| 1. |
- Fitzal, Florian, et al.
(author)
-
Retrospective, Multicenter Analysis Comparing Conventional with Oncoplastic Breast Conserving Surgery : Oncological and Surgical Outcomes in Women with High-Risk Breast Cancer from the OPBC-01/iTOP2 Study
- 2022
-
In: Annals of Surgical Oncology. - : Springer Nature. - 1068-9265 .- 1534-4681. ; 29:2, s. 1061-1070
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Introduction Recent data suggest that margins >= 2 mm after breast-conserving surgery may improve local control in invasive breast cancer (BC). By allowing large resection volumes, oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OBCII; Clough level II/Tubingen 5-6) may achieve better local control than conventional breast conserving surgery (BCS; Tubingen 1-2) or oncoplastic breast conservation with low resection volumes (OBCI; Clough level I/Tubingen 3-4). Methods Data from consecutive high-risk BC patients treated in 15 centers from the Oncoplastic Breast Consortium (OPBC) network, between January 2010 and December 2013, were retrospectively reviewed. Results A total of 3,177 women were included, 30% of whom were treated with OBC (OBCI n = 663; OBCII n = 297). The BCS/OBCI group had significantly smaller tumors and smaller resection margins compared with OBCII (pT1: 50% vs. 37%, p = 0.002; proportion with margin <1 mm: 17% vs. 6%, p < 0.001). There were significantly more re-excisions due to R1 ("ink on tumor") in the BCS/OBCI compared with the OBCII group (11% vs. 7%, p = 0.049). Univariate and multivariable regression analysis adjusted for tumor biology, tumor size, radiotherapy, and systemic treatment demonstrated no differences in local, regional, or distant recurrence-free or overall survival between the two groups. Conclusions Large resection volumes in oncoplastic surgery increases the distance from cancer cells to the margin of the specimen and reduces reexcision rates significantly. With OBCII larger tumors are resected with similar local, regional and distant recurrence-free as well as overall survival rates as BCS/OBCI.
|
|
| 2. |
- Malisch, Rainer, et al.
(author)
-
Do PCDD/PCDF standard solutions used in dioxin analysis pose a risk as potentially acutely toxic to lab personnel?
- 2017
-
In: Chemosphere. - Oxford, UK : Elsevier. - 0045-6535 .- 1879-1298. ; 185, s. 489-498
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Laboratory safety requires protecting personnel from chemical exposures. Working with stock solutions of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (PCDD/PCDFs) in routine analysis of feed and food with bioanalytical or physicochemical methods raises some concerns. Since PCDD/PCDFs are considered as possibly acutely toxic, the potential risks were evaluated to determine whether supervision of their use is necessary. Based on LD50-data for oral or dermal intake, hazard classification of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) as a substance (category 1) and in commercially available TCDD standard solutions (category 4) is different. As worst case exposure scenario during routine laboratory work it was assumed that a dose of 100 ng TCDD gets onto the skin and is absorbed. This would result in the total body burden of a 70 kg person with 15 kg fat increasing from 10 (upper range of current background levels) to similar to 17 pg of toxic equivalents (TEQs) of PCDD/PCDFs per g lipid, a level commonly observed over past decades. Chloracne, the main acute effect occurring weeks after exposure, is observed at much higher blood concentrations than estimated from accidental laboratory exposure. Immunotoxicity, developmental effects and other toxic effects may occur at lower blood levels, but require longer periods to develop. Since acute toxic symptoms don't occur within an "8 h acute time window", no supervision is necessary when working with standard solutions in routine analysis. Nevertheless, precautionary measures are needed regarding long-term adverse health effects and appropriate workplace conditions must exist to ensure that additional occupational exposure to PCDD/PCDFs by laboratory personnel is negligible.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
