243 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34120811)
1. Lack of definitive presurgical pathological diagnosis is associated with inadequate surgical margins in breast-conserving surgery.
Nasute Fauerbach PV; Tyryshkin K; Rodrigo SP; Rudan J; Fichtinger G; Reedijk M; Varma S; Berman DM
Eur J Surg Oncol; 2021 Oct; 47(10):2483-2491. PubMed ID: 34120811
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Preoperative clinicopathologic factors and breast magnetic resonance imaging features can predict ductal carcinoma in situ with invasive components.
Lee CW; Wu HK; Lai HW; Wu WP; Chen ST; Chen DR; Chen CJ; Kuo SJ
Eur J Radiol; 2016 Apr; 85(4):780-9. PubMed ID: 26971424
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Efficacy of breast MRI for surgical decision in patients with breast cancer: ductal carcinoma in situ versus invasive ductal carcinoma.
Lee J; Jung JH; Kim WW; Park CS; Lee RK; Kim HJ; Kim WH; Park HY
BMC Cancer; 2020 Sep; 20(1):934. PubMed ID: 32993586
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Factors predictive of invasive ductal carcinoma in cases preoperatively diagnosed as ductal carcinoma in situ.
Takada K; Kashiwagi S; Asano Y; Goto W; Morisaki T; Takahashi K; Fujita H; Takashima T; Tomita S; Hirakawa K; Ohira M
BMC Cancer; 2020 Jun; 20(1):513. PubMed ID: 32493410
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Factors associated with upstaging from ductal carcinoma in situ following core needle biopsy to invasive cancer in subsequent surgical excision.
Kim J; Han W; Lee JW; You JM; Shin HC; Ahn SK; Moon HG; Cho N; Moon WK; Park IA; Noh DY
Breast; 2012 Oct; 21(5):641-5. PubMed ID: 22749854
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Preoperatively diagnosed ductal cancers in situ of the breast presenting as even small masses are of high risk for the invasive cancer foci in postoperative specimen.
Szynglarewicz B; Kasprzak P; Halon A; Matkowski R
World J Surg Oncol; 2015 Jul; 13():218. PubMed ID: 26179898
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. [Preoperative dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI can reduce the rate of tumor-positive resection margins after breast conserving surgery in patients with early non-mass breast carcinoma].
Li XS; Song YL; Li DC; Zhu HX; Meng LM; Huang RR; Wang SL; Wang D; Fang H; Fan HX
Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi; 2017 Oct; 39(10):768-774. PubMed ID: 29061022
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. High rate of postoperative upstaging of ductal carcinoma in situ when prioritizing ultrasound evaluation of mammography-detected lesions: a single-center retrospective cohort study.
Hsieh YC; Lo C; Lee YH; Chien N; Lu TP; Tsai LW; Wang MY; Kuo WH; Chang YC; Huang CS
World J Surg Oncol; 2023 Feb; 21(1):48. PubMed ID: 36804000
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. External validation and modification of nomogram for predicting positive resection margins before breast conserving surgery.
Jung JJ; Kang E; Kim EK; Kim SM; Jang M; La Yun B; Park SY; Shin HC
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2020 Sep; 183(2):373-380. PubMed ID: 32647937
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Resection margins and local recurrences of impalpable breast cancer: Comparison between radioguided occult lesion localization (ROLL) and radioactive seed localization (RSL).
Niinikoski L; Hukkinen K; Leidenius MHK; Vaara P; Voynov A; Heikkilä P; Mattson J; Meretoja TJ
Breast; 2019 Oct; 47():93-101. PubMed ID: 31362135
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Prediction of underestimated invasiveness in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast on percutaneous biopsy as rationale for recommending concurrent sentinel lymph node biopsy.
Schulz S; Sinn P; Golatta M; Rauch G; Junkermann H; Schuetz F; Sohn C; Heil J
Breast; 2013 Aug; 22(4):537-42. PubMed ID: 23237921
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. US-guided 14G core needle biopsy: comparison between underestimated and correctly diagnosed breast cancers.
Kim H; Youk JH; Kim JA; Gweon HM; Jung WH; Son EJ
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev; 2014; 15(7):3179-83. PubMed ID: 24815467
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Does intraductal breast cancer spread in a segmental distribution? An analysis of residual tumour burden following segmental mastectomy using tumour bed biopsies.
Jenkinson AD; Al-Mufti RA; Mohsen Y; Berry MJ; Wells C; Carpenter R
Eur J Surg Oncol; 2001 Feb; 27(1):21-5. PubMed ID: 11237487
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Breast lesions diagnosed by ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy: Can shearwave elastography predict histologic upgrade after surgery or vaccuum assisted excision?
Sohn YM; Seo M
Clin Imaging; 2018; 49():150-155. PubMed ID: 29524785
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Ductal carcinoma in situ in core biopsies containing invasive breast cancer: correlation with extensive intraductal component and lumpectomy margins.
Dzierzanowski M; Melville KA; Barnes PJ; MacIntosh RF; Caines JS; Porter GA
J Surg Oncol; 2005 May; 90(2):71-6. PubMed ID: 15844190
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
