ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2022
"
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Breast-Conserving Therapy for Multiple Ipsilateral Breast Cancer After Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Impact of margin status on ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence after breast-conserving treatment for patients with breast cancer who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a retrospective multi-institutional study of 1813 cases.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2025Article
- Impact of margin distance on recurrence and survival following breast-conserving surgery after neoadjuvant systemic therapy.NPJ breast cancer · 2025Article
- Impact of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy on surgical modality in patients with T1-2N0-1M0 triple-negative breast cancer.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2024Article
- Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients with HER2-Negative Breast Cancer: A Report from Clinical Breast Cancer Registry of Iran.Archives of Iranian medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/Aim: Patients with Stage I-II breast cancer undergoing breast-conserving surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (BCS-NAC) were retrospectively assessed in order to evaluate the extent of a safe excision margin. Materials and Methods: Between 2003 and 2020, 151 patients underwent risk-adapted BCS-NAC; margin involvement was always assessed at definitive histology. Patients with complete pathological response (pCR) were classified as the RX group, whereas those with residual disease and negative margins were stratified as R0 < 1 mm (margin < 1 mm) and R0 > 1 mm (margin > 1 mm). Results: Totals of 29 (19.2%), 64 (42.4%), and 58 patients (38.4%) were included in the R0 < 1 mm, R0 > 1 mm, and RX groups, respectively, and 2 patients with margin involvement had a mastectomy. Ten instances of local recurrence (6.6%) occurred, with no statistically significant difference in local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) between the three groups. A statistically significant advantage of disease-free survival (p = 0.002) and overall survival (p = 0.010) was observed in patients with pCR. Conclusions: BCS-NAC was increased, especially in HER-2-positive and triple-negative tumors; risk-adapted BCS should be preferably pursued to highlight the cosmetic benefit of NAC. The similar rate of LRFS in the three groups of patients suggests a shift toward the “no ink on tumor” paradigm for patients undergoing BCS-NAC.
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.