ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2021
Feasibility and safety of breast-conserving surgery via a periareolar incision for cancers located far from the nipple-areolar complex: a retrospective study.
Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Minimal incision-assisted endoscopic versus conventional open breast-conserving surgery: A multicentre randomized clinical trial.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2026Trial
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe performed breast-conserving surgery (BCS) using periareolar incisions for cancers located far from the nipple-areolar complex (NAC) and examined if BCS via a periareolar incision maximized cosmesis and maintained oncologic safety. One of the most important goals of BCS is to improve cosmesis after surgery and quality of life, but the skin incision can affect cosmesis based on the tumor location.
methodsFifty-five patients with breast cancers located far from the NAC underwent BCS via periareolar incisions between January 2017 and April 2018. If a sentinel lymph node biopsy was required, another skin incision was created in the axilla using the conventional technique. Medical records of patients were reviewed retrospectively.
resultsThe mean patient age was 48.1 ± 10.6 years. The mean tumor size was 1.8 ± 1.0 cm (range 0.2-4.5 cm) on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); the mean distance from the NAC to the tumor was 5.9 ± 1.9 cm (range 4.0-12.3 cm). Patients with cancers in the subareolar area were excluded even though the distance from the nipple was > 4 cm on MRI. Negative microscopic margins were obtained in all patients. There was no surgical complication such as seroma, bleeding, or infection. Re-operation was not needed. All patients received whole breast radiation therapy. After surgery and radiation therapy, periareolar incision scars were nearly invisible.
conclusionFor cancers located far from the NAC, BCS via periareolar incisions is feasible and leads to superior cosmesis in selective patients. Moreover, BCS seems oncologically safe, although long-term outcomes need to be evaluated.
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.