Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26166124›Full record

SynthesisMedicine2015

Intraoperative Radiotherapy Versus Whole-Breast External Beam Radiotherapy in Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Li Zhang, Zhirui Zhou, Xin Mei, Zhaozhi Yang, Jinli Ma, Xingxing Chen, Junqi Wang, Guangyu Liu, Xiaoli Yu, Xiaomao Guo

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Li ZhangFrom the Department of Radiation Oncology (LZ, ZZ, XM, ZY, JM, XC, JW, XY, XG); Department of Breast Surgery (GL), Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center; Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China.
Zhirui Zhou
Xin Mei
Zhaozhi Yang
Jinli Ma
Xingxing Chen
Junqi Wang
Guangyu Liu
Xiaoli Yu
Xiaomao Guo
Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There has not been a clear answer about the efficacy of intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) for women with early-stage breast cancer.The aim of this meta-analysis was to summarize the available evidence comparing the efficacy and safety of IORT with those of whole-breast external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for women with early-stage breast cancer.MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to October 2014. Two authors independently conducted the literature selection and data extraction.Studies that compared IORT with whole-breast EBRT were included in the systematic review. IORT was defined as a single dose of irradiation to the tumor bed during breast-conserving surgery rather than whole-breast irradiation.Qualities of RCTs were evaluated according to the PEDro scale. Qualities of non-RCTs were evaluated according to the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS). The risk ratios (RRs) of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence, overall mortality, breast cancer mortality, non-breast cancer mortality, and distant metastasis were pooled using a random-effects model.Four studies with 5415 patients were included in this meta-analysis, including 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 2 non-RCTs. Ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence was significantly higher in patients with IORT compared to those with whole-breast EBRT (RR 2.83, 95% CI 1.23-6.51), but with significant heterogeneity (I = 58.5%, P = 0.065). Comparing IORT with whole-breast EBRT, the pooled RRs for overall mortality, breast cancer mortality, non-breast cancer mortality, and distant metastasis were 0.88 (95% CI: 0.66-1.17), 1.20 (95% CI: 0.77-1.86), 0.76 (95% CI: 0.44-1.31), and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.61-1.49), respectively.IORT had a significantly higher risk of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence than whole-breast EBRT. Overall mortality did not differ significantly. IORT should be used in conjunction with the prudent selection of suitable patients. It is imperative to identify women with a low risk of local recurrence.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsClinical Trials as TopicFemaleHumansMastectomy, SegmentalNeoplasm MetastasisNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm StagingRadiotherapy, Adjuvant

Identifiers

PMID26166124
PMCPMC4504561
OpenAlexW2274369335

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.