Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 153

1.

Effect of time interval on residual disease in breast cancer.

Wiley EL, Diaz LK, Badve S, Morrow M.

Am J Surg Pathol. 2003 Feb;27(2):194-8.

PMID:
12548165
2.

The influence of age and extensive intraductal component histology upon breast lumpectomy margin assessment as a predictor of residual tumor.

Wazer DE, Schmidt-Ullrich RK, Ruthazer R, DiPetrillo T, Boyle T, Kanski J, Safaii H.

Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999 Nov 1;45(4):885-91.

PMID:
10571194
3.
4.

The value of breast lumpectomy margin assessment as a predictor of residual tumor burden in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.

Neuschatz AC, DiPetrillo T, Steinhoff M, Safaii H, Yunes M, Landa M, Chung M, Cady B, Wazer DE.

Cancer. 2002 Apr 1;94(7):1917-24.

5.

Does intraductal breast cancer spread in a segmental distribution? An analysis of residual tumour burden following segmental mastectomy using tumour bed biopsies.

Jenkinson AD, Al-Mufti RA, Mohsen Y, Berry MJ, Wells C, Carpenter R.

Eur J Surg Oncol. 2001 Feb;27(1):21-5.

PMID:
11237487
6.

Ductal carcinoma in situ in core biopsies containing invasive breast cancer: correlation with extensive intraductal component and lumpectomy margins.

Dzierzanowski M, Melville KA, Barnes PJ, MacIntosh RF, Caines JS, Porter GA.

J Surg Oncol. 2005 May 1;90(2):71-6.

PMID:
15844190
7.

The value of breast lumpectomy margin assessment as a predictor of residual tumor burden.

Wazer DE, Schmidt-Ullrich RK, Schmid CH, Ruthazer R, Kramer B, Safaii H, Graham R.

Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997 May 1;38(2):291-9.

PMID:
9226315
8.

Implications of New Lumpectomy Margin Guidelines for Breast-Conserving Surgery: Changes in Reexcision Rates and Predicted Rates of Residual Tumor.

Merrill AL, Coopey SB, Tang R, McEvoy MP, Specht MC, Hughes KS, Gadd MA, Smith BL.

Ann Surg Oncol. 2016 Mar;23(3):729-34. doi: 10.1245/s10434-015-4916-2. Epub 2015 Oct 14.

PMID:
26467458
9.

Separate cavity margin sampling at the time of initial breast lumpectomy significantly reduces the need for reexcisions.

Cao D, Lin C, Woo SH, Vang R, Tsangaris TN, Argani P.

Am J Surg Pathol. 2005 Dec;29(12):1625-32.

PMID:
16327435
10.

Patient age and positive margins are predictive factors of residual tumor on mastectomy specimen after conservative treatment for breast cancer.

Voguet L, Hébert T, Levêque J, Acker O, Mesbah H, Marret H, Porée P, Body G.

Breast. 2009 Aug;18(4):233-7. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2009.06.002. Epub 2009 Jul 22.

PMID:
19628389
11.

Histological margin assessment for breast ductal carcinoma in situ: precision and implications.

Sigal-Zafrani B, Lewis JS, Clough KB, Vincent-Salomon A, Fourquet A, Meunier M, Falcou MC, Sastre-Garau X; Institut Curie Breast Study Group.

Mod Pathol. 2004 Jan;17(1):81-8.

13.

Multiple re-excisions versus mastectomy in patients with persistent residual disease following breast conservation surgery.

Cellini C, Huston TL, Martins D, Christos P, Carson J, Kemper S, Simmons RM.

Am J Surg. 2005 Jun;189(6):662-6.

PMID:
15910716
14.

Atypical ductal hyperplasia at margin of breast biopsy--is re-excision indicated?

Arora S, Menes TS, Moung C, Nagi C, Bleiweiss I, Jaffer S.

Ann Surg Oncol. 2008 Mar;15(3):843-7. Epub 2007 Nov 7.

PMID:
17987337
16.

Evaluation of margin status in lumpectomy specimens and residual breast carcinoma.

Scopa CD, Aroukatos P, Tsamandas AC, Aletra C.

Breast J. 2006 Mar-Apr;12(2):150-3.

PMID:
16509840
17.
18.

Clinicopathologic significance of ductal carcinoma in situ in breast core needle biopsies with invasive cancer.

Jimenez RE, Bongers S, Bouwman D, Segel M, Visscher DW.

Am J Surg Pathol. 2000 Jan;24(1):123-8.

PMID:
10632496
19.

Significance of linear extent of breast carcinoma at surgical margin.

Darvishian F, Hajdu SI, DeRisi DC.

Ann Surg Oncol. 2003 Jan-Feb;10(1):48-51.

PMID:
12513960
20.

The risk of occult invasive breast cancer after excisional biopsy showing in-situ ductal carcinoma of comedo pattern.

Hardman PD, Worth A, Lee U, Baird RM.

Can J Surg. 1989 Jan;32(1):56-60. Erratum in: Can J Surg 1989 May;32(3):158.

PMID:
2535949

Supplemental Content

Support Center