Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29718895›Full record

ArticleMedicine2018

Long-term outcomes of patients with breast cancer after nipple-sparing mastectomy/skin-sparing mastectomy followed by immediate transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap reconstruction: Comparison with conventional mastectomy in a single center study.

Sae Byul Lee, Jong Won Lee, Hee Jeong Kim, Beom Seok Ko, Byung Ho Son, Jin Sup Eom, Taik Jong Lee, Sei-Hyun Ahn

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Skin-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of breast cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Sae Byul LeeDivision of Breast and Endocrine Surgery, Department of Surgery Department of Plastic Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul Department of Plastic Surgery, Boryeong Asan Medical Center, Boryeong, Korea.
Jong Won Lee
Hee Jeong Kim
Beom Seok Ko
Byung Ho Son
Jin Sup Eom
Taik Jong Lee
Sei-Hyun Ahn
Breast Center · CHUniversity of Ulsan · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To evaluate the oncological outcomes of patients with breast cancer after nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM)/skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM), followed by immediate reconstruction, as compared to conventional mastectomy (CM).SSM/NSM has been increasingly used to treat women with breast cancer who wish to preserve the overlying breast skin, but concern exist regarding its oncological safety due to the potential for residual breast tissue. We report our experience performing SSM/NSM for breast cancer treatment compared to CM with a long follow-up period.All consecutive patients who underwent mastectomy for breast cancer at Asan Medical Center between January 1993 and December 2008 were identified by retrospective medical chart review. The patients who underwent NSM/SSM, followed by immediate breast reconstruction with a pedicled transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap (TRAM), were compared to the patients who underwent CM in terms of breast-cancer specific survival (BCSS) rate, distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) rate, and local recurrence (LR) rate.During the study period, 6028 patients underwent mastectomy for breast cancer. Of these, 1032 and 4996 underwent NSM/SSM with TRAM and CM, respectively. Their median follow-up durations were 94.4 (range, 8.1-220.2) and 110.8 (range, 6.1-262.0) months, respectively. Their 5 year BCSS rates were 95.4% and 88.1%, respectively (log-rank, P < .001). Their 5 year DMFS rates were 93.0% and 85.6%, respectively (log-rank, P < .001).Relative to CM, NSM/SSM, followed by immediate breast reconstruction, may be a viable and oncologically safe surgical treatment in selected patients with breast cancer.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsMastectomyNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNipplesFemaleHumansLong Term Adverse EffectsMammaplastyMiddle AgedMyocutaneous FlapNeoplasm StagingOrgan Sparing TreatmentsOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CareRectus AbdominisRepublic of KoreaRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID29718895
PMCPMC6393080
OpenAlexW2802541392

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.