269 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29524664)
1. Do All Positive Margins in Breast Cancer Patients Undergoing a Partial Mastectomy Need to Be Resected?
Chagpar AB; Tsangaris TN; Lannin DR
J Am Coll Surg; 2018 Jul; 227(1):13-21. PubMed ID: 29524664
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Cavity Shave Margins in Breast Cancer.
Chagpar AB; Killelea BK; Tsangaris TN; Butler M; Stavris K; Li F; Yao X; Bossuyt V; Harigopal M; Lannin DR; Pusztai L; Horowitz NR
N Engl J Med; 2015 Aug; 373(6):503-10. PubMed ID: 26028131
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Impact of Cavity Shave Margins on Margin Status in Patients with Pure Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.
Howard-McNatt M; Dupont E; Tsangaris T; Garcia-Cantu C; Chiba A; Berger AC; Levine EA; Gass JS; Ollila DW; Chagpar AB;
J Am Coll Surg; 2021 Apr; 232(4):373-378. PubMed ID: 33346081
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Circumferential Shaving of the Cavity in Breast-Conserving Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Chen K; Zhu L; Chen L; Li Q; Li S; Qiu N; Yang Y; Su F; Song E
Ann Surg Oncol; 2019 Dec; 26(13):4256-4263. PubMed ID: 31429019
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Does intra-operative margin assessment improve margin status and re-excision rates? A population-based analysis of outcomes in breast-conserving surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ.
Laws A; Brar MS; Bouchard-Fortier A; Leong B; Quan ML
J Surg Oncol; 2018 Dec; 118(7):1205-1211. PubMed ID: 30293241
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Excising Additional Margins at Initial Breast-Conserving Surgery (BCS) Reduces the Need for Re-excision in a Predominantly African American Population: A Report of a Randomized Prospective Study in a Public Hospital.
Jones V; Linebarger J; Perez S; Gabram S; Okoli J; Bumpers H; Burns B; Mosunjac M; Rizzo M
Ann Surg Oncol; 2016 Feb; 23(2):456-64. PubMed ID: 26254169
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Economic Impact of Routine Cavity Margins Versus Standard Partial Mastectomy in Breast Cancer Patients: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial.
Chagpar AB; Horowitz NR; Killelea BK; Tsangaris T; Longley P; Grizzle S; Loftus M; Li F; Butler M; Stavris K; Yao X; Harigopal M; Bossuyt V; Lannin DR; Pusztai L; Davidoff AJ; Gross CP
Ann Surg; 2017 Jan; 265(1):39-44. PubMed ID: 27192352
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Clinicopathologic factors related to surgical margin involvement, reoperation, and residual cancer in primary operable breast cancer - An analysis of 2050 patients.
Lai HW; Huang RH; Wu YT; Chen CJ; Chen ST; Lin YJ; Chen DR; Lee CW; Wu HK; Lin HY; Kuo SJ
Eur J Surg Oncol; 2018 Nov; 44(11):1725-1735. PubMed ID: 30120037
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Review of third and fourth re-excision for narrow or positive margins of invasive and intraductal carcinoma.
Subhas G; Shah AJ; Gupta A; Cook J; Dubay L; Silapaswan S; Kolachalam R; Kestenberg W; Ferguson L; Jacobs MJ; Goriel Y; Mittal VK
Int Surg; 2011; 96(1):18-20. PubMed ID: 21675615
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Impact of margin assessment method on positive margin rate and total volume excised.
Moo TA; Choi L; Culpepper C; Olcese C; Heerdt A; Sclafani L; King TA; Reiner AS; Patil S; Brogi E; Morrow M; Van Zee KJ
Ann Surg Oncol; 2014 Jan; 21(1):86-92. PubMed ID: 24046114
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. Prognostic factors for residual occult disease in shave margins during partial mastectomy.
Siegel JB; Mukherjee R; Park Y; Cluver AR; Chung C; Cole DJ; Lockett MA; Klauber-DeMore N; Abbott AM
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2021 Sep; 189(2):471-481. PubMed ID: 34132936
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. Resection of Cavity Shave Margins in Stage 0-III Breast Cancer Patients Undergoing Breast Conserving Surgery: A Prospective Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.
Dupont E; Tsangaris T; Garcia-Cantu C; Howard-McNatt M; Chiba A; Berger AC; Levine EA; Gass JS; Gallagher K; Lum SS; Martinez RD; Willis AI; Pandya SV; Brown EA; Fenton A; Mendiola A; Murray M; Solomon NL; Senthil M; Ollila DW; Edmonson D; Lazar M; Namm JP; Li F; Butler M; McGowan NE; Herrera ME; Avitan YP; Yoder B; Walters LL; McPartland T; Chagpar AB
Ann Surg; 2021 May; 273(5):876-881. PubMed ID: 31290763
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Close and Positive Lumpectomy Margins are Associated with Similar Rates of Residual Disease with Additional Surgery.
Fitzgerald S; Romanoff A; Cohen A; Schmidt H; Weltz C; Bleiweis IJ; Jaffer S; Port ER
Ann Surg Oncol; 2016 Dec; 23(13):4270-4276. PubMed ID: 27581606
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
