591 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27590331)
1. Predictors of Surgical Margin Following Breast-Conserving Surgery: A Large Population-Based Cohort Study.
van Deurzen CH
Ann Surg Oncol; 2016 Dec; 23(Suppl 5):627-633. PubMed ID: 27590331
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Extent of ductal carcinoma in situ according to breast cancer subtypes: a population-based cohort study.
Doebar SC; van den Broek EC; Koppert LB; Jager A; Baaijens MHA; Obdeijn IAM; van Deurzen CHM
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2016 Jul; 158(1):179-187. PubMed ID: 27318854
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Predictors of Residual Tumor in Breast-Conserving Therapy.
Rath MG; Uhlmann L; Heil J; Domschke C; Roth Z; Sinn HP; Marme F; Scharf A; Schneeweiss A; Kieser M; Sohn C; Rom J
Ann Surg Oncol; 2015 Dec; 22 Suppl 3():S451-8. PubMed ID: 26224405
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. HER-2 positive breast cancer is associated with an increased risk of positive cavity margins after initial lumpectomy.
Jia H; Jia W; Yang Y; Li S; Feng H; Liu J; Rao N; Jin L; Wu J; Gu R; Zhu L; Chen K; Deng H; Zeng Y; Liu Q; Song E; Su F
World J Surg Oncol; 2014 Sep; 12():289. PubMed ID: 25241216
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Reoperation Rates in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ vs Invasive Breast Cancer After Wire-Guided Breast-Conserving Surgery.
Langhans L; Jensen MB; Talman MM; Vejborg I; Kroman N; Tvedskov TF
JAMA Surg; 2017 Apr; 152(4):378-384. PubMed ID: 28002557
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Does Mammographic Density have an Impact on the Margin Re-excision Rate After Breast-Conserving Surgery?
Edwards BL; Guidry CA; Larson KN; Novicoff WM; Harvey JA; Schroen AT
Ann Surg Oncol; 2016 Mar; 23(3):782-8. PubMed ID: 26471488
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging Features Associated with Positive Resection Margins in Patients with Invasive Lobular Carcinoma.
Yoon J; Kim EK; Kim MJ; Moon HJ; Yoon JH; Park VY
Korean J Radiol; 2020 Aug; 21(8):946-954. PubMed ID: 32677379
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Impact of Consensus Guidelines by the Society of Surgical Oncology and the American Society for Radiation Oncology on Margins for Breast-Conserving Surgery in Stages 1 and 2 Invasive Breast Cancer.
Chung A; Gangi A; Amersi F; Bose S; Zhang X; Giuliano A
Ann Surg Oncol; 2015 Dec; 22 Suppl 3():S422-7. PubMed ID: 26310280
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Breast conservative surgery and local recurrence.
Rezai M; Kraemer S; Kimmig R; Kern P
Breast; 2015 Nov; 24 Suppl 2():S100-7. PubMed ID: 26432359
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Clinicopathological Predictors of Positive Resection Margins in Breast-Conserving Surgery.
Chauhan H; Jiwa N; Nagarajan VR; Thiruchelvam P; Hogben K; Al-Mufti R; Hadjiminas D; Shousha S; Cutress R; Ashrafian H; Takats Z; Leff DR
Ann Surg Oncol; 2024 Jun; 31(6):3939-3947. PubMed ID: 38520579
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Surgeon Volume, Patient Age, and Tumor-Related Factors Influence the Need for Re-Excision After Breast-Conserving Surgery.
Hughes L; Hamm J; McGahan C; Baliski C
Ann Surg Oncol; 2016 Dec; 23(Suppl 5):656-664. PubMed ID: 27718033
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Prediction of positive resection margins in patients with non-palpable breast cancer.
Barentsz MW; Postma EL; van Dalen T; van den Bosch MA; Miao H; Gobardhan PD; van den Hout LE; Pijnappel RM; Witkamp AJ; van Diest PJ; van Hillegersberg R; Verkooijen HM
Eur J Surg Oncol; 2015 Jan; 41(1):106-12. PubMed ID: 25228054
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A comparison of intra-operative margin management techniques in breast-conserving surgery: a standardised approach reduces the likelihood of residual disease without increasing operative time.
Bolger JC; Solon JG; Khan SA; Hill AD; Power CP
Breast Cancer; 2015 May; 22(3):262-8. PubMed ID: 23649303
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence after breast-conserving surgery between ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer.
Choi YJ; Shin YD; Song YJ
World J Surg Oncol; 2016 Apr; 14():126. PubMed ID: 27122132
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. Association of clinical and pathologic variables with lumpectomy surgical margin status after preoperative diagnosis or excisional biopsy of invasive breast cancer.
Smitt MC; Horst K
Ann Surg Oncol; 2007 Mar; 14(3):1040-4. PubMed ID: 17203329
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The importance of pre-operative needle core breast biopsy results on resected tissue volume, margin status, and cosmesis.
Polat AV; Soran A; Andacoglu O; Kamali Polat A; McGuire K; Diego E; Johnson R
J BUON; 2013; 18(3):601-7. PubMed ID: 24065470
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]