ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
Effect of the Nipple-Excising Breast-Conserving Therapy in Female Breast Cancer: A Competing Risk Analysis and Propensity Score Matching Analysis of Results Based on the SEER Database.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Due to the lack of randomized controlled trial, the effectiveness and oncological safety of nipple-excising breast-conserving therapy (NE-BCT) for female breast cancer (FBC) remains unclear. We aimed to explore and investigate the prognostic value of NE-BCT versus nipple-sparing breast-conserving therapy (NS-BCT) for patients with early FBC. Methods: In this cohort study, data between NE-BCT and NS-BCT groups of 276,661 patients diagnosed with tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage 0-III FBC from 1998 to 2015 were retrieved from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Propensity score matching analysis, Kaplan-Meier, X-tile, Cox proportional hazards model, and competing risk model were performed to evaluate the effectiveness and oncological safety for patients in NE-BCT and NS-BCT groups. Results: A total of 1,731 (0.63%) patients received NE-BCT (NE-BCT group) and 274,930 (99.37%) patients received NS-BCT (NS-BCT group); 44,070 subjects died after a median follow-up time of 77 months (ranging from 1 to 227 months). In the propensity score matching (PSM) cohort, NE-BCT was found to be an adversely independent prognostic factor affecting overall survival (OS) [hazard ratio (HR), 1.24; 95% CI, 1.06-1.45, Conclusions: Our study demonstrated that the administration of NE-BCT is oncologically safe and reliable and can be widely recommended in clinics for women with non-metastatic breast cancer.
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.