Quantifying Potential Error in Painting Breast Excision Specimens
Aim. When excision margins are close or involved following breast conserving surgery, many surgeons will attempt to reexcise the corresponding cavity margin. Margins are ascribed to breast specimens such that six faces are identifiable to the pathologist, a process that may be prone to error at seve...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2013-01-01
|
| Series: | International Journal of Breast Cancer |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/854234 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832546140890857472 |
|---|---|
| author | Thomas Fysh Alex Boddy Amy Godden |
| author_facet | Thomas Fysh Alex Boddy Amy Godden |
| author_sort | Thomas Fysh |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Aim. When excision margins are close or involved following breast conserving surgery, many surgeons will attempt to reexcise the corresponding cavity margin. Margins are ascribed to breast specimens such that six faces are identifiable to the pathologist, a process that may be prone to error at several stages. Methods. An experimental model was designed according to stated criteria in order to answer the research question. Computer software was used to measure the surface areas of experimental surfaces to compare human-painted surfaces with experimental controls. Results. The variability of the hand-painted surfaces was considerable. Thirty percent of hand-painted surfaces were 20% larger or smaller than controls. The mean area of the last surface painted was significantly larger than controls (mean 58996 pixels versus 50096 pixels, CI 1477–16324, ). By chance, each of the six volunteers chose to paint the deep surface last. Conclusion. This study is the first to attempt to quantify the extent of human error in marking imaginary boundaries on a breast excision model and suggests that humans do not make these judgements well, raising questions about the safety of targeting single margins at reexcision. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-7a45d4a6873644eeb30664374c02b3b7 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2090-3170 2090-3189 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2013-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | International Journal of Breast Cancer |
| spelling | doaj-art-7a45d4a6873644eeb30664374c02b3b72025-02-03T07:23:51ZengWileyInternational Journal of Breast Cancer2090-31702090-31892013-01-01201310.1155/2013/854234854234Quantifying Potential Error in Painting Breast Excision SpecimensThomas Fysh0Alex Boddy1Amy Godden2Department of Breast Surgery, South Devon Healthcare Trust, Lowes Bridge, Torquay TQ2 7AA, UKDepartment of Surgery, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust, Devon EX2 5DW, UKDepartment of Surgery, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust, Devon EX2 5DW, UKAim. When excision margins are close or involved following breast conserving surgery, many surgeons will attempt to reexcise the corresponding cavity margin. Margins are ascribed to breast specimens such that six faces are identifiable to the pathologist, a process that may be prone to error at several stages. Methods. An experimental model was designed according to stated criteria in order to answer the research question. Computer software was used to measure the surface areas of experimental surfaces to compare human-painted surfaces with experimental controls. Results. The variability of the hand-painted surfaces was considerable. Thirty percent of hand-painted surfaces were 20% larger or smaller than controls. The mean area of the last surface painted was significantly larger than controls (mean 58996 pixels versus 50096 pixels, CI 1477–16324, ). By chance, each of the six volunteers chose to paint the deep surface last. Conclusion. This study is the first to attempt to quantify the extent of human error in marking imaginary boundaries on a breast excision model and suggests that humans do not make these judgements well, raising questions about the safety of targeting single margins at reexcision.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/854234 |
| spellingShingle | Thomas Fysh Alex Boddy Amy Godden Quantifying Potential Error in Painting Breast Excision Specimens International Journal of Breast Cancer |
| title | Quantifying Potential Error in Painting Breast Excision Specimens |
| title_full | Quantifying Potential Error in Painting Breast Excision Specimens |
| title_fullStr | Quantifying Potential Error in Painting Breast Excision Specimens |
| title_full_unstemmed | Quantifying Potential Error in Painting Breast Excision Specimens |
| title_short | Quantifying Potential Error in Painting Breast Excision Specimens |
| title_sort | quantifying potential error in painting breast excision specimens |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/854234 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT thomasfysh quantifyingpotentialerrorinpaintingbreastexcisionspecimens AT alexboddy quantifyingpotentialerrorinpaintingbreastexcisionspecimens AT amygodden quantifyingpotentialerrorinpaintingbreastexcisionspecimens |