A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Comparison of margin assessment between intraoperative digital and conventional specimen mammography in breast cancer: A preliminary study. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Background: Although breast surgeons can request frozen section biopsies to evaluate margin status in breast-conserving surgery (BCS), specimen imaging is also a useful assessment tool. Intraoperative digital specimen mammography (IDSM) has recently been introduced in Korea. To estimate the clinical role of IDSM, this study compared the clinicopathologic factors of patients whose specimen was assessed with IDSM with those assessed using conventional specimen mammography (CSM).

Methods: From October to December 2021, 78 breast cancer patients who underwent BCS were included in this study. The obtained specimens were assessed using IDSM (n = 44) and CSM (n = 34). Clinicopathologic factors included margin involvement status in specimen mammography and the results of frozen section biopsies. The radiation dose emitted from the specimen after mammography was measured using a portable device.

Results: There were no significant differences in clinicopathological factors between the two groups, except the type of surgery for axillary lymph nodes. The closest distance from the margin to tumor was longer in the CSM group than in the IDSM group, although the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.894). Margin involvement was accurately detected using IDSM due to the absence of compression (p < 0.001). In addition, the sensitivity and accuracy of IDSM were higher, and the false-negative rate was lower.

Conclusion: Both specimen mammography methods were highly accurate in evaluating the margin involvement status. However, the margin status could be examined more precisely using IDSM because the specimen was not compressed to perform the examination. Because the IDSM system was installed in the operating room, it not only shortened performing routes but also reduced the operating time by providing immediate results.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asjsur.2022.09.094DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

specimen mammography
20
intraoperative digital
8
conventional specimen
8
breast cancer
8
frozen biopsies
8
clinicopathologic factors
8
assessed idsm
8
margin involvement
8
specimen
7
idsm
6

Similar Publications