Specimen tomosynthesis provides no additional value to specimen ultrasound in ultrasound-visible malignant breast lesions.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q1 SURGERY Scandinavian Journal of Surgery Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-27 DOI:10.1177/14574969241233435
Sa'ed Almasarweh, Mazen Sudah, Hidemi Okuma, Sarianna Joukainen, Ritva Vanninen, Amro Masarwah
{"title":"Specimen tomosynthesis provides no additional value to specimen ultrasound in ultrasound-visible malignant breast lesions.","authors":"Sa'ed Almasarweh, Mazen Sudah, Hidemi Okuma, Sarianna Joukainen, Ritva Vanninen, Amro Masarwah","doi":"10.1177/14574969241233435","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and added value of specimen tomosynthesis (ST) to specimen ultrasound (SUS) in margin assessment of excised breast specimens in breast-conserving therapy for non-palpable US-visible breast lesions.</p><p><strong>Materials: </strong>Between January 2018 and August 2019, all consecutive patients diagnosed with non-palpable breast cancer visible by ultrasound (US), treated with breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and requiring radiological intraoperative breast specimen assessment, were included in this study. Excised breast specimens were examined with SUS by radiologists blinded to the ST results, and margins smaller than 10 mm were recorded. STs were evaluated retrospectively by experienced radiologists.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 120 specimens were included. SUS showed a statistically significant correlation with pathological margin measurements, while ST did not and provided no additional information. The odds ratios (ORs) for SUS to predict a positive margin was 3.429 (confidence interval (CI) = 0.548-21.432) using a 10-mm cut-off point and 14.182 (CI = 2.134-94.254) using a 5-mm cut-off point, while the OR for ST were 2.528 (CI = 0.400-15.994) and 3.188 (CI = 0.318-31.998), respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>SUS was superior in evaluating intraoperative resection margins of US-visible breast resection specimens when compared to ST. Therefore, ST could be considered redundant in applicable situations.</p>","PeriodicalId":49566,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"237-245"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14574969241233435","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and added value of specimen tomosynthesis (ST) to specimen ultrasound (SUS) in margin assessment of excised breast specimens in breast-conserving therapy for non-palpable US-visible breast lesions.

Materials: Between January 2018 and August 2019, all consecutive patients diagnosed with non-palpable breast cancer visible by ultrasound (US), treated with breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and requiring radiological intraoperative breast specimen assessment, were included in this study. Excised breast specimens were examined with SUS by radiologists blinded to the ST results, and margins smaller than 10 mm were recorded. STs were evaluated retrospectively by experienced radiologists.

Results: A total of 120 specimens were included. SUS showed a statistically significant correlation with pathological margin measurements, while ST did not and provided no additional information. The odds ratios (ORs) for SUS to predict a positive margin was 3.429 (confidence interval (CI) = 0.548-21.432) using a 10-mm cut-off point and 14.182 (CI = 2.134-94.254) using a 5-mm cut-off point, while the OR for ST were 2.528 (CI = 0.400-15.994) and 3.188 (CI = 0.318-31.998), respectively.

Conclusions: SUS was superior in evaluating intraoperative resection margins of US-visible breast resection specimens when compared to ST. Therefore, ST could be considered redundant in applicable situations.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对于超声可视的乳腺恶性病变,标本断层扫描与标本超声相比没有额外价值。
研究背景本研究旨在评估标本断层扫描(ST)与标本超声(SUS)在保乳治疗中切除乳腺标本边缘评估的准确性和附加值:2018年1月至2019年8月期间,本研究纳入了所有经超声(US)确诊为不可扪及的乳腺癌、接受保乳手术(BCS)治疗且需要术中乳腺标本放射学评估的连续患者。切除的乳腺标本由对ST结果保密的放射科医生用SUS进行检查,并记录小于10毫米的边缘。由经验丰富的放射科医生对 ST 进行回顾性评估:结果:共纳入 120 例标本。SUS与病理边缘测量结果有统计学意义的相关性,而ST则没有,也没有提供额外的信息。采用 10 毫米截断点时,SUS 预测边缘阳性的几率比(ORs)为 3.429(置信区间 (CI) = 0.548-21.432),采用 5 毫米截断点时为 14.182(CI = 2.134-94.254),而 ST 的几率比分别为 2.528(CI = 0.400-15.994)和 3.188(CI = 0.318-31.998):结论:与 ST 相比,SUS 在评估 US 可见乳腺切除标本的术中切除边缘方面更具优势。因此,ST在适用情况下可被视为多余。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
4.20%
发文量
37
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Scandinavian Journal of Surgery (SJS) is the official peer reviewed journal of the Finnish Surgical Society and the Scandinavian Surgical Society. It publishes original and review articles from all surgical fields and specialties to reflect the interests of our diverse and international readership that consists of surgeons from all specialties and continents.
期刊最新文献
A randomized double-blind noninferiority clinical multicenter trial on oral moxifloxacin versus placebo in the outpatient treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis: APPAC IV study protocol. Modern surgical treatments for lymphedema. Impact of oral administration of calcitriol to prevent symptomatic hypocalcemia after total thyroidectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis. 16-year outcomes of blunt thoracic aortic injury treated with thoracic endovascular aortic repair: A single-institution experience. Reducing the risk of cancer with bariatric surgery: The need for evidence to guide practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1