SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2021
Repeat Breast-Conserving Surgery Versus Salvage Mastectomy for Ipsilateral Breast Tumour Recurrence After Breast-Conserving Surgery in Breast Cancer Patients: A Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Repeat lumpectomy and external beam radiation therapy for ipsilateral breast cancer recurrence: a systematic review.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluation of normal tissue complications in breast cancer re-irradiation: a meta-analysis study.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2025Pooled 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
- Repeat breast-conserving surgery for ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence: towards a paradigm shift-a narrative review.Gland surgery · 2026Review
- Salvage treatment strategies for ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence after breast-conserving therapy: a real-world study.The oncologist · 2026Article
- Article
- A protocol for three observational cohort studies evaluating adverse outcomes, excess costs and repeat procedures after surgery for breast cancer in the USA.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2025Article
- Great Debate: Does Breast-Conserving Surgery with Radiotherapy Offer Better Survival than Mastectomy in Early-Stage Breast Cancer?Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Management of Ipsilateral Breast Tumor Recurrence Following Breast Conservation Surgery for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: A Data-Poor Zone.Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Management of irradiated post-mastectomy wound dehiscence with synthetic electrospun fiber matrix: a case report.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSalvage mastectomy (SM) is the standard surgery for ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence (IBTR). However, whether repeat breast-conserving surgery (RBCS) is an alternative method remains unclear. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the effects of RBCS and SM after IBTR for breast-conserving surgery (BCS).
methodsWe searched PubMed, Cochrane, Wiley Online and Embase for controlled studies comparing RBCS and SM after IBTR for BCS (published between 1993 and 2019, published in English). Our main endpoints were the secondary local recurrence rate (SLRR), distant metastasis rate (DMR) and overall survival (OS). We used a random-effects model or fixed-effects model for data pooling.
resultsFifteen of the 424 eligible studies were ultimately included, and all studies were retrospective cohort studies (n=2532 participants). 1) SLRR: The SLRR of RBCS was higher than SM (pooled relative rate (pRR) = 1.87, 95% CI 1.22 - 2.86, P=0.004). Stratified analysis was performed according to whether radiotherapy was performed after salvage surgery (radiotherapy group: 2ndRT, no radiotherapy group: no-2ndRT), and the following results were revealed: pRR=0.43 (95% CI 0.20-0.95, P=0.04) for group 2ndRT; and pRR=2.30 (95% CI 1.72-3.06, P<0.00001) for group no-2ndRT. These results showed that the main cause of heterogeneity was salvage radiotherapy. 2) DMR: No significant difference in the DMR was observed between RBCS and SM (pRR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.37 - 1.01, P=0.05). 3) OS: No significant difference in OS was observed between RBCS and SM (pRR=0.65, 95% CI 0.39 - 1.08, P=0.10).
conclusionsThe SLRR of RBCS was higher than SM for ITBR after BCS, but survival was not affected. RBCS may be used as an alternative for IBTR patients after BCS with strict control for several indications, such as tumor size, recurrence interval and biological behavior, and attaching importance to subsequent salvage radiotherapy and systematic therapy.
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.