Intraoperative breast specimen assessment in breast conserving surgery: comparison between standard mammography imaging and a remote radiological system.
Breast Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast
/ diagnostic imaging
Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating
/ diagnostic imaging
Female
Humans
Intraoperative Care
/ methods
Mammography
/ methods
Mastectomy, Segmental
/ methods
Middle Aged
Operative Time
Remote Consultation
/ methods
Reoperation
/ statistics & numerical data
Specimen Handling
Journal
The British journal of radiology
ISSN: 1748-880X
Titre abrégé: Br J Radiol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0373125
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 May 2020
01 May 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
27
2
2020
medline:
28
4
2020
entrez:
27
2
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To compare standard specimen mammography (SSM) with remote intraoperative specimen mammography (ISM) assessment in breast conserving-surgery (BCS) based on operative times, intraoperative additional excision (IAE) and re-intervention rates. We retrospectively compared 129 consecutive patients (136 lesions) who had BCS with SSM at our centre between 11/2011 and 02/2013 with 138 consecutive patients (144 lesions) who underwent BCS with ISM between 08/2014 and 02/2015.SSM or ISM were performed to confirm the target lesions within the excised specimen and margin adequacy. The utility of SMM and ISM was evaluated considering pathology as gold-standard, using χ The two groups did not statistically differ for age ( The introduction of ISM in BCS significantly reduced surgical time but did not change IAE and re-intervention rates, highlighting facilitated communication between surgeons and radiologists. Compared to standard mammography imaging, the use of ISM significantly reduced surgical time.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32101449
doi: 10.1259/bjr.20190785
pmc: PMC7217569
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
20190785Références
Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(6):2003-9
pubmed: 25358666
Ann Surg Oncol. 2014 Mar;21(3):717-30
pubmed: 24473640
Breast. 2014 Apr;23(2):112-9
pubmed: 24468464
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014 Mar 1;88(3):553-64
pubmed: 24521674
Am J Surg. 2013 Jun;205(6):703-10
pubmed: 23465329
JAMA Oncol. 2017 Oct 1;3(10):1352-1357
pubmed: 28586788
Breast. 2004 Aug;13(4):307-15
pubmed: 15325665
Am J Surg. 2006 Oct;192(4):513-5
pubmed: 16978963
Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2002;23(1):11-6
pubmed: 11876384
Ann Surg Oncol. 2007 Apr;14(4):1458-71
pubmed: 17260108
Breast. 2012 Aug;21(4):459-63
pubmed: 22119488
Am J Surg. 2002 Nov;184(5):383-93
pubmed: 12433599
Surgery. 2014 Jul;156(1):190-7
pubmed: 24929768
Am J Surg. 2013 Oct;206(4):526-9
pubmed: 23806823
Acta Oncol. 2008;47(4):672-81
pubmed: 18465335
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016 Feb;155(3):513-9
pubmed: 26872902
Radiol Med. 2007 Apr;112(3):366-76
pubmed: 17440696
Am J Surg. 2017 Dec;214(6):1104-1109
pubmed: 28974314
Curr Oncol. 2016 Oct;23(5):314-321
pubmed: 27803595
N Engl J Med. 2002 Oct 17;347(16):1227-32
pubmed: 12393819
CA Cancer J Clin. 2013 Jan;63(1):11-30
pubmed: 23335087