ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2024
Comparison of long-term oncological outcomes after central lumpectomy versus nipple-sparing breast-conserving surgery for centrally located breast cancer: a propensity score-matched study.
Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the oncological safety of nipple-sparing breast-conserving surgery (BCS) versus central lumpectomy for centrally located breast cancer (CLBC).
methodsPatients who underwent BCS for CLBC at Asan Medical Center from 2007 to 2018 were reviewed retrospectively. The oncological outcomes of nipple-sparing BCS (NS-BCS) and central lumpectomy were compared using univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses and compared again after 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM).
resultsThe study included 306 patients who underwent NS-BCS and 106 patients who underwent central lumpectomy (median follow-up: 111 months). On multivariate analysis, central lumpectomy had a lower risk of local recurrence compared to NS-BCS, albeit without statistical significance (HR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02-1.24; p = 0.077). There was no significant difference in the risk of death (HR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01-1.68, p = 0.12). After PSM, each group had 106 patients. The 5-year and 10-year local recurrence-free survival rates were 94.2% and 92.9% for NS-BCS, and 99.1% and 99.1% for central lumpectomy, respectively (p = 0.031). There were no significant differences in overall survival, regional recurrence-free survival, or distant recurrence-free survival. Fifteen patients (4.9%) who underwent NS-BCS had ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR), of which 40% were in the nipple-areolar complex and previous surgical sites. One patient (0.9%) who underwent central lumpectomy experienced an IBTR in a different quadrant.
conclusionNS-BCS showed more local recurrence than central lumpectomy. When deciding whether to spare the nipple during BCS in CLBC, patients should be sufficiently informed about the risk of IBTR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38332198What 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.