Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Mais filtros











Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Semin Diagn Pathol ; 2024 Jun 26.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38965021

RESUMO

Achieving clear resection margins at the time of lumpectomy is essential for optimal patient outcomes. Margin status is traditionally determined by pathologic evaluation of the specimen and often is difficult or impossible for the surgeon to definitively know at the time of surgery, resulting in the need for re-operation to obtain clear surgical margins. Numerous techniques have been investigated to enhance the accuracy of intraoperative margin and are reviewed in this manuscript.

2.
J Surg Oncol ; 130(1): 8-15, 2024 Jul.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38534002

RESUMO

Breast cancer survivorship care transitions from active treatment to focus on surveillance and health maintenance. This review article discusses the crucial aspects of breast cancer survivorship, which include cancer surveillance, management of treatment side effects, implementation of a healthy lifestyle, and psychosocial support.


Assuntos
Neoplasias da Mama , Sobreviventes de Câncer , Sobrevivência , Humanos , Neoplasias da Mama/psicologia , Neoplasias da Mama/terapia , Neoplasias da Mama/mortalidade , Feminino , Sobreviventes de Câncer/psicologia
3.
NEJM Evid ; 2(7): EVIDoa2200333, 2023 Jul.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38320161

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Although lumpectomy and mastectomy provide equivalent survival for patients with breast cancer, local recurrence after lumpectomy increases breast cancer mortality. Positive lumpectomy margins, which imply incomplete tumor removal, are the strongest predictor of local recurrence and are identified days after surgery, necessitating a second surgery. METHODS: In this prospective trial, we assessed margin status with or without pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery (pFGS) for stages 0 to 3 breast cancers. To prevent surgeons from performing smaller than standard lumpectomies in anticipation of pFGS assistance, patients were randomly assigned 10:1 to pFGS or control groups, thus randomization was not designed to provide a control group for evaluating device performance. In patients undergoing pFGS, additional pFGS-guided cavity margins were excised at sites of pegulicianine signal. We evaluated three coprimary end points: the percentage of patients for whom pFGS-guided margins contained cancer, sensitivity, and specificity. RESULTS: Overall, 406 patients received 1.0 mg/kg intravenous pegulicianine followed by lumpectomy. Among 392 patients randomly assigned, 316 had invasive cancers, and 76 had in situ cancers. In 27 of 357 patients undergoing pFGS, pFGS-guided margins removed tumor left behind after standard lumpectomy, 22 from cavity orientations deemed negative on standard margin evaluation. Second surgeries were avoided by pFGS in 9 of 62 patients with positive margins. On per-margin analysis, pFGS specificity was 85.2%, and sensitivity was 49.3%. Pegulicianine administration was stopped for adverse events in six patients. Two patients had grade 3 serious adverse events related to pegulicianine. CONCLUSIONS: The use of pFGS in breast cancer surgery met prespecified thresholds for removal of residual tumor and specificity but did not meet the prespecified threshold for sensitivity. (Funded by Lumicell, Inc. and the National Institutes of Health; Clinicaltrials.gov number, NCT03686215.)


Assuntos
Neoplasias da Mama , Cirurgia Assistida por Computador , Feminino , Humanos , Neoplasias da Mama/patologia , Cuidados Intraoperatórios , Mastectomia Segmentar , Estudos Prospectivos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA