ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2019
A Network Meta-Analysis of Surgical Treatment in Patients With Early Breast Cancer.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Postoperative outcomes of minimally invasive versus conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy with prosthesis breast reconstruction in breast cancer: a meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Patient-reported outcomes of mesh in minimally invasive (laparoscopic/robot-assisted) immediate subpectoral prosthesis breast reconstruction: a retrospective study.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2024Article
- ASO Author Reflections: Minimally Invasive Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy Combined with Prosthesis Breast Reconstruction for Early Breast Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2022Article
- Current Resources for Evidence-Based Practice, November 2020.Journal of obstetric, gynecologic, and neonatal nursing : JOGNN · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedCorrigendum.2020
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn early breast cancer treatment, the preferred surgical regimen remains a topic of controversy, and conventional pairwise meta-analysis cannot provide a hierarchy based on clinical trial evidence. Therefore, a network meta-analysis was performed both for direct and indirect comparisons and to assess the survival outcomes of surgical regimens.
methodsRandomized clinical trials comparing different surgical regimens for the treatment of early breast cancer were identified. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free-survival (DFS) were analyzed using random-effects network meta-analysis on the hazard ratio (HR) scale and calculated as combined HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All statistical tests were two-sided.
resultsThe network meta-analysis compared 11 different surgical regimens that consisted of 13 and 17 direct comparisons between strategies for OS (34 trials; n = 23 587 patients) and DFS (32 trials; n = 22 552 patients), respectively. The values of surface under the cumulative ranking for OS and DFS after mastectomy (M)+radiotherapy (RT) were observed to be the largest. Breast-conserving surgery (BCS)+axillary node sampling+RT almost achieved the threshold for inferiority compared with the other surgical treatment arms and was statistically significantly associated with worse OS (HR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.24 to 0.94; HR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.22 to 0.92; HR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.23 to 0.96). No statistically significant difference between BCS+sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB)+RT vs BCS+SLNB+intraoperative RT was observed in carrying out network meta-analysis (HR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.64 to 1.36).
conclusionsM+RT has the most favorable survival outcomes among the various surgical regimens for the treatment of early breast cancer patients. For patients who receive BCS, SNLB has more favorable outcomes than axillary node sampling. Intraoperative RT and postoperative RT have similar outcomes in patients who receive SLNB.
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.