FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2789589479> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2789589479 endingPage "670" @default.
• W2789589479 startingPage "661" @default.
• W2789589479 abstract "Purpose The 2014 Society of Surgical Oncology–American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus suggested “no ink on tumor” is a sufficient surgical margin for invasive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Whether close margins <2 mm are associated with inferior outcomes remains controversial. This study evaluated 10-year outcomes by margin status in a population-based cohort treated with BCS and adjuvant radiation therapy (RT). Methods and Materials The subjects were 10,863 women with invasive cancer categorized as pT1 to T3, any N, and M0 referred from 2001 to 2011, an era in which the institutional policy was to re-excise close or positive margins, except in select cases. All women underwent BCS and whole-breast RT with or without boost RT. Local recurrence (LR) and breast cancer–specific survival (BCSS) were examined using competing-risk analysis in cohorts with negative (≥2 mm; n = 9241, 85%), close (<2 mm; n = 1310, 12%), or positive (tumor touching ink; n = 312, 3%) margins. Multivariable analysis and matched-pair analysis were performed. Results The median follow-up period was 8 years. Systemic therapy was used in 87% of patients. Boost RT was used in 34.1%, 76.9%, and 79.5% of patients with negative, close, and positive margins, respectively. In the negative, close, and positive margin cohorts, the 10-year cumulative incidence of LR was 1.8%, 2.0%, and 1.1%, respectively (P = .759). Corresponding BCSS estimates were 93.9%, 91.8%, and 87.9%, respectively (P < .001). On multivariable analysis, close margins were not associated with increased LR (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval 0.79-1.97; P = .350) or reduced BCSS (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval 0.98-1.58, P = .071) relative to negative margins. On matched-pair analysis, close margin cases had similar LR (P = .114) and BCSS (P = .100) to negative margin controls. Conclusions Select cases with close or positive margins in this population-based analysis had similar LR and BCSS to cases with negative margins. While these findings do not endorse omitting re-excision for all cases, the data support a policy of accepting carefully selected cases with close margins for adjuvant RT without re-excision. The 2014 Society of Surgical Oncology–American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus suggested “no ink on tumor” is a sufficient surgical margin for invasive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Whether close margins <2 mm are associated with inferior outcomes remains controversial. This study evaluated 10-year outcomes by margin status in a population-based cohort treated with BCS and adjuvant radiation therapy (RT). The subjects were 10,863 women with invasive cancer categorized as pT1 to T3, any N, and M0 referred from 2001 to 2011, an era in which the institutional policy was to re-excise close or positive margins, except in select cases. All women underwent BCS and whole-breast RT with or without boost RT. Local recurrence (LR) and breast cancer–specific survival (BCSS) were examined using competing-risk analysis in cohorts with negative (≥2 mm; n = 9241, 85%), close (<2 mm; n = 1310, 12%), or positive (tumor touching ink; n = 312, 3%) margins. Multivariable analysis and matched-pair analysis were performed. The median follow-up period was 8 years. Systemic therapy was used in 87% of patients. Boost RT was used in 34.1%, 76.9%, and 79.5% of patients with negative, close, and positive margins, respectively. In the negative, close, and positive margin cohorts, the 10-year cumulative incidence of LR was 1.8%, 2.0%, and 1.1%, respectively (P = .759). Corresponding BCSS estimates were 93.9%, 91.8%, and 87.9%, respectively (P < .001). On multivariable analysis, close margins were not associated with increased LR (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval 0.79-1.97; P = .350) or reduced BCSS (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval 0.98-1.58, P = .071) relative to negative margins. On matched-pair analysis, close margin cases had similar LR (P = .114) and BCSS (P = .100) to negative margin controls. Select cases with close or positive margins in this population-based analysis had similar LR and BCSS to cases with negative margins. While these findings do not endorse omitting re-excision for all cases, the data support a policy of accepting carefully selected cases with close margins for adjuvant RT without re-excision." @default.
• W2789589479 created "2018-03-29" @default.
• W2789589479 creator A5011585289 @default.
• W2789589479 creator A5037427247 @default.
• W2789589479 creator A5050103438 @default.
• W2789589479 creator A5079133199 @default.
• W2789589479 creator A5085426335 @default.
• W2789589479 creator A5091101559 @default.
• W2789589479 creator A5091737661 @default.
• W2789589479 date "2018-07-01" @default.
• W2789589479 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W2789589479 title "Close Margins Less Than 2 mm Are Not Associated With Higher Risks of 10-Year Local Recurrence and Breast Cancer Mortality Compared With Negative Margins in Women Treated With Breast-Conserving Therapy" @default.
• W2789589479 cites W1967508286 @default.
• W2789589479 cites W1969319564 @default.
• W2789589479 cites W1978631002 @default.
• W2789589479 cites W1994769637 @default.
• W2789589479 cites W2013690864 @default.
• W2789589479 cites W2021640699 @default.
• W2789589479 cites W2027470031 @default.
• W2789589479 cites W2033176966 @default.
• W2789589479 cites W2036871048 @default.
• W2789589479 cites W2053909700 @default.
• W2789589479 cites W2079195085 @default.
• W2789589479 cites W2095349827 @default.
• W2789589479 cites W2096499183 @default.
• W2789589479 cites W2099005045 @default.
• W2789589479 cites W2102897551 @default.
• W2789589479 cites W2103608035 @default.
• W2789589479 cites W2116984083 @default.
• W2789589479 cites W2122789151 @default.
• W2789589479 cites W2123553402 @default.
• W2789589479 cites W2128153734 @default.
• W2789589479 cites W2141344114 @default.
• W2789589479 cites W2145207352 @default.
• W2789589479 cites W2149455283 @default.
• W2789589479 cites W2153076843 @default.
• W2789589479 cites W2154998849 @default.
• W2789589479 cites W2158615473 @default.
• W2789589479 cites W2164987322 @default.
• W2789589479 cites W2169031890 @default.
• W2789589479 cites W2171648846 @default.
• W2789589479 cites W2172480593 @default.
• W2789589479 cites W2283954069 @default.
• W2789589479 cites W2302332479 @default.
• W2789589479 cites W2311660836 @default.
• W2789589479 cites W2311918827 @default.
• W2789589479 cites W2313004219 @default.
• W2789589479 cites W2471311542 @default.
• W2789589479 cites W4254981757 @default.
• W2789589479 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.03.005" @default.
• W2789589479 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29678525" @default.
• W2789589479 hasPublicationYear "2018" @default.
• W2789589479 type Work @default.
• W2789589479 sameAs 2789589479 @default.
• W2789589479 citedByCount "10" @default.
• W2789589479 countsByYear W27895894792019 @default.
• W2789589479 countsByYear W27895894792020 @default.
• W2789589479 countsByYear W27895894792022 @default.
• W2789589479 countsByYear W27895894792023 @default.
• W2789589479 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2789589479 hasAuthorship W2789589479A5011585289 @default.
• W2789589479 hasAuthorship W2789589479A5037427247 @default.
• W2789589479 hasAuthorship W2789589479A5050103438 @default.
• W2789589479 hasAuthorship W2789589479A5079133199 @default.
• W2789589479 hasAuthorship W2789589479A5085426335 @default.
• W2789589479 hasAuthorship W2789589479A5091101559 @default.
• W2789589479 hasAuthorship W2789589479A5091737661 @default.
• W2789589479 hasConcept C120665830 @default.
• W2789589479 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2789589479 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
• W2789589479 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2789589479 hasConcept C143998085 @default.
• W2789589479 hasConcept C2777757722 @default.
• W2789589479 hasConcept C2781467025 @default.
• W2789589479 hasConcept C2908647359 @default.
• W2789589479 hasConcept C29456083 @default.
• W2789589479 hasConcept C509974204 @default.
• W2789589479 hasConcept C530470458 @default.
• W2789589479 hasConcept C61511704 @default.
• W2789589479 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2789589479 hasConcept C72563966 @default.
• W2789589479 hasConcept C88879693 @default.
• W2789589479 hasConcept C99454951 @default.
• W2789589479 hasConceptScore W2789589479C120665830 @default.
• W2789589479 hasConceptScore W2789589479C121332964 @default.
• W2789589479 hasConceptScore W2789589479C121608353 @default.
• W2789589479 hasConceptScore W2789589479C126322002 @default.
• W2789589479 hasConceptScore W2789589479C143998085 @default.
• W2789589479 hasConceptScore W2789589479C2777757722 @default.
• W2789589479 hasConceptScore W2789589479C2781467025 @default.
• W2789589479 hasConceptScore W2789589479C2908647359 @default.
• W2789589479 hasConceptScore W2789589479C29456083 @default.
• W2789589479 hasConceptScore W2789589479C509974204 @default.
• W2789589479 hasConceptScore W2789589479C530470458 @default.
• W2789589479 hasConceptScore W2789589479C61511704 @default.
• W2789589479 hasConceptScore W2789589479C71924100 @default.
• W2789589479 hasConceptScore W2789589479C72563966 @default.
• W2789589479 hasConceptScore W2789589479C88879693 @default.

• next