SynthesisBreast cancer (Tokyo, Japan)2023
Oncoplastic versus conventional breast-conserving surgery in breast cancer: a pooled analysis of 6941 female patients.
Synthesis in Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- A bibliometric worldview of breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer from 2013 to 2023.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Pooled it
- Robotic breast-conserving surgery: a retrospective study of feasibility and patient-reported aesthetic outcomes in 88 patients.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Grisotti versus Wise-Pattern Oncoplastic Reconstruction in Central Breast Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Study.European journal of breast health · 2026Article
- Chest Wall Perforator Flaps in Partial Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- Nipple Sensation and Nipple-Areolar Complex Outcomes After Oncoplastic Breast Surgery.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- Shoulder function following oncoplastic breast conserving surgery-a narrative review.Gland surgery · 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 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBreast cancer is the most prevalent cancer in women. In the past few years, surgical interventions for breast cancer have experienced massive changes from radical excision to conserving approaches. In this study, we aim to compare the two breast surgery interventions, including conventional breast-conserving surgery (CBCS) versus oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OPBCS).
methodsWe searched on PubMed, Web of Science (WOS), Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane till 2 October 2021. All relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies were included. The data were extracted and pooled using Review Manager software (RevMan 5.4).
resultsThe pooled meta-analysis of the included studies showed that OPBCS was significantly superior to CBCS in most of the outcomes. Re-excision significantly favoured CBCS (RR = 0.49, 95% CI [0.37, 0.63], P < 0.00001). However, local recurrence (RR = 0.55, 95% CI [0.27, 1.09], P = 0.09), close surgical margins (RR = 0.37, 95% CI [0.14, 1.00], P = 0.05) and end up to the risk of mastectomy (RR = 0.73, 95% CI [0.54, 97], P = 0.06) showed no significant difference between both techniques. Notably, while performing a sensitivity analysis, other outcomes as local recurrence, significantly showed favourable results towards OPBCS. In terms of safety outcomes, there was no significant difference between OPBCS and CBCS.
conclusionWe recommend the oncoplastic approach rather than the conventional one in females with breast cancer. Re-excision rates showed better results following OPBCS.
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.