↓ Skip to main content

The Influence of Repeat Surgery and Residual Disease on Recurrence After Breast-Conserving Surgery: A Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group Study

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Surgical Oncology, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
Title
The Influence of Repeat Surgery and Residual Disease on Recurrence After Breast-Conserving Surgery: A Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group Study
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology, July 2015
DOI 10.1245/s10434-015-4707-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne Bodilsen, Karsten Bjerre, Birgitte V. Offersen, Pernille Vahl, Bent Ejlertsen, Jens Overgaard, Peer Christiansen

Abstract

A significant proportion of women who have breast-conserving surgery (BCS) subsequently undergo re-excision or proceed to mastectomy. This study aimed to identify factors associated with residual disease after repeat surgery and to determine their effect on ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) and survival. The study cohort was identified within the national population-based registry of the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group, including women who underwent BCS for unilateral invasive breast cancer between 2000 and 2009. The study investigated 12,656 women. Within 2 months after initial BCS, 1342 (11 %) of these women had a re-excision, and 756 (6 %) of the women had a mastectomy. Residual disease was found in 20 % of re-excisions and 59 % of mastectomies. In adjusted analysis, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) outside the invasive tumor, positive initial margin, and age younger than 50 years were associated with increased risk of residual disease. In the adjusted analysis, patients with residual disease after re-excision had an increased risk of IBTR regardless whether residual findings were invasive carcinoma [hazard ratio (HR), 2.97; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.57-5.62] or DCIS (HR, 2.58; 95 % CI 1.50-4.45). However, no difference was seen in overall survival comparing patients receiving one excision with those having repeat surgery with or without residual disease (p = 0.96). A higher risk of IBTR seen after re-excision was associated with residual disease. Overall survival was similar regardless of repeat surgery and residual findings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 18%
Other 4 11%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Master 4 11%
Professor 3 8%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 10 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 61%
Chemical Engineering 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Chemistry 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 10 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 July 2015.
All research outputs
#15,340,005
of 22,817,213 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#4,377
of 6,464 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,689
of 262,407 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#59
of 133 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,817,213 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,464 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 262,407 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 133 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.