ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2024
Breast Conservation Project: Clinical Outcomes of Extreme Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Therapy Versus Mastectomy for Large and Multiple Lesions.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparing the diagnostic efficacy of [Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPatients with multiple or large malignant breast lesions are classically considered mastectomy candidates, but extreme oncoplastic breast-conservation surgery (eOBCS) has become an alternative approach. There is a paucity of outcomes data comparing eOBCS with mastectomy.
methodsWe reviewed our prospectively maintained, single-institution database. We included patients with non-metastatic breast cancer with multiple ipsilateral or single large (≥ 5 cm) malignant breast lesions identified preoperatively who underwent either eOBCS or mastectomy. Patient demographics, clinicopathologic features, and surgical, oncologic, and cosmetic outcomes were evaluated.
resultsSeventy-six (88%) patients underwent eOBCS and 10 (12%) underwent mastectomy. Median follow-up was 24.8 months. Mastectomy patients had larger lesions than eOBCS patients (median 70 mm vs. 32.5 mm; p = 0.06). Six (60%) index mastectomy patients underwent at least one additional surgery. For eOBCS patients, 34 (44%) required re-excision, 7 of whom underwent more than one subsequent surgery to obtain negative margins, and 6 (7.9%) ultimately underwent mastectomy. For patients undergoing additional surgery (n = 40), median time between index and final operation was 315 days for mastectomy versus 21 days for eOBCS patients (p < 0.001). Mastectomy patients more frequently experienced complications (p = 0.001) and underwent cosmetic revision (p < 0.001). There was no difference in cosmetic scores, and eOBCS patients reported less pain (p = 0.009). There were two local and three distant recurrences in the eOBCS cohort and one distant recurrence in the mastectomy group.
conclusionBreast conservation was attainable in over 90% of eOBCS patients. Increased postoperative complications and discomfort and longer duration of surgical treatment in mastectomy patients without oncologic superiority should drive informed patient discussions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39048896What 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.