648
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Does the placement of surgical clips within the excision cavity influence local control for patients treated with breast-conserving surgery and irradiation.
Fein DA; Fowble BL; Hanlon AL; Hoffman JP; Sigurdson ER; Eisenberg BL
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 1996 Mar; 34(5):1009-17. PubMed ID: 8600083
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The Effect of Lumpectomy and Cavity Shave Margin Status on Recurrence and Survival in Breast-Conserving Surgery.
Abdelsattar JM; Afridi FG; Dai Z; Yousaf N; Seldomridge A; Battin AO; Wen S; Gray D; Marsh JW; Cowher MS; Partin JF; Hazard-Jenkins H; Lupinacci K
Am Surg; 2023 Mar; 89(3):424-433. PubMed ID: 34196595
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Role of re-excision for positive and close resection margins in patients treated with breast-conserving surgery.
Biglia N; Ponzone R; Bounous VE; Mariani LL; Maggiorotto F; Benevelli C; Liberale V; Ottino MC; Sismondi P
Breast; 2014 Dec; 23(6):870-5. PubMed ID: 25305040
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Identifying Factors and Techniques to Decrease the Positive Margin Rate in Partial Mastectomies: Have We Missed the Mark?
Edwards SB; Leitman IM; Wengrofsky AJ; Giddins MJ; Harris E; Mills CB; Fukuhara S; Cassaro S
Breast J; 2016 May; 22(3):303-9. PubMed ID: 26854189
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Management of positive margins after initial lumpectomy in elderly women with breast cancer.
Angarita FA; Acuna SA; McCready DR; Escallon J
Eur J Surg Oncol; 2018 Jul; 44(7):1048-1053. PubMed ID: 29525464
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Should New "No Ink On Tumor" Lumpectomy Margin Guidelines be Applied to Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS)? A Retrospective Review Using Shaved Cavity Margins.
Merrill AL; Tang R; Plichta JK; Rai U; Coopey SB; McEvoy MP; Hughes KS; Specht MC; Gadd MA; Smith BL
Ann Surg Oncol; 2016 Oct; 23(11):3453-3458. PubMed ID: 27207096
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Imaging of lumpectomy surface with large field-of-view confocal laser scanning microscope for intraoperative margin assessment - POLARHIS study.
Sandor MF; Schwalbach B; Hofmann V; Istrate SE; Schuller Z; Ionescu E; Heimann S; Ragazzi M; Lux MP
Breast; 2022 Dec; 66():118-125. PubMed ID: 36240525
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The influence of age and extensive intraductal component histology upon breast lumpectomy margin assessment as a predictor of residual tumor.
Wazer DE; Schmidt-Ullrich RK; Ruthazer R; DiPetrillo T; Boyle T; Kanski J; Safaii H
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 1999 Nov; 45(4):885-91. PubMed ID: 10571194
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparison of margin status and lesional size between radioactive seed localized vs conventional wire localized breast lumpectomy specimens.
Rarick J; Kimler BF; Tawfik O
Ann Diagn Pathol; 2016 Apr; 21():47-52. PubMed ID: 27040931
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Lumpectomy margins, reexcision, and local recurrence of breast cancer.
Tartter PI; Kaplan J; Bleiweiss I; Gajdos C; Kong A; Ahmed S; Zapetti D
Am J Surg; 2000 Feb; 179(2):81-5. PubMed ID: 10773138
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
