ArticleCureus2024
The Feasibility of Omission of Postoperative Radiotherapy in Japanese Patients With Early Breast Cancer Treated With Breast-Conserving Surgery.
Article in Cureus, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background This study was aimed at analyzing the impact of postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) on Japanese patients with early-stage breast cancer and exploring the potential of PORT omission. Materials and methods Data from 794 patients with early-stage breast cancer (T1-2, N0-1), who underwent BCS with (n = 310) or without PORT (n = 484) were retrospectively analyzed. Local control (LC) rate and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) were compared between the groups that received and did not receive PORT in the whole cohort and low-risk cohort (i.e., the cohort with negative surgical margin, lymph node negativity, and estrogen receptor positivity, excluding young age of 49 or less), and in low-risk subgroup using propensity-score matching. Results PORT was associated with better LC but not BCSS in the total population. In the low-risk cohort, the incidence of local recurrence in patients without and with PORT was 5.3% and 4.8%, respectively, at 10 years (p = 0.591), and 7.8% and 4.8%, respectively, according to propensity-score matching (p = 0.485). Conclusion PORT improved LC in the total population, but not BCSS or overall survival (OS). In the low-risk group analysis (negative surgical margin, lymph node negativity, estrogen receptor positivity, and age 50 years or more), equivalent LC, BCSS, and OS were found including propensity-matched comparison. Therefore, this study showed that the omission of PORT could be a treatment option for low-risk Japanese patients. Further multi-center prospective studies are warranted to validate these findings and reduce the unnecessary burden of PORT for patients and institutions.
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.