ArticleUpdates in surgery2022
Breast conserving surgery versus salvage mastectomy for ipsilateral breast cancer recurrence: a propensity score matching analysis.
Article in Updates in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Role of Repeat Breast-Conserving Surgery for the Management of Ipsilateral Breast Cancer Recurrence.Annals of surgical oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Salvage Mastectomy Is not the Treatment of Choice for Aggressive Subtypes of Ipsilateral Breast Cancer Recurrence: A Single-Institution Retrospective Study.European journal of breast health · 2022Article
- Breast Cancer Surgery: New Issues.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2022-07-28Duplication of/in Article ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Salvage mastectomy is regarded as the treatment of first choice for ipsilateral breast cancer recurrence (IBCR), even if a second breast conserving surgery (BCS) is feasible. The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term oncological outcomes of IBCR patients who had undergone either mastectomy or second BCS, performing a propensity score matching (PSM) analysis to reduce the selection bias. All the consecutive patients with IBCR were retrospectively reviewed and divided into two different groups of treatment: repeat BCS versus salvage mastectomy. The propensity score predicting the probability of surgical treatment was determined for each patient and a 1:1 matching was performed. Disease-free survival (DFS), distant disease-free survival (DDFS), overall survival (OS), and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) were analyzed and compared between the two groups. A total of 309 patients underwent surgical treatment for IBCR. After PSM, 108 patients treated with repeat BCS and 108 patients treated with salvage mastectomy were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference in terms of DFS between patients with IBCR receiving repeat BCS or salvage mastectomy (p = 0.167). However, patients with IBCR undergoing second BCS had significantly better DDFS, OS, and BCSS compared to salvage mastectomy (p < 0.001). Salvage mastectomy should not be considered the optimal treatment for IBCR and it does not seem to improve prognosis compared to repeat conserving surgery. Second BCS for IBCR is a safe option with encouraging long-term oncological outcomes and should be proposed to all patients, when technically feasible.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34181187What 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.