↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of intra-operative specimen mammography to standard specimen mammography for excision of non-palpable breast lesions: a randomized trial

Overview of attention for article published in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of intra-operative specimen mammography to standard specimen mammography for excision of non-palpable breast lesions: a randomized trial
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, February 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10549-016-3700-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cynthia L. Miller, Suzanne B. Coopey, Elizabeth Rafferty, Michele Gadd, Barbara L. Smith, Michelle C. Specht

Abstract

Standard specimen mammography (SSM) is performed in the radiology department after wire-localized excision of non-palpable breast lesions to confirm the presence of the target and evaluate margins. Alternatively, intra-operative specimen mammography (ISM) allows surgeons to view images in the operating room (OR). We conducted a randomized study comparing ISM and SSM. Women undergoing wire-localized excision for breast malignancy or imaging abnormality were randomized to SSM or ISM. For SSM, the specimen was transported to the radiology department for imaging and interpretation. For ISM, the specimen was imaged in the OR for interpretation by the surgeon and sent for SSM. Interpretation time was from specimen leaving OR until radiologist interpretation for SSM and from placement in ISM device until surgeon interpretation for ISM. Procedure and interpretation times were compared. Concordance between ISM and SSM for target and margins was evaluated. 72 patients were randomized, 36 ISM and 36 SSM. Median procedure times were similar, 48.5 (17-138) min for ISM, and 54 (17-40) min for SSM (p = 0.72), likely since specimens in both groups traveled to radiology for SSM. Median interpretation time was significantly shorter with ISM, 1 (0.5-2.0) and 9 (4-16) min for ISM and SSM, respectively (p < 0.0001). Among specimens with ISM and SSM, concordance was 100 % (35/35) for target and 93 % (14/15) for margins. In this randomized trial, use of ISM compared with SSM significantly reduced interpretation times, while accurately identifying the target. This could result in decreased operative costs from shorter OR times with use of ISM.

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 > Master 8 21%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Professor 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 11 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 29%
Computer Science 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Unknown 13 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 04 July 2023.
All research outputs
#7,731,484
of 24,041,016 outputs
Outputs from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#1,683
of 4,818 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,399
of 408,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#16
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,041,016 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,818 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
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 408,256 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.