SynthesisInternational journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care2024
A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing breast-conserving surgery and mastectomy in terms of patient survival rate and quality of life in breast cancer.
Synthesis in International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Beyond the first dose: Systematic review on external beam radiotherapy for locoregional breast cancer recurrence.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2026Pooled it
- Patient Selection for Partial Breast Irradiation in the Era of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Omission: A Narrative Review.Cancers · 2026Review
- Specimen PET-CT Imaging for Intraoperative Margin Assessment in Early-Stage Breast Cancer: The BrIMA Nonrandomized Clinical Trial.JAMA surgery · 2026Article
- Impact of preoperative MRI on long-term outcomes of breast-conserving therapy with electronic kV-intraoperative radiotherapy: A risk-stratified analysis based on ASTRO criteria.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2026Article
- Associations Between Health Information Sources, Sociodemographic and Clinical Characteristics, and Decision-Making Among Women with Early-Stage Breast Cancer.Research square · 2026Article
- BrCaM an artificial intelligence model for surgical decision making in breast cancer.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Willingness to Undergo Corrective Surgery After Breast-Conserving Surgery in Chinese Patients with Breast Deformities: A Single-Center Study.Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press) · 2026Article
- Breast Cancer Patient's Outcomes after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Surgery at 5 and 10 Years for Stage II-III Disease.Cancers · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The study aimed to assess the effects of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) versus mastectomy on survival and quality of life in Stages I, II, and III breast cancer, providing solid evidence for clinical decisions. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on breast cancer treatments, searching databases such as PubMed and the Cochrane Library to compare BCS, and mastectomy's effects on survival and quality of life. A combined total of 16 734 patients in the control group and 17 435 patients in the experimental group were included in this analysis. This meta-analysis used RevMan 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark) software for analysis. Our meta-analysis of 34 169 patients from 11 studies showed that BCS significantly reduced the overall recurrence rate at a median follow-up of 29 months, with a mean difference of 1.27 and a 95% confidence interval of 1.19-1.36, strongly supporting its effectiveness (P < .00001). Furthermore, our analysis found no significant increase in 5-year local recurrence rates for BCS versus mastectomy, indicating its long-term effectiveness with a mean difference of 1.13 (95% confidence interval: [1.03, 1.24], P = .01). Additionally, there was a notable decrease in tissue ischaemic necrosis among patients who had received BCS, with a mean difference of 0.37 (95% confidence interval: [0.33, 0.42], P < .00001), underscoring its benefits and long-term viability. BCS resulted in fewer cases of tissue ischaemic necrosis and higher body image scores compared with mastectomy, suggesting that it is a preferable option for better cosmetic outcomes and potentially favourable effects on prognosis and quality of life.
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.