The effect of intraoperative specimen inking on lumpectomy re-excision rates

World Journal of Surgical Oncology

Volumn 8, Issue , 2010, Pages

  Singh, Mansher ^a,b   Singh, Gayatri ^b   Hogan, Kevin T ^a   Atkins, Kristen A ^a   Schroen, Anneke T ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

^b ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES   (India)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; BREAST CARCINOMA; CANCER GRADING; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; INTRAOPERATIVE PERIOD; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MASTECTOMY; MINIMAL RESIDUAL DISEASE; PARTIAL MASTECTOMY; PATIENT CARE; REOPERATION; TUMOR VOLUME; BREAST TUMOR; COHORT ANALYSIS; LUNG CARCINOMA; MIDDLE AGED; PAGET NIPPLE DISEASE; PATHOLOGY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SEGMENTAL MASTECTOMY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

INK;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA, DUCTAL, BREAST; CARCINOMA, INTRADUCTAL, NONINFILTRATING; CARCINOMA, LOBULAR; COHORT STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; INK; INTRAOPERATIVE PERIOD; MASTECTOMY, SEGMENTAL; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM, RESIDUAL; REOPERATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 76749092632     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14777819     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1477-7819-8-4     Document Type: Article

References (9)

1. Smitt MC, Nowels K, Carlson RW, Jeffrey SS. Predictors of reexcision findings and recurrence after breast conservation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003, 57:979-85.
2. Luu HH, Otis CN, Reed WP, Garb JL, Frank JL. The unsatisfactory margin in breast cancer surgery. Am J Surg 1999, 178:362-366. 10.1016/S0002-9610(99)00198-1, 10612528.
3. Tartter PI, Kaplan J, Bleiweiss I, Gajdos C, Kong A, Ahmed S, Zapetti D. Lumpectomy margins, reexcision, and local recurrence of breast cancer. Am J Surg 2000, 179:81-5. 10.1016/S0002-9610(00)00272-5, 10773138.
4. Bani MR, Lux MP, Heusinger K, Wenkel E, Magener A, Schulz-Wendtland R, Beckmann MW, Fasching PA. Factors correlating with reexcision after breast-conserving therapy. Eur J Surg Oncol 2009, 35:32-37.
5. Gibson GR, Lesnikoski B, Yoo J, Mott LA, Cady B, Barth RJ. A comparison of ink-directed and traditional whole-cavity re-excision for breast lumpectomy specimens with positive margins. Ann Surg Oncol 2001, 8:693-704. 10.1007/s10434-001-0693-1, 11597009.
6. Molina MA, Snell S, Franceschi D, Jorda M, Gomez C, Moffat FL, Powell J, Avisar E. Breast specimen orientation. Ann Surg Oncol 2009, 16:285-288. 10.1245/s10434-008-0245-z, 19050966.
7. Dooley WC, Parker J. Understanding the mechanisms creating false positive lumpectomy margins. Am J Surg 2005, 190:606-608. 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.06.023, 16164932.
8. Smitt MC, Horst K. Association of clinical and pathologic variables with lumpectomy surgical margin status after preoperative diagnosis or excisional biopsy of invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2007, 14:1040-1044. 10.1245/s10434-006-9308-1, 17203329.
9. Lovrics PJ, Cornacchi SD, Farrokhyar F, Garnett A, Chen V, Franic S, Simunovic M. The relationship between surgical factors and margin status after breast-conservation surgery for early stage breast cancer. Am J Surg 2009, 197:740-746. 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2008.03.007, 18789424.