ArticleThe Journal of surgical research2018
Omission of radiotherapy after breast conservation surgery in the postneoadjuvant setting.
Article in The Journal of surgical research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Merkel Cell Carcinoma: Changing Practice Patterns and Impact on Recurrence-Free and Overall Survival at a Single Institution and Nationally.Annals of surgical oncology · 2022Article
- Survival Outcomes After Breast-Conserving Therapy Compared With Mastectomy for Patients With Early-Stage Invasive Micropapillary Carcinoma of the Breast: A SEER Population-Based Study.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBreast conservation therapy (BCT) consists of breast conservation surgery (BCS) and radiotherapy (RT). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) can downstage tumors, broadening BCS eligibility in patients requiring mastectomy. However, tumor downstaging does not obviate need for RT. This study evaluated factors that predict RT omission after NACT and BCS.
methodsThe National Cancer Database was queried for women with unilateral, clinical stage II-III breast cancer, treated with NACT and BCS between 2008 and 2012. Patients not receiving RT after NACT and BCS were identified. A subgroup analysis was performed eliminating patients for whom RT was recommended but not received.
resultsAmong 10,220 patients meeting study eligibility, 974 (9.53%) did not receive RT after BCS. Predictors of RT omission included older age, insurance status, facility type, facility region, more recent year of diagnosis, receptor status unknown, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status positive or unknown, and positive margins. Factors increasing the likelihood of RT receipt included cN3 disease, receptor positivity, and primary downstaging. Race, Hispanicity, education, income, comorbidities, rural versus urban setting, histology, grade, and nodal stage change were not associated with RT omission. When excluding the 314 patients for whom RT was recommended but not received, age, Medicaid insurance, facility type, facility region, receptor status unknown, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status unknown, and positive margins were predictors of RT omission.
conclusionsRace, comorbidities, and socioeconomic status were not predictors of RT omission. It remains unclear whether omission of RT in some cases is due to lack of physician knowledge. Further efforts are needed to ensure that physicians and patients recognize that RT is a vital and required part of BCT, even after NACT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.