ArticleTranslational cancer research2020
Neoadjuvant systemic therapy does not compromise local control after breast-conserving surgery: a single-center, propensity score matching study in China.
Article in Translational cancer research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo investigate ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) in patients who have undergone breast-conserving surgery (BCS) after neoadjuvant systematic therapy (NST).
methodThree hundred and twenty-one patients undergoing BCS after NST and 2,534 patients undergoing initial BCS from June 2008 to June 2017 at Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center were retrospectively enrolled, and statistical analyses, including propensity score matching, were applied to compare IBTR-free survival. The main factors related to IBTR in the NST group were estimated utilizing univariate and multivariate analyses.
resultsAfter propensity score matching, the 3-year IBTR-free survival rates were 93.7% (95% CI, 90.6-96.8%) in the NST group and 96.9% (95% CI, 94.9-98.9%) in the matched initial BCS group at a median follow-up period of 58 months. IBTR-free survival did not differ statistically between the two groups (P=0.154). According to multivariate analysis in the NST group, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status and pathologic ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) constituent were the factors related to IBTR after BCS.
conclusionsBCS after NST and initial BCS have equivalent IBTR-free survival. BCS after NST is a safe and effective therapy in terms of IBTR.
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.