Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 97

1.

Specimen shrinkage and its influence on margin assessment in breast cancer.

Yeap BH, Muniandy S, Lee SK, Sabaratnam S, Singh M.

Asian J Surg. 2007 Jul;30(3):183-7.

2.

Is breast specimen shrinkage really a problem in breast-conserving surgery?

Krekel NM, van Slooten HJ, Barbé E, de Lange de Klerk ES, Meijer S, van den Tol MP.

J Clin Pathol. 2012 Mar;65(3):224-7. doi: 10.1136/jclinpath-2011-200392. Epub 2011 Nov 2.

PMID:
22049220
3.

Formalin fixation could interfere with the clinical assessment of the tumor-free margin in tumor surgery: magnetic resonance imaging-based study.

Docquier PL, Paul L, Cartiaux O, Lecouvet F, Dufrane D, Delloye C, Galant C.

Oncology. 2010;78(2):115-24. doi: 10.1159/000306140. Epub 2010 Mar 31.

PMID:
20357519
4.

Effect of formalin fixation on surgical margins in breast cancer surgical specimen.

Zaidi M, Khan S, Farooqi NB, Abbas K, Idrees R.

Int J Breast Cancer. 2014;2014:121838. doi: 10.1155/2014/121838. Epub 2014 Oct 2.

5.

Close/positive margins after breast-conserving therapy: additional resection or no resection?

Wood WC.

Breast. 2013 Aug;22 Suppl 2:S115-7. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2013.07.022. Review.

PMID:
24074771
6.

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
7.

Quantification of the surgical margin shrinkage in lip cancer: determining the relation between the surgical and histopathologic margins.

Egemen O, Bingöl D, Orman Ç, Sayilgan AT, Özkaya Ö, Akan M.

J Craniofac Surg. 2014 Nov;25(6):2152-5.

PMID:
25329844
8.

Effect of formalin fixation and tumour size in small-sized non-small-cell lung cancer: a prospective, single-centre study.

Park HS, Lee S, Haam S, Lee GD.

Histopathology. 2017 Sep;71(3):437-445. doi: 10.1111/his.13237. Epub 2017 Jun 16.

PMID:
28407385
9.

A new method of margin evaluation in breast conservation surgery using an adjustable mould during fixation.

Ichihara S, Suzuki H, Kasami M, Aoyama H, Sato Y, Oiwa M, Kurokawa K, Endo T.

Histopathology. 2001 Jul;39(1):85-92.

PMID:
11454048
10.

Influence of formalin fixation on tissue dimensions in palatal tonsils.

Vent J, Zimmermann Ch, Drebber U, Wedemeyer I, Eckel HE, Huettenbrink KB, Preuss SF.

Pathol Res Pract. 2014 Jan;210(1):59-61. doi: 10.1016/j.prp.2013.10.002. Epub 2013 Oct 28.

PMID:
24246706
11.

Effect of Formalin Fixation on Surgical Margins in Patients With Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

Pangare TB, Waknis PP, Bawane SS, Patil MN, Wadhera S, Patowary PB.

J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017 Jun;75(6):1293-1298. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2016.11.024. Epub 2016 Dec 12.

PMID:
28061360
12.

A two-millimetre free margin from invasive tumour minimises residual disease in breast-conserving surgery.

Ward ST, Jones BG, Jewkes AJ.

Int J Clin Pract. 2010 Nov;64(12):1675-80. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2010.02508.x.

PMID:
20946273
13.

Effect of tissue shrinkage on histological tumour-free margin after excision of basal cell carcinoma.

Blasdale C, Charlton FG, Weatherhead SC, Ormond P, Lawrence CM.

Br J Dermatol. 2010 Mar;162(3):607-10. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2009.09577.x. Epub 2009 Nov 10.

PMID:
19906070
14.

Intra-operative touch preparation cytology; does it have a role in re-excision lumpectomy?

Valdes EK, Boolbol SK, Cohen JM, Feldman SM.

Ann Surg Oncol. 2007 Mar;14(3):1045-50. Epub 2007 Jan 6.

PMID:
17206481
15.

Difference between actual vs. pathology prostate weight in TURP and radical robotic-assisted prostatectomy specimen.

Lukacs S, Vale J, Mazaris E.

Int Braz J Urol. 2014 Nov-Dec;40(6):823-7. doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2014.06.14.

16.

Shrinkage of skin excision specimens: formalin fixation is not the culprit.

Dauendorffer JN, Bastuji-Garin S, Guéro S, Brousse N, Fraitag S.

Br J Dermatol. 2009 Apr;160(4):810-4. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2008.08994.x. Epub 2009 Jan 13.

PMID:
19183182
17.

Comparison of margin assessment by radial and shave sections in wide local excision specimens for invasive carcinoma of the breast.

Hodi Z, Ellis IO, Elston CW, Pinder SE, Donovan G, Macmillan RD, Lee AH.

Histopathology. 2010 Apr;56(5):573-80. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2010.03518.x.

PMID:
20459567
18.

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.

19.

Influence of breast cancer margin assessment method on the rates of positive margins and residual carcinoma.

Méndez JE, Lamorte WW, de Las Morenas A, Cerda S, Pistey R, King T, Kavanah M, Hirsch E, Stone MD.

Am J Surg. 2006 Oct;192(4):538-40.

PMID:
16978970
20.

The pancake phenomenon contributes to the inaccuracy of margin assessment in patients with breast cancer.

Graham RA, Homer MJ, Katz J, Rothschild J, Safaii H, Supran S.

Am J Surg. 2002 Aug;184(2):89-93.

PMID:
12169349

Supplemental Content

Support Center