Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32171701›Full record

SynthesisClinical breast cancer2020

Breast Conserving Surgery Compared With Mastectomy in Male Breast Cancer: A Brief Systematic Review.

Candice A M Sauder, Sarah B Bateni, Anders J Davidson, Daniel K Nishijima

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudySystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical breast cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. A case report of male breast cancer treated with breast-conserving surgery.International journal of surgery case reports · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Candice A M SauderDivision of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of California, Davis, Medical Center, Sacramento, CA. Electronic address: camsauder@ucdavis.edu.
Sarah B BateniDivision of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of California, Davis, Medical Center, Sacramento, CA.
Anders J DavidsonDivision of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of California, Davis, Medical Center, Sacramento, CA.
Daniel K NishijimaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of California, Davis, Medical Center, Sacramento, CA.
University of California Davis Medical Center · US

Funding

UC Davis Clinical and Translational Science CenterUL1TR001860 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI KENYON, NICHOLAS J., LYLES, COURTNEY REES · 2016 to 2025
$47.3M
Quality Safety Comparative Effectiveness Research Training (QSCERT)T32HS022236 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI MELNIKOW, JOY · 2013 to 2018
$2.1M
AHRQ HHS T32 HS022236NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001860
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The surgical guidelines for male breast cancer (MBC) have been largely guided by female-predominant clinical trials. Because no clinical trial has been conducted to examine the surgical treatment of MBC, we performed a systematic review comparing the survival of patients with MBC who had undergone breast conserving surgery (BCS) and those who had undergone mastectomy and evaluated the patients' radiotherapy compliance after BCS. We performed a systematic search of electronic databases to find MBC cohort studies that had reported ≥ 1 survival outcome (disease-free survival [DFS], disease-specific survival [DSS], or overall survival [OS]) stratified by surgical treatment (BCS and/or mastectomy) and/or radiotherapy compliance with BCS. A total of 1 prospective and 9 retrospective cohort studies were included, with the number of patients ranging from 7 to 6039. Of the BCS patients, compliance with postoperative radiotherapy was low (range, 27%-46%), with the exception of 1 single-institution prospective study that reported 86% compliance (6 of 7 patients). The pooled estimate for all patients with MBC was 83% (95% confidence interval [CI], 78%-88%) for 5-year DSS and 66% (95% CI, 63%-70%) for 5-year OS. Most studies reported no differences in DFS, DSS, or OS for BCS and mastectomy. BCS is a reasonable treatment approach for MBC because it was associated with oncologic outcomes similar to those with mastectomy. However, the low rates of radiotherapy compliance among male patients who underwent BCS is concerning and highlights the importance of shared decision-making with patients with MBC when selecting a surgical treatment strategy.

Indexed as

Breast Neoplasms, MaleClinical Decision-MakingDecision Making, SharedDisease-Free SurvivalHumansMaleMastectomy, SegmentalNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPatient ComplianceProspective StudiesRadiotherapy, AdjuvantRetrospective StudiesBreast conserving therapyLumpectomyMenRadiationSurvival

Identifiers

PMID32171701
PMCPMC9313780
OpenAlexW2996457212

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.