Review: Breast‐conserving treatment: Controversies and consensus
Identifieur interne : 005955 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 005954; suivant : 005956Review: Breast‐conserving treatment: Controversies and consensus
Auteurs : Masakuni Noguchi ; David W. Kinne ; Itsuo MiyazakiSource :
- Journal of Surgical Oncology [ 0022-4790 ] ; 1996-07.
Abstract
Although breast‐conserving therapy (BCT) is an accepted alternative for the treatment of breast cancer, numerous controversies surround the selection criteria and the treatment details. A review of the literature revealed that patient selection is of critical importance. However, there is disagreement over the relative importance of some of the criteria for patient selection. A wide excision is preferable to a less complete excision (tumorectomy) or a more radical excision (quadrantectomy). Accurate assessment of surgical margins is important. The risk of local recurrence may be diminished if a re‐excision is performed to obtain tumor‐free margins. However, the suitability and practicality of the techniques used to assess the resection margins have been questioned. Radiotherapy is an integral part of BCT. Surgery alone remains an investigational approach. Axillary dissection remains a reliable method of assessing nodal status and treating regional disease. © 1996 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
Url:
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9098(199607)62:3<228::AID-JSO16>3.0.CO;2-2
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:BE511E7E6CF05B36CF652931A2AFC252733AA38ALe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Review: Breast‐conserving treatment: Controversies and consensus</title><author><name sortKey="Noguchi, Masakuni" sort="Noguchi, Masakuni" uniqKey="Noguchi M" first="Masakuni" last="Noguchi">Masakuni Noguchi</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Operation Center and Department of Surgery, Kanazawa University Hospital, School of Medicine, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Japan</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Operation Center, Kanazawa University Hospital, Takara‐machi, 13‐1, Kanazawa, 920, Japan</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Kinne, David W" sort="Kinne, David W" uniqKey="Kinne D" first="David W." last="Kinne">David W. Kinne</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Surgery, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University, New York, New York</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Miyazaki, Itsuo" sort="Miyazaki, Itsuo" uniqKey="Miyazaki I" first="Itsuo" last="Miyazaki">Itsuo Miyazaki</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Operation Center and Department of Surgery, Kanazawa University Hospital, School of Medicine, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Japan</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:BE511E7E6CF05B36CF652931A2AFC252733AA38A</idno><date when="1996" year="1996">1996</date><idno type="doi">10.1002/(SICI)1096-9098(199607)62:3<228::AID-JSO16>3.0.CO;2-2</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/BE511E7E6CF05B36CF652931A2AFC252733AA38A/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">005955</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">005955</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en"><hi rend="bold">Review:</hi> Breast‐conserving treatment: Controversies and consensus</title><author><name sortKey="Noguchi, Masakuni" sort="Noguchi, Masakuni" uniqKey="Noguchi M" first="Masakuni" last="Noguchi">Masakuni Noguchi</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Operation Center and Department of Surgery, Kanazawa University Hospital, School of Medicine, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Japan</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Operation Center, Kanazawa University Hospital, Takara‐machi, 13‐1, Kanazawa, 920, Japan</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Kinne, David W" sort="Kinne, David W" uniqKey="Kinne D" first="David W." last="Kinne">David W. Kinne</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Surgery, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University, New York, New York</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Miyazaki, Itsuo" sort="Miyazaki, Itsuo" uniqKey="Miyazaki I" first="Itsuo" last="Miyazaki">Itsuo Miyazaki</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Operation Center and Department of Surgery, Kanazawa University Hospital, School of Medicine, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Japan</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j" type="main">Journal of Surgical Oncology</title><title level="j" type="alt">JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY</title><idno type="ISSN">0022-4790</idno><idno type="eISSN">1096-9098</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">62</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">3</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="228">228</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="234">234</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">7</biblScope><publisher>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</publisher><pubPlace>New York</pubPlace><date type="published" when="1996-07">1996-07</date></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0022-4790</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0022-4790</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Although breast‐conserving therapy (BCT) is an accepted alternative for the treatment of breast cancer, numerous controversies surround the selection criteria and the treatment details. A review of the literature revealed that patient selection is of critical importance. However, there is disagreement over the relative importance of some of the criteria for patient selection. A wide excision is preferable to a less complete excision (tumorectomy) or a more radical excision (quadrantectomy). Accurate assessment of surgical margins is important. The risk of local recurrence may be diminished if a re‐excision is performed to obtain tumor‐free margins. However, the suitability and practicality of the techniques used to assess the resection margins have been questioned. Radiotherapy is an integral part of BCT. Surgery alone remains an investigational approach. Axillary dissection remains a reliable method of assessing nodal status and treating regional disease. © 1996 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>breast cancer</json:string><json:string>node</json:string><json:string>surg</json:string><json:string>excision</json:string><json:string>radiotherapy</json:string><json:string>axillary</json:string><json:string>oncol</json:string><json:string>local recurrence</json:string><json:string>mastectomy</json:string><json:string>conservative surgery</json:string><json:string>resection</json:string><json:string>recurrence</json:string><json:string>metastasis</json:string><json:string>noguchi</json:string><json:string>recht</json:string><json:string>intraductal</json:string><json:string>quadrantectomy</json:string><json:string>dci</json:string><json:string>carcinoma</json:string><json:string>surgical</json:string><json:string>nodal</json:string><json:string>wide excision</json:string><json:string>lumpectomy</json:string><json:string>surgical margins</json:string><json:string>histologic</json:string><json:string>radiat oncol biol phys</json:string><json:string>phys</json:string><json:string>biol</json:string><json:string>radiat</json:string><json:string>randomized</json:string><json:string>schnitt</json:string><json:string>axillary dissection</json:string><json:string>clin</json:string><json:string>invasive</json:string><json:string>early breast cancer</json:string><json:string>nodal status</json:string><json:string>patient selection</json:string><json:string>local control</json:string><json:string>arch surg</json:string><json:string>adjuvant</json:string><json:string>breast</json:string><json:string>dissection</json:string><json:string>radiation therapy</json:string><json:string>primary tumor</json:string><json:string>connolly</json:string><json:string>tumor size</json:string><json:string>breast deformity</json:string><json:string>excisional biopsy</json:string><json:string>randomized trial</json:string><json:string>breast recurrence</json:string><json:string>clin oncol</json:string><json:string>resection margins</json:string><json:string>risk factors</json:string><json:string>regional disease</json:string><json:string>radiother oncol</json:string><json:string>surg oncol</json:string><json:string>lymph</json:string><json:string>surgery</json:string><json:string>partial mastectomy</json:string><json:string>investigational approach</json:string><json:string>latissimus dorsi muscle</json:string><json:string>high risk</json:string><json:string>radical mastectomy</json:string><json:string>invasive breast cancer</json:string><json:string>normal tissue</json:string><json:string>surgical resection</json:string><json:string>previous study</json:string><json:string>intraoperative assessment</json:string><json:string>reliable method</json:string><json:string>positive nodes</json:string><json:string>segmental mastectomy</json:string><json:string>breast cancer patients</json:string><json:string>total mastectomy</json:string><json:string>primary breast cancer</json:string><json:string>lymph node metastases</json:string><json:string>risk factor</json:string><json:string>breast carcinoma</json:string><json:string>ductal carcinoma</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Masakuni Noguchi MD, PhD</name><affiliations><json:string>Operation Center and Department of Surgery, Kanazawa University Hospital, School of Medicine, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Japan</json:string><json:string>Operation Center, Kanazawa University Hospital, Takara‐machi, 13‐1, Kanazawa, 920, Japan</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>David W. Kinne MD</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Surgery, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University, New York, New York</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Itsuo Miyazaki MD, PhD</name><affiliations><json:string>Operation Center and Department of Surgery, Kanazawa University Hospital, School of Medicine, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Japan</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>axillary dissection</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>breast‐conserving therapy</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>patient selection</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>radiation</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>JSO16</json:string></articleId><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>reviewArticle</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Although breast‐conserving therapy (BCT) is an accepted alternative for the treatment of breast cancer, numerous controversies surround the selection criteria and the treatment details. A review of the literature revealed that patient selection is of critical importance. However, there is disagreement over the relative importance of some of the criteria for patient selection. A wide excision is preferable to a less complete excision (tumorectomy) or a more radical excision (quadrantectomy). Accurate assessment of surgical margins is important. The risk of local recurrence may be diminished if a re‐excision is performed to obtain tumor‐free margins. However, the suitability and practicality of the techniques used to assess the resection margins have been questioned. Radiotherapy is an integral part of BCT. Surgery alone remains an investigational approach. Axillary dissection remains a reliable method of assessing nodal status and treating regional disease. © 1996 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>6.704</score><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>594 x 792 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractCharCount>994</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>5691</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>34958</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>7</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>142</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Review: Breast‐conserving treatment: Controversies and consensus</title><genre><json:string>review-article</json:string></genre><host><title>Journal of Surgical Oncology</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><doi><json:string>10.1002/(ISSN)1096-9098</json:string></doi><issn><json:string>0022-4790</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>1096-9098</json:string></eissn><publisherId><json:string>JSO</json:string></publisherId><volume>62</volume><issue>3</issue><pages><first>228</first><last>234</last><total>7</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><categories><wos><json:string>science</json:string><json:string>surgery</json:string><json:string>oncology</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>health sciences</json:string><json:string>clinical medicine</json:string><json:string>oncology & carcinogenesis</json:string></scienceMetrix><inist><json:string>sciences appliquees, technologies et medecines</json:string><json:string>sciences biologiques et medicales</json:string><json:string>sciences medicales</json:string><json:string>gynecologie. andrologie. obstetrique</json:string></inist></categories><publicationDate>1996</publicationDate><copyrightDate>1996</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1002/(SICI)1096-9098(199607)62:3>228::AID-JSO16>3.0.CO;2-2</json:string></doi><id>BE511E7E6CF05B36CF652931A2AFC252733AA38A</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/BE511E7E6CF05B36CF652931A2AFC252733AA38A/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/BE511E7E6CF05B36CF652931A2AFC252733AA38A/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/BE511E7E6CF05B36CF652931A2AFC252733AA38A/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en"><hi rend="bold">Review:</hi> Breast‐conserving treatment: Controversies and consensus</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><publisher>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</publisher><pubPlace>New York</pubPlace><availability><licence>Copyright © 1996 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.</licence></availability><date type="published" when="1996-07"></date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="content-type" subtype="review-article" source="reviewArticle" scheme="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-L5L7X3NF-P">review-article</note><note type="publication-type" subtype="journal" scheme="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="review-article"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en"><hi rend="bold">Review:</hi> Breast‐conserving treatment: Controversies and consensus</title><author xml:id="author-0000" role="corresp"><persName><forename type="first">Masakuni</forename><surname>Noguchi</surname><roleName type="degree">MD, PhD</roleName></persName><affiliation>Operation Center and Department of Surgery, Kanazawa University Hospital, School of Medicine, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Japan<address><country key="JP"></country></address></affiliation><affiliation>Operation Center, Kanazawa University Hospital, Takara‐machi, 13‐1, Kanazawa, 920, Japan</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">David W.</forename><surname>Kinne</surname><roleName type="degree">MD</roleName></persName><affiliation>Department of Surgery, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University, New York, New York<address><country key="US"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">Itsuo</forename><surname>Miyazaki</surname><roleName type="degree">MD, PhD</roleName></persName><affiliation>Operation Center and Department of Surgery, Kanazawa University Hospital, School of Medicine, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Japan<address><country key="JP"></country></address></affiliation></author><idno type="istex">BE511E7E6CF05B36CF652931A2AFC252733AA38A</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1002/(SICI)1096-9098(199607)62:3<228::AID-JSO16>3.0.CO;2-2</idno><idno type="unit">JSO16</idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:JSO.JSO16.pdf</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j" type="main">Journal of Surgical Oncology</title><title level="j" type="alt">JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY</title><idno type="pISSN">0022-4790</idno><idno type="eISSN">1096-9098</idno><idno type="book-DOI">10.1002/(ISSN)1096-9098</idno><idno type="book-part-DOI">10.1002/(SICI)1096-9098(199607)62:3<>1.0.CO;2-P</idno><idno type="product">JSO</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">62</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">3</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="228">228</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="234">234</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">7</biblScope><publisher>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</publisher><pubPlace>New York</pubPlace><date type="published" when="1996-07"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><head>Abstract</head><p>Although breast‐conserving therapy (BCT) is an accepted alternative for the treatment of breast cancer, numerous controversies surround the selection criteria and the treatment details. A review of the literature revealed that patient selection is of critical importance. However, there is disagreement over the relative importance of some of the criteria for patient selection. A wide excision is preferable to a less complete excision (tumorectomy) or a more radical excision (quadrantectomy). Accurate assessment of surgical margins is important. The risk of local recurrence may be diminished if a re‐excision is performed to obtain tumor‐free margins. However, the suitability and practicality of the techniques used to assess the resection margins have been questioned. Radiotherapy is an integral part of BCT. Surgery alone remains an investigational approach. Axillary dissection remains a reliable method of assessing nodal status and treating regional disease. © 1996 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords xml:lang="en"><term xml:id="kwd1">axillary dissection</term><term xml:id="kwd2">breast‐conserving therapy</term><term xml:id="kwd3">patient selection</term><term xml:id="kwd4">radiation</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="EN"></language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/BE511E7E6CF05B36CF652931A2AFC252733AA38A/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley, elements deleted: body"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</publisherName><publisherLoc>New York</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi registered="yes">10.1002/(ISSN)1096-9098</doi><issn type="print">0022-4790</issn><issn type="electronic">1096-9098</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="JSO"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" xml:lang="en" sort="JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY">Journal of Surgical Oncology</title><title type="short">J. Surg. Oncol.</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="30"><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1002/(SICI)1096-9098(199607)62:3<>1.0.CO;2-P</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="62">62</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue">3</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="1996-07">July 1996</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="reviewArticle" position="17" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1002/(SICI)1096-9098(199607)62:3<228::AID-JSO16>3.0.CO;2-2</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="JSO16"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="7"></count></countGroup><copyright ownership="publisher">Copyright © 1996 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.</copyright><eventGroup><event type="manuscriptAccepted" date="1996-03-27"></event><event type="firstOnline" date="1998-12-07"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="1998-12-07"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:JWSART34_TO_WML3G version:2.3.2 mode:FullText source:HeaderRef result:HeaderRef" date="2010-03-10"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:3.8.8" date="2014-02-01"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-10-30"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst">228</numbering><numbering type="pageLast">234</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>Operation Center, Kanazawa University Hospital, Takara‐machi, 13‐1, Kanazawa, 920, Japan</correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:JSO.JSO16.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="0"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="0"></count><count type="referenceTotal" number="107"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" xml:lang="en"><b>Review:</b> Breast‐conserving treatment: Controversies and consensus</title></titleGroup><creators><creator xml:id="au1" creatorRole="author" affiliationRef="#af1" corresponding="yes"><personName><givenNames>Masakuni</givenNames><familyName>Noguchi</familyName><degrees>MD, PhD</degrees></personName></creator><creator xml:id="au2" creatorRole="author" affiliationRef="#af2"><personName><givenNames>David W.</givenNames><familyName>Kinne</familyName><degrees>MD</degrees></personName></creator><creator xml:id="au3" creatorRole="author" affiliationRef="#af1"><personName><givenNames>Itsuo</givenNames><familyName>Miyazaki</familyName><degrees>MD, PhD</degrees></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="af1" countryCode="JP" type="organization"><unparsedAffiliation>Operation Center and Department of Surgery, Kanazawa University Hospital, School of Medicine, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Japan</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="af2" countryCode="US" type="organization"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Surgery, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University, New York, New York</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en" type="author"><keyword xml:id="kwd1">axillary dissection</keyword><keyword xml:id="kwd2">breast‐conserving therapy</keyword><keyword xml:id="kwd3">patient selection</keyword><keyword xml:id="kwd4">radiation</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><title type="main">Abstract</title><p>Although breast‐conserving therapy (BCT) is an accepted alternative for the treatment of breast cancer, numerous controversies surround the selection criteria and the treatment details. A review of the literature revealed that patient selection is of critical importance. However, there is disagreement over the relative importance of some of the criteria for patient selection. A wide excision is preferable to a less complete excision (tumorectomy) or a more radical excision (quadrantectomy). Accurate assessment of surgical margins is important. The risk of local recurrence may be diminished if a re‐excision is performed to obtain tumor‐free margins. However, the suitability and practicality of the techniques used to assess the resection margins have been questioned. Radiotherapy is an integral part of BCT. Surgery alone remains an investigational approach. Axillary dissection remains a reliable method of assessing nodal status and treating regional disease. © 1996 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Review: Breast‐conserving treatment: Controversies and consensus</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Review: Breast‐conserving treatment: Controversies and consensus</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Masakuni</namePart><namePart type="family">Noguchi</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">MD, PhD</namePart><affiliation>Operation Center and Department of Surgery, Kanazawa University Hospital, School of Medicine, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Japan</affiliation><affiliation>Operation Center, Kanazawa University Hospital, Takara‐machi, 13‐1, Kanazawa, 920, Japan</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">David W.</namePart><namePart type="family">Kinne</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">MD</namePart><affiliation>Department of Surgery, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University, New York, New York</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Itsuo</namePart><namePart type="family">Miyazaki</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">MD, PhD</namePart><affiliation>Operation Center and Department of Surgery, Kanazawa University Hospital, School of Medicine, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Japan</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="review-article" displayLabel="reviewArticle"></genre><originInfo><publisher>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">New York</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">1996-07</dateIssued><dateValid encoding="w3cdtf">1996-03-27</dateValid><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">1996</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType><extent unit="references">107</extent></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">Although breast‐conserving therapy (BCT) is an accepted alternative for the treatment of breast cancer, numerous controversies surround the selection criteria and the treatment details. A review of the literature revealed that patient selection is of critical importance. However, there is disagreement over the relative importance of some of the criteria for patient selection. A wide excision is preferable to a less complete excision (tumorectomy) or a more radical excision (quadrantectomy). Accurate assessment of surgical margins is important. The risk of local recurrence may be diminished if a re‐excision is performed to obtain tumor‐free margins. However, the suitability and practicality of the techniques used to assess the resection margins have been questioned. Radiotherapy is an integral part of BCT. Surgery alone remains an investigational approach. Axillary dissection remains a reliable method of assessing nodal status and treating regional disease. © 1996 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>axillary dissection</topic><topic>breast‐conserving therapy</topic><topic>patient selection</topic><topic>radiation</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Journal of Surgical Oncology</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated"><title>J. Surg. Oncol.</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">0022-4790</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1096-9098</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1002/(ISSN)1096-9098</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">JSO</identifier><part><date>1996</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>62</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>3</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>228</start><end>234</end><total>7</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">BE511E7E6CF05B36CF652931A2AFC252733AA38A</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1002/(SICI)1096-9098(199607)62:3<228::AID-JSO16>3.0.CO;2-2</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">JSO16</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">Copyright © 1996 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource>WILEY</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Sante/explor/LymphedemaV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 005955 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 005955 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Sante
|area= LymphedemaV1
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:BE511E7E6CF05B36CF652931A2AFC252733AA38A
|texte= Review: Breast‐conserving treatment: Controversies and consensus
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.31. |  |