Back to all available

The predictive value of preoperative multi-parameter MRI on surgical margin during breast-conserving surgery

oncology
radiology-and-medical-imaging
surgery-and-surgical-specialties
womens-health

Abstract

Background: To investigate the value of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in positive margins during breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer.

Methods : 192 breast cancer patients who underwent breast-conserving surgery (BCS) were selected. All patients were divided into the positive margin group and the negative margin group based on the pathological status of the surgical margin of breast-conserving surgery. Preoperative MR results of all patients were retrospectively analyzed, including the background parenchyma enhancement (BPE), tumor size, tumor shape, intratumoral apparent diffusion coefficients (ADCs), time-intensity curve (TIC) curves of tumor, and adjacent vessel sign (AVS) of tumor.

Results : Non-mass-enhancement (NME) lesions, BPE, and the presence of AVS around the lesion were all strongly correlated with positive margins for BCS (P< 0.05). Multivariate logistics analysis showed that NME and marked BPE were independent risk factors for positive surgical margin in BCS (P<0.05). The area under the ROC curve of this model was 0.731 (P < 0.05).

Conclusion: For breast cancer patients who underwent BCS, NME, and the presence of marked BPE on preoperative breast MRI were associated with positive resection margins.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].