ArticleCancers2022
Oncoplastic Breast Surgery versus Conservative Mastectomy in the Management of Large Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS): Surgical, Oncological, and Patient-Reported Outcomes.
Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Oncological outcomes following extreme oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (eOPBCS) for locally advanced breast cancer (LABC): A systematic review and meta-analysis.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2025Pooled it
- Quality of life issues in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Pooled it
- Post-NAC Microcalcifications in Breast Cancer: Rethinking Surgical Indications in the Era of Precision Oncology.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Comparative analysis of level II oncoplastic surgery and conventional breast-conserving surgery in breast cancer with a ductal carcinoma in situ component.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2026Article
- Aptamer-based NIR II imaging for breast cancer surgical resection.Npj imaging · 2025Article
- Re-Excision After Positive Margins in Breast-Conserving Surgery: Can a Risk-Based Strategy Avoid Unnecessary Surgery?Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Personalizing Breast Cancer Surgery: Harnessing the Power of ROME (Radiological and Oncoplastic Multidisciplinary Evaluation).Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
- Survey on adverse events associated with drug therapy for breast cancer patients.BMC women's health · 2024Article
- Patient Satisfaction, Esthetic Outcome, and Quality of Life in Oncoplastic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery: A Single Center Experience.Breast care (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Evolution of breast conserving surgery-current implementation of oncoplastic techniques in breast conserving surgery: a literature review.Gland surgery · 2024Review
- Surgical De-Escalation for Re-Excision in Patients with a Margin Less Than 2 mm and a Diagnosis of DCIS.Cancers · 2024Article
- Key processes in tumor metastasis and therapeutic strategies with nanocarriers: a review.Molecular biology reports · 2024Review
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
Oncoplastic level II breast-conserving surgery (OPS2) allows for wider excisions than standard breast-conserving surgery, but the literature on this technique in the treatment of DCIS is scarce. This study compares OPS2 to conservative mastectomy (CM) in patients undergoing surgery for large DCIS. The clinical, radiological, surgical, and post-operative data of 147 patients who underwent either CM or OPS2 for large DCIS between 2007 and 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. The surgical, oncological, and patient-reported outcomes (PRO) were analyzed and compared between the two groups. The surgical outcomes were similar, in terms of margin involvement (p = 0.211), complication rate (p = 0.827), and re-excision rate (p = 1). The rate of additional surgery for cosmetic optimization was significantly lower in the OPS2 group: only 1 (1.8%) patient required surgical adjustments versus 24 (26.4%) patients in the CM group (p < 0.001). The mean hospital stay was lower in the OPS2 group (p < 0.001). The oncological outcomes did not differ between the two groups (p = 0.662). The PRO analysis showed better outcomes in the OPS2 group, which achieved statistical significance in the sexual well-being module (p = 0.015). Skin sensitivity loss was also significantly lower in the OPS2 group (p < 0.001). When feasible, OPS2 should be considered in the treatment of large DCIS, as it is safe and shows high levels of patient satisfaction.
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.