Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33052412›Full record

ArticleJAMA surgery2020

Long-term Oncologic Outcomes of Immediate Breast Reconstruction vs Conventional Mastectomy Alone for Breast Cancer in the Setting of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.

Zhen-Yu Wu, Hee-Jeong Kim, Jong-Won Lee, Il-Yong Chung, Ji-Sun Kim, Sae-Byul Lee, Byung-Ho Son, Jin-Sup Eom, Sung-Bae Kim, Kyung Hae Jung and 4 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
8.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Zhen-Yu WuAsan Medical Center, Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Hee-Jeong KimAsan Medical Center, Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Jong-Won LeeAsan Medical Center, Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Il-Yong ChungAsan Medical Center, Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Ji-Sun KimAsan Medical Center, Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Sae-Byul LeeAsan Medical Center, Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Byung-Ho SonAsan Medical Center, Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Jin-Sup EomAsan Medical Center, Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Sung-Bae KimAsan Medical Center, Department of Oncology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Kyung Hae JungAsan Medical Center, Department of Oncology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Gyungyub GongAsan Medical Center, Department of Pathology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Hak Hee KimAsan Medical Center, Department of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Sei-Hyun AhnAsan Medical Center, Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
BeomSeok KoAsan Medical Center, Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Ulsan College · KRUniversity of Ulsan · KRAsan Medical Center · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: An increasing number of patients with breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) undergo immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) with nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) or skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) as surgical treatment. However, the oncologic efficacy and safety of this treatment sequencing strategy is unclear. Objective: To compare the long-term oncologic outcomes of IBR with NSM/SSM and conventional mastectomy (CM) alone for breast cancer in the NACT setting. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective, propensity score-matched case-control study was conducted at Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. A total of 1266 patients with breast cancer who underwent NACT followed by mastectomy with or without breast reconstruction between January 1, 2010, and November 30, 2016, were included. Data analysis was performed from July 1, 2019, to January 24, 2020. After propensity score matching, 323 patients who underwent IBR with NSM/SSM and 323 who underwent CM alone were selected for comparison of long-term oncologic outcomes. Main Outcomes and Measures: The 5-year local recurrence-free survival, disease-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, and overall survival rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank tests. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were estimated using the Cox proportional hazards regression model. Results: After matching, the median follow-up periods were 67 (range, 17-125) months for the IBR group and 68 (range, 17-126) months for the CM-alone group. Median age of the women in the IBR group was 42 (range, 23-72) years; median age of those in the CM-alone group was 46 (range, 30-75) years. No significant differences were observed between the IBR and CM-alone groups in local recurrence (3.7% vs 3.4%; P = .83), regional recurrence (7.1% vs 5.3%; P = .33), or distant metastasis (17.3% vs 18.6%; P = .68) rates. There was also no significant difference between the IBR and CM-alone groups in 5-year local recurrence-free survival (95.6% vs 96.7%; HR, 1.124; 95% CI, 0.495-2.549; P = .78), disease-free survival (76.5% vs 79.9%; HR, 1.089; 95% CI, 0.790-1.500; P = .60), distant metastasis-free survival (82.5% vs 82.5%; HR, 0.941; 95% CI, 0.654-1.355; P = .74), or overall survival (92.0% vs 89.3%; HR, 0.847; 95% CI, 0.530-1.353; P = .49) rates. Conclusions and Relevance: The long-term oncologic outcomes of IBR with NSM/SSM for breast cancer in this study appeared to be comparable to those of CM alone after NACT, suggesting the feasibility of IBR with NSM/SSM in the NACT setting.

Indexed as

MammaplastyMastectomyAdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Ductal, BreastCarcinoma, LobularChemotherapy, AdjuvantDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNeoadjuvant TherapyPropensity ScoreRepublic of KoreaRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID33052412
PMCPMC7557719
OpenAlexW3091921868

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.