ArticleWorld journal of surgery2022
'Breast Cosmesis After Breast-Conserving Therapy' Who is the Judge, Patient or Surgeon?
Article in World journal of surgery, 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.
- Macroareolar Changes following Periareolar Mastopexy: A Postoperative Assessment.Breast care (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Radiotherapy and surgery for male breast cancer a population analysis of survival by age and stage.Discover oncology · 2026Article
- Aptamer-based NIR II imaging for breast cancer surgical resection.Npj imaging · 2025Article
- Machine learning model for predicting epidermal growth factor receptor expression status in breast cancer using ultrasound radiomics.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Breast-Conserving Surgery Guided with Magnetic Seeds vs. Wires: A Single-Institution Experience.Cancers · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMore than 80% of newly diagnosed breast cancers are managed with breast-conserving therapy (BCT). Preservation of cosmetically acceptable breasts is an inherent aim of all breast-conserving efforts-this can, however, be difficult to assess objectively. Compounding this is the difference in perception of breast cosmesis between patients and surgeons. This study compares the concordance of a new subscale-based cosmetic score (TCS) with the patient's perception.
methodEastern Health Breast and Cancer Centre conducted this study on patients who had completed their BCT and radiotherapy. Participation was voluntary and involved permitting an assessor (breast surgery fellow or consultant) to grade cosmetic outcomes to generate a Total Cosmesis Score (TCS). The patients blinded to this assessment were then asked to complete the postoperative segment of the BCT module of the Breast-Q questionnaire. TCS from surgeon assessment was compared against patient assessment (questions BQ1i and BQ1k specifically). Cohen's kappa was calculated to define the strength of the inter-rater agreement.
resultsOne hundred twelve patients with a mean age of 59 (range 27-89) participated in the study. TCS was low in 26% and high in 74% of participants. 76% and 69% of participants were satisfied when answering Breast-Q questions 'How your lumpectomy breast looks?' and 'How you look in the mirror unclothed?' respectively (Cohen's k = 0.464, 95% CI 0.337-0.591, p < 0.01). The agreement between the TCS and the patient assessment was poor (Cohen's k = 0.172, 95% CI - 0.020-2.093, p = 0.067).
conclusionCosmetic outcomes scored using TCS by surgeons do not match patient's own assessment of the cosmetic result.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36169705What 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.