ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2026
Cavity Margins Sample Shaving as Part of Extended Vacuum-Assisted Breast Biopsy: A Potential Approach to Predict Percutaneous Breast Cancer Excision.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Structured Multidisciplinary Integration in Sarcoma Reconstruction.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- ASO Author Reflections: Vacuum-Assisted Procedures of Breast Lesions: Tracking the Same Road of Endoscopy.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
33 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExcision of small breast cancers has been reported by vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB). Nevertheless, patients are submitted to surgery, because there is no way to predict excision. The purpose of this study was to evaluate extended vacuum-assisted biopsy (EVAB) associated with cavity margins sample shaving (CMSH) to predict breast cancer excision.
methodsThis is a retrospective database analysis of 120 cancers [both invasive breast cancers (IC) and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)] diagnosed by EVAB-CMSH submitted to surgery with histological data from EVAB-CMSH and surgery. The CMSH was evaluated as a diagnostic test for excision compared to surgery as gold standard. Factors associated with residual tumor, gross residual tumor (GRD) (> 3 mm), and false-negative CMSH after EVAB-CMSH were evaluated.
resultsA total of 120 cases were analyzed. Media age was 57 (48.5-69); image tumor size (T) was 11 (8.6-15) mm; pathological tumor size (pT) was 6 (4-10) mm; most cases IC+DCIS 53 (44.2%), DCIS 46 (38.3%), and IC 15 (12.5%); 45 (37.5%) were excised by EVAB-CMSH. CMSH sensitivity 70.7%, specificity 66.7%, false-negative rate 18.33%, and accuracy 69.2%. In multivariate analysis, DCIS pT (p = 0.003, odds ratio [OR] 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI]) was associated with residual tumor; DCIS pT (p = 0.001, OR 1.34, 95% CI) and the CMSH T (p = 0.001, OR 1.67, 95% CI) with GRD; surgical specimen DCIS T (p = 0.015, OR 1.12, 95% CI) with CMSH false negative.
conclusionsCavity margins sample shaving is a potential approach to predict small breast cancer excision and should be added to vacuum-assisted excision in prospective trials. For DCIS, EVAB-CMSH should not be standard of care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42663777What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.