The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Obtaining Adequate Surgical Margins in Breast-Conserving Therapy for Patients with Early-Stage Breast Cancer: Current Modalities and Future Directions
Open accessAbstract
Inadequate surgical margins represent a high risk for adverse clinical outcome in breast-conserving therapy (BCT) for early-stage breast cancer. The majority of studies report positive resection margins in 20% to 40% of the patients who underwent BCT. This may result in an increased local recurrence (LR) rate or additional surgery and, consequently, adverse affects on cosmesis, psychological distress, and health costs. In the literature, various risk factors are reported to be associated with positive margin status after lumpectomy, which may allow the surgeon to distinguish those patients with a higher a priori risk for re-excision. However, most risk factors are related to tumor biology and patient characteristics, which cannot be modified as such. Therefore, efforts to reduce the number of positive margins should focus on optimizing the surgical procedure itself, because the surgeon lacks real-time intraoperative information on the presence of positive resection margins during breast-conserving surgery. This review presents the status of pre- and intraoperative modalities currently used in BCT. Furthermore, innovative intraoperative approaches, such as positron emission tomography, radioguided occult lesion localization, and near-infrared fluorescence optical imaging, are addressed, which have to prove their potential value in improving surgical outcome and reducing the need for re-excision in BCT.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Fisher, B., Anderson, S., Bryant, J., Margolese, R. G., Deutsch, M., Fisher, E. R., Jeong, J.-H., & Wolmark, N. (2002) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa022152 · Cited by 6,249
Stummer, W., Pichlmeier, U., Meinel, T., Wiestler, O. D., Zanella, F., & Reulen, H.-J. (2006) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(06)70665-9 · Cited by 3,423
van Dongen, J. A. (2000) · Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/92.14.1143 · Cited by 1,271
Cited by
Fluorescence-guided surgery with live molecular navigation — a new cutting edge
Nguyen, Q. T., & Tsien, R. Y. (2013) · Nature Reviews Cancer · doi:10.1038/nrc3566 · Cited by 553
Lamberts, L. E., Koch, M., de Jong, J. S., Adams, A. L. L., Glatz, J., Kranendonk, M. E. G., Terwisscha van Scheltinga, A. G. T., Jansen, L., de Vries, J., Lub-de Hooge, M. N., et al. (2017) · Clinical Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-16-0437 · Cited by 285
Self-citationWong, T. T. W., Zhang, R., Hai, P., Zhang, C., Pleitez, M. A., Aft, R. L., Novack, D. V., & Wang, L. V. (2017) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.1602168 · Cited by 285
Nachabe, R., Hendriks, B. H., Lucassen, G. W., van der Voort, M., Evers, D. J., Rutgers, E. J., Peeters, M.-J. V., Van der Hage, J. A., Oldenburg, H. S., Ruers, T. J., et al. (2011) · Journal of Biomedical Optics · doi:10.1117/1.3611010 · Cited by 161
Metadata
- Authors
- Pleijhuis, R. G., Graafland, M., de Vries, J., Bart, J., de Jong, J. S., & van Dam, G. M.
- Venue
- Annals of Surgical Oncology
- Published
- 2009-07-17
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 2717-2730
- ISSN
- 1068-9265 (ISSN-L)
- 1534-4681
- OpenAlex
- W1997168106
- Cited by
- 361
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 6.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Obtaining Adequate Surgical Margins in Breast-Conserving Therapy for Patients with Early-Stage Breast Cancer: Current Modalities and Future Directions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1245/s10434-009-0609-z
- The paper
- Pleijhuis, R. G., Graafland, M., de Vries, J., Bart, J., de Jong, J. S., & van Dam, G. M. (2009). Obtaining Adequate Surgical Margins in Breast-Conserving Therapy for Patients with Early-Stage Breast Cancer: Current Modalities and Future Directions. Annals of Surgical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-009-0609-z
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.