380 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16509840)
21. Predictors of surgical margin status in breast-conserving surgery within a breast screening program.
Kurniawan ED; Wong MH; Windle I; Rose A; Mou A; Buchanan M; Collins JP; Miller JA; Gruen RL; Mann GB
Ann Surg Oncol; 2008 Sep; 15(9):2542-9. PubMed ID: 18618180
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. 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]
23. The surgical margin status after breast-conserving surgery: discussion of an open issue.
Luini A; Rososchansky J; Gatti G; Zurrida S; Caldarella P; Viale G; Rosali dos Santos G; Frasson A
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2009 Jan; 113(2):397-402. PubMed ID: 18386174
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Ductal carcinoma in situ: size and resection volume predict margin status.
Melstrom LG; Melstrom KA; Wang EC; Pilewskie M; Winchester DJ
Am J Clin Oncol; 2010 Oct; 33(5):438-42. PubMed ID: 20023569
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Cytology of lumpectomy specimens.
Ku NN; Cox CE; Reintgen DS; Greenberg HM; Nicosia SV
Acta Cytol; 1991; 35(4):417-21. PubMed ID: 1718113
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. The role of frozen section analysis of margins during breast conservation surgery.
Weber S; Storm FK; Stitt J; Mahvi DM
Cancer J Sci Am; 1997; 3(5):273-7. PubMed ID: 9327150
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Frozen section analysis for intraoperative margin assessment during breast-conserving surgery results in low rates of re-excision and local recurrence.
Olson TP; Harter J; Muñoz A; Mahvi DM; Breslin T
Ann Surg Oncol; 2007 Oct; 14(10):2953-60. PubMed ID: 17674109
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Separate cavity margin sampling at the time of initial breast lumpectomy significantly reduces the need for reexcisions.
Cao D; Lin C; Woo SH; Vang R; Tsangaris TN; Argani P
Am J Surg Pathol; 2005 Dec; 29(12):1625-32. PubMed ID: 16327435
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Influence of breast cancer margin assessment method on the rates of positive margins and residual carcinoma.
Méndez JE; Lamorte WW; de Las Morenas A; Cerda S; Pistey R; King T; Kavanah M; Hirsch E; Stone MD
Am J Surg; 2006 Oct; 192(4):538-40. PubMed ID: 16978970
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Perpendicular inked versus tangential shaved margins in breast-conserving surgery: does the method matter?
Wright MJ; Park J; Fey JV; Park A; O'Neill A; Tan LK; Borgen PI; Cody HS; Van Zee KJ; King TA
J Am Coll Surg; 2007 Apr; 204(4):541-9. PubMed ID: 17382212
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Predictive factors for residual disease in re-excision specimens after breast-conserving surgery.
Atalay C; Irkkan C
Breast J; 2012; 18(4):339-44. PubMed ID: 22616572
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Detection of residual disease following breast-conserving surgery.
Beck NE; Bradburn MJ; Vincenti AC; Rainsbury RM
Br J Surg; 1998 Sep; 85(9):1273-6. PubMed ID: 9752875
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Margin index is not a reliable tool for predicting residual disease after breast-conserving surgery for DCIS.
Fisher CS; Klimberg VS; Khan S; Gao F; Margenthaler JA
Ann Surg Oncol; 2011 Oct; 18(11):3155-9. PubMed ID: 21947593
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Understanding the mechanisms creating false positive lumpectomy margins.
Dooley WC; Parker J
Am J Surg; 2005 Oct; 190(4):606-8. PubMed ID: 16164932
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Completion mastectomy after breast conserving surgery.
O'Donnell ME; Salem A; Badger SA; Sharif MA; Lioe T; Spence RA
Breast; 2008 Apr; 17(2):199-204. PubMed ID: 18024117
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Triple negative breast cancer is associated with an increased risk of residual invasive carcinoma after lumpectomy.
Sioshansi S; Ehdaivand S; Cramer C; Lomme MM; Price LL; Wazer DE
Cancer; 2012 Aug; 118(16):3893-8. PubMed ID: 22864932
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Intraoperative touch preparation cytology for margin assessment in breast-conservation surgery: does it work for lobular carcinoma?
Valdes EK; Boolbol SK; Ali I; Feldman SM; Cohen JM
Ann Surg Oncol; 2007 Oct; 14(10):2940-5. PubMed ID: 17632761
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. 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]
39. [Margin status in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast].
Vincens E; Alves K; Lauratet B; Cohen S; Bakenga J; Trie A; Lefranc JP
Bull Cancer; 2008 Dec; 95(12):1155-9. PubMed ID: 19091648
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Predictors of residual disease in repeat excisions for lumpectomies with margins less than 0.1 cm.
Rodriguez N; Diaz LK; Wiley EL
Clin Breast Cancer; 2005 Jun; 6(2):169-72. PubMed ID: 16001996
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
