ArticleBreast cancer (Tokyo, Japan)2024
Breast-conserving surgery versus modified radical mastectomy in T1-2N3M0 stage breast cancer: a propensity score matching analysis.
Article in Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ultrasound-guided microwave ablation for breast tumors: current status and future perspectives.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2026Review
- Assessing the prognostic role of androgen receptor expression in non-metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Identification of risk factors and development of predictive models for chronic postsurgical pain after modified radical mastectomy.Annals of medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Construction of a clinical prediction model for overall survival and cancer-specific survival in malignant phyllode tumor of the breast based on the SEER database.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Clinical outcomes of breast-conserving surgery versus mastectomy in early-stage breast cancer: A retrospective cohort study.Bioinformation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeBreast-conserving surgery (BCS) plus radiotherapy and mastectomy exhibit highly comparable prognoses for early-stage breast cancer; however, the safety of BCS for T1-2N3M0 breast cancer remains unclear. This study compared long-term survival for BCS versus (vs.) modified radical mastectomy (MRM) among patients with T1-2N3M0 breast cancer.
methodsData of patients with T1-2N3M0 breast cancer were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Eligible patients were divided into 2 groups, BCS and MRM; Pearson's chi-squared test was used to estimate differences in clinicopathological features. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance baseline characteristics. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to investigate the effects of surgical methods and other factors on breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) and overall survival (OS).
resultsIn total, 2124 patients were included; after PSM, 596 patients were allocated to each group. BCS exhibited the same 5-year BCSS (77.9% vs. 77.7%; P = 0.814) and OS (76.1% vs. 74.6%; P = 0.862) as MRM in the matched cohorts. Multivariate survival analysis revealed that BCS had the same BCSS and OS as MRM (hazard ratios [HR] 0.899 [95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.697-1.160], P = 0.413 and HR 0.858 [95% CI 0.675-1.089], P = 0.208, respectively); this was also seen in most subgroups. BCS demonstrated better BCSS (HR 0.558 [95% CI 0.335-0.929]; P = 0.025) and OS (HR 0.605 [95% CI 0.377-0.972]; P = 0.038) than MRM in those with the triple-negative subtype.
conclusionsBCS has the same long-term survival as MRM in T1-2N3M0 breast cancer and may be a better choice for triple-negative breast cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38976120What 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.