ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2022
Oncologic outcomes of immediate breast reconstruction in young women with breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of breast reconstruction and different surgical approaches after neoadjuvant therapy on the long-term survival of breast cancer patients.Translational oncology · 2026Article
- Long-term outcomes of skin-sparing mastectomy and nipple-sparing mastectomy versus traditional mastectomy in breast cancer: a case-control study based on preoperative ultrasound and clinical indicators.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Surgery paradigm for locally advanced breast cancer following neoadjuvant systemic therapy.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Review
- Surgical options of the breast and clinical outcomes of breast cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: A single-center retrospective study.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOncologic safety of postmastectomy breast reconstruction in young women with breast cancer is not well-defined, especially in the setting of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). We retrospectively compared the oncologic outcomes following nipple-sparing (NSM)/skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) with immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) and conventional mastectomy (CM) alone in young breast cancer patients after NACT.
methodsA total of 1266 women with primary breast cancer who underwent NACT followed by total mastectomy with or without IBR were reviewed. Of these, only young patients (age ≤ 40 years at diagnosis) were included in the outcome analysis (n = 375). After propensity score-matching by clinical T and N stage, molecular subtype, response to NACT, and adjuvant radiotherapy status, 228 patients were 1:1 matched, comprising balanced IBR group (with NSM/SSM) and CM-alone group.
resultsThe 5-year locoregional recurrence-free, disease-free, distant metastasis (DM)-free, and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) rates for the entire cohort of young patients were 83.4%, 65.3%, 71.7%, and 85.4%, respectively. Locoregional recurrence rates between the matched groups were similar (14% vs. 15.8%; p = 0.710); however, IBR group had significantly lower DM rate (27.2% vs. 40.4%; p = 0.036) and breast cancer mortality (14.9% vs. 27.2%; p = 0.023) than CM-alone group. IBR group showed significantly improved 5-year DM-free survival (74.1% vs. 62.6%; p = 0.043) and BCSS (89.1% vs. 77.6%; p = 0.048) rates than CM-alone group.
conclusionsOur results indicated that IBR with NSM/SSM does not negatively affect long-term oncologic outcomes compared to CM alone in young women with breast cancer receiving NACT.
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.