1226 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28041648)
21. Breast segmentectomy with rotation mammoplasty as an oncoplastic approach to extensive ductal carcinoma in situ.
Szynglarewicz B; Maciejczyk A; Forgacz J; Matkowski R
World J Surg Oncol; 2016 Mar; 14():72. PubMed ID: 26956623
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. 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]
23. Aesthetic and functional outcome after breast conserving surgery - Comparison between conventional and oncoplastic resection.
Ojala K; Meretoja TJ; Leidenius MH
Eur J Surg Oncol; 2017 Apr; 43(4):658-664. PubMed ID: 28040314
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. 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]
25. Factors Predictive of Re-excision After Oncoplastic Breast-conserving Surgery.
Amabile MI; Mazouni C; Guimond C; Sarfati B; Leymarie N; Cloutier AS; Bentivegna E; Garbay JR; Kolb F; Rimareix F
Anticancer Res; 2015 Jul; 35(7):4229-34. PubMed ID: 26124383
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. 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]
27. Rate of re-excision after breast-conserving surgery for invasive lobular carcinoma.
Wanis ML; Wong JA; Rodriguez S; Wong JM; Jabo B; Ashok A; Lum SS; Solomon NL; Reeves ME; Garberoglio CA; Senthil M
Am Surg; 2013 Oct; 79(10):1119-22. PubMed ID: 24160812
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Intra-operative digital specimen radiology reduces re-operation rates in therapeutic mammaplasty for breast cancer.
Majdak-Paredes EJ; Schaverien MV; Szychta P; Raine C; Dixon JM
Breast; 2015 Oct; 24(5):556-9. PubMed ID: 26119619
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. 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]
30. 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]
31. 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]
32. 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]
33. Margins in breast conserving surgery: The financial cost & potential savings associated with the new margin guidelines.
Singer L; Brown E; Lanni T
Breast; 2016 Aug; 28():1-4. PubMed ID: 27161409
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Re-resection rates and risk characteristics following breast conserving surgery for breast cancer and carcinoma in situ: A single-centre study of 1575 consecutive cases.
Kryh CG; Pietersen CA; Rahr HB; Christensen RD; Wamberg P; Lautrup MD
Breast; 2014 Dec; 23(6):784-9. PubMed ID: 25227964
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Low re-excision rate for positive margins in patients treated with ultrasound-guided breast-conserving surgery.
Yu CC; Chiang KC; Kuo WL; Shen SC; Lo YF; Chen SC
Breast; 2013 Oct; 22(5):698-702. PubMed ID: 23333255
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. The outcome of oncoplastic techniques in defect reconstruction after resection of central breast tumors.
Farouk O; Attia E; Roshdy S; Khater A; Senbe A; Fathi A; Hamed EE; Mesbah M; Shehatto F; El-Saed A; Denewer A
World J Surg Oncol; 2015 Sep; 13():285. PubMed ID: 26409877
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Oncoplastic breast surgery versus conventional breast-conserving surgery: a comparative retrospective study.
Behluli I; Le Renard PE; Rozwag K; Oppelt P; Kaufmann A; Schneider A
ANZ J Surg; 2019 Oct; 89(10):1236-1241. PubMed ID: 30990940
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. 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]
39. Outcome of oncoplastic breast surgery in 90 prospective patients.
Meretoja TJ; Svarvar C; Jahkola TA
Am J Surg; 2010 Aug; 200(2):224-8. PubMed ID: 20573334
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Impact of Using Intra-Operative Ultrasound Guided Breast- Conserving Surgery on Positive Margin and Re-Excision Rates in Breast Cancer Cases with Current SSO/ASTRO Guidelines.
Thanasitthichai S; Chaiwerawattana A; Phadhana-Anake O
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev; 2016; 17(9):4463-4467. PubMed ID: 27797262
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
