ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2024
Comparison of long-term oncologic outcomes of central lumpectomy and conventional breast-conserving surgery for invasive breast cancer: propensity score matching analysis.
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. 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.
- Breast-conserving surgery after vacuum-assisted biopsy in patients with unexpected breast cancer: is it reliable? A 5-year follow-up study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeCentral lumpectomy (CL) is a breast-conserving surgical (BCS) technique that involves excision of the nipple-areolar complex with breast tumor in centrally located breast cancers. We aimed to investigate the long-term clinical outcomes of CL in comparison with conventional BCS (cBCS).
methodsPatient records who underwent BCS with clear resection margins for invasive breast cancer between 2004 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Of the total 6,533 patients, 106 (1.6%) underwent CL. Median follow-up duration was 73.4 months. 1:3 propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) were used to minimize selection bias.
resultsThe CL group showed a significantly higher ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) rate than the cBCS group (10-year IBTR rate: 5.8% vs. 3.1%, p = 0.004), even after adjusting for other variables (hazard ratio (HR), 2.65; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.07-6.60, p = 0.048). However, there were no significant differences observed in regional recurrence, distant metastasis, or overall survival rates between the two groups. Both PSM and IPTW analyses showed significantly higher IBTR in the CL group (PSM HR, 3.27; 95% CI, 0.94-11.36; p = 0.048 and IPTW HR, 4.66; 95%CI, 1.85-11.77; p < 0.001). Lastly, when analyzing 2,213 patients whose tumors were located within 3 cm of the nipple, the CL group showed a significantly higher IBTR than the cBCS group before and after PSM.
conclusionCL was associated with a higher rate of IBTR compared to cBCS, while other survival outcomes were comparable. For centrally located tumors, CL may be considered for patients preferring breast preservation. However, higher risk for IBTR should be informed and careful surveillance may be necessary during the early post-operative follow-up periods.
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.