159 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25613784)
1. Lumpectomy specimen margins are not reliable in predicting residual disease in breast conserving surgery.
Tang R; Coopey SB; Specht MC; Lei L; Gadd MA; Hughes KS; Brachtel EF; Smith BL
Am J Surg; 2015 Jul; 210(1):93-8. PubMed ID: 25613784
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Separate cavity margins excision as a complement to conservative breast cancer surgery.
Zavagno G; Donà M; Orvieto E; Mocellin S; Pasquali S; Goldin E; Mele ML; Belardinelli V; Nitti D
Eur J Surg Oncol; 2010 Jul; 36(7):632-8. PubMed ID: 20542659
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Cavity margins and lumpectomy margins for pathological assessment: which is superior in breast-conserving surgery?
Yang H; Jia W; Chen K; Zeng Y; Li S; Jin L; Wang L; Song E; Su F
J Surg Res; 2012 Dec; 178(2):751-7. PubMed ID: 22683081
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. A pilot study evaluating shaved cavity margins with micro-computed tomography: a novel method for predicting lumpectomy margin status intraoperatively.
Tang R; Coopey SB; Buckley JM; Aftreth OP; Fernandez LJ; Brachtel EF; Michaelson JS; Gadd MA; Specht MC; Koerner FC; Smith BL
Breast J; 2013; 19(5):485-9. PubMed ID: 23773680
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. Evaluation of margin status in lumpectomy specimens and residual breast carcinoma.
Scopa CD; Aroukatos P; Tsamandas AC; Aletra C
Breast J; 2006; 12(2):150-3. PubMed ID: 16509840
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Do additional shaved margins at the time of lumpectomy eliminate the need for re-excision?
Jacobson AF; Asad J; Boolbol SK; Osborne MP; Boachie-Adjei K; Feldman SM
Am J Surg; 2008 Oct; 196(4):556-8. PubMed ID: 18809063
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Use of imprint cytology for assessment of surgical margins in lumpectomy specimens of breast cancer patients.
Bakhshandeh M; Tutuncuoglu SO; Fischer G; Masood S
Diagn Cytopathol; 2007 Oct; 35(10):656-9. PubMed ID: 17854083
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Defining the clinical target volume for patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with lumpectomy and accelerated partial breast irradiation: a pathologic analysis.
Vicini FA; Kestin LL; Goldstein NS
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2004 Nov; 60(3):722-30. PubMed ID: 15465188
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. MR imaging of the breast in patients with positive margins after lumpectomy: influence of the time interval between lumpectomy and MR imaging.
Frei KA; Kinkel K; Bonel HM; Lu Y; Esserman LJ; Hylton NM
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2000 Dec; 175(6):1577-84. PubMed ID: 11090379
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Relationship between initial margin status for invasive breast cancer and residual carcinoma after re-excision.
Kotwall C; Ranson M; Stiles A; Hamann MS
Am Surg; 2007 Apr; 73(4):337-43. PubMed ID: 17439024
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Close/positive margins after breast-conserving therapy: additional resection or no resection?
Wood WC
Breast; 2013 Aug; 22 Suppl 2():S115-7. PubMed ID: 24074771
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Factors associated with residual disease after initial breast-conserving surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ.
Wei S; Kragel CP; Zhang K; Hameed O
Hum Pathol; 2012 Jul; 43(7):986-93. PubMed ID: 22221704
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Margin width is not predictive of residual disease on re-excision in breast conserving therapy.
Hadzikadic Gusic L; McGuire KP; Ozmen T; Soran A; Thomas CR; McAuliffe PF; Diego EJ; Bonaventura M; Johnson RR; Ahrendt GM
J Surg Oncol; 2014 Apr; 109(5):426-30. PubMed ID: 24338603
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Does the volume of ductal carcinoma in situ impact the positive margin rate in patients undergoing breast conservation for invasive breast cancer?
Martin-Dunlap TM; Cyr AE; Al Mushawah F; Gao F; Margenthaler JA
J Surg Res; 2013 Sep; 184(1):228-33. PubMed ID: 23688789
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Local recurrence of breast cancer after cytological evaluation of lumpectomy margins.
Cox CE; Pendas S; Ku NN; Reintgen DS; Greenberg HS; Nicosia SV
Am Surg; 1998 Jun; 64(6):533-7; discussion 537-8. PubMed ID: 9619174
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
