ArticleCureus2023
The Feasibility of Omitting Postoperative Radiotherapy in Japanese Patients With Ductal Carcinoma In Situ of Breast Treated With Breast-Conserving Surgery.
Article in Cureus, 2023. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background To analyze the feasibility of omitting postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in Japanese patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Materials and methods We retrospectively analyzed 88 patients with small pure DCIS (median diameter 1.1 cm, ≤ 4 cm) who underwent BCS with (n = 39) or without (n = 49) PORT. The primary and secondary endpoints were ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) and overall survival (OS), respectively, between the groups that received PORT and those that did not. Results The PORT group included a high number of margin-positive cases. The incidence of IBTR was 2.4% (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.3-15.7%) and 2.8% (95% CI, 0.4-18.2%) at five years and 5.5% (95% CI, 1.4-20.6%) and 2.8% (95% CI, 0.4-18.2%) at 10 years in patients without and with PORT, respectively (p = 0.686). In the margin-negative group, only one patient showed IBTR without RT (2.3%), whereas no patient with PORT experienced IBTR (0%). To date, there have been no regional or distant metastases; therefore, no patient has experienced breast cancer-related deaths. The OS rates were 97.7% (95% CI, 84.9-99.6%) and 100% at 10 years in patients without and with PORT, respectively (p = 0.372). Conclusion This study suggests that the omission of PORT after BCS could be a feasible option for selected Japanese patients but requires further investigation to identify the low-risk factor in patients who can omit PORT.
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.