Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32761931›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of surgery2020

Rates of re-excision and conversion to mastectomy after breast-conserving surgery with or without oncoplastic surgery: a nationwide population-based study.

E Heeg, M B Jensen, L R Hölmich, A Bodilsen, R A E M Tollenaar, A V Laenkholm, B V Offersen, B Ejlertsen, M A M Mureau, P M Christiansen

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 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. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. A clinical perspective on oncoplastic breast conserving surgery.Translational breast cancer research : a journal focusing on translational research in breast cancer · 2023
    Review
  19. Observational
  20. 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 7 institutions in 2 countries.

E HeegDutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Leiden, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1447-1490
M B JensenDanish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group, Copenhagen, Denmark.
L R HölmichDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Herlev Gentofte Hospital, Herlev, Denmark.
A BodilsenDepartments of Surgery, Aarhus, Denmark.
R A E M TollenaarDepartment of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands.
A V LaenkholmDepartment of Surgical Pathology, Zealand University Hospital, Slagelse, Denmark.
B V OffersenOncology, Aarhus, Denmark.
B EjlertsenDanish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-8761-714X
M A M MureauDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
P M ChristiansenPlastic and Breast Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Aarhus University Hospital · DKLeiden University · NLDanish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group · DKErasmus MC Cancer Institute · NLGentofte Hospital · DKRigshospitalet · DKZealand University Hospital · DK

Funding

Nijbakker-Morra FoundationStichting Prof. Michaël-van Vloten FoundationVan Trigt Foundation W18232-2-55
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is no consensus regarding the impact of oncoplastic surgery (OPS) on rates of re-excision and conversion to mastectomy following breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Here these two outcomes after BCS and OPS were compared in a nationwide population-based setting.

methodsIn Denmark, all OPS is registered and categorized into volume displacement, volume reduction or volume replacement. Patients who underwent BCS or OPS between 2012 and 2018 were selected from the Danish Breast Cancer Group database. Multivariable analyses were performed to adjust for confounders, and propensity score matching to limit potential confounding by indication bias.

resultsA total of 13 185 patients (72·5 per cent) underwent BCS and 5003 (27·5 per cent) OPS. Volume displacement was used in 4171 patients (83·4 per cent), volume reduction in 679 (13·6 per cent) and volume replacement in 153 (3·1 per cent). Re-excision rates were 15·6 and 14·1 per cent after BCS and OPS respectively. After adjusting for confounders, patients were less likely to have a re-excision following OPS than BCS (odds ratio (OR) 0·80, 95 per cent c.i. 0·72 to 0·88), specifically after volume displacement and reduction. The rate of conversion to mastectomy was similar after OPS and BCS (3·2 versus 3·7 per cent; P = 0·105), but with a lower risk in adjusted analysis (OR 0·69, 0·58 to 0·84), specifically after volume displacement and reduction procedures. Findings were similar after propensity score matching.

conclusionA modest decrease in re-excision rate and less frequent conversion to mastectomy were observed after OPS compared with BCS.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Ductal, BreastCarcinoma, LobularDatabases, FactualDenmarkFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLogistic ModelsMastectomyMastectomy, SegmentalMiddle AgedMultivariate Analysis

Identifiers

PMID32761931
PMCPMC7689836
OpenAlexW3046945501

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.