SynthesisBreast cancer research and treatment2025
Oncologic and cosmetic outcomes of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery after neoadjuvant systemic therapy: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2025. 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.
- Treatment strategies for triple-negative primary breast cancer in older women: a systematic review.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2025Pooled it
- Assessing Recent Trends in Lumpectomy and Concomitant Oncoplastic Procedures: A National Insurance Database Analysis.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Five Decades of Innovation-Tailored Breast Cancer Treatment: 1976-2026.World journal of surgery · 2026Review
- Chest Wall Perforator Flaps in Oncoplastic Breast Surgery: A Series of 157 Consecutive Cases at the Paris Breast Center.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Oncoplastic Breast Surgery: Bridging Oncological Safety and Aesthetic Excellence in the Era of Precision Surgery.Cureus · 2026Review
- Oncoplastic Surgery Versus Lumpectomy: Analysis of Oncological Outcomes and Surgical Complications in 1290 Breast Cancer Patients.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Breast Cancer Surgical Specimens: A Marking Challenge and a Novel Solution-A Prospective, Randomized Study.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeOncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OBCS) prevents compromise of breast aesthetics following large breast cancer excisions. This systematic review was conducted to investigate the outcomes (oncologic, surgical, cosmetic) of OBCS versus standard breast-conserving surgery (SBCS) and mastectomy post-neo-adjuvant systemic therapy.
methodsOvid, Web of Science, Cochrane, ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched up to 24/08/2024. English language peer-reviewed RCTs or observational/cohort studies with ≥ 18-year-old women treated for breast cancer with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and/or hormonal therapy comparing OBCS to SBCS and/or mastectomy were included. Of 6794 articles, 32 underwent full-text assessment and eleven met the inclusion criteria. The review was conducted using PRISMA guidelines. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias (Newcastle-Ottowa Scale). Meta-analysis using a random-effects model were performed where data allowed.
resultsEleven cohort studies (n = 4594) included OBCS (n = 912), SBCS (n = 1122) and mastectomy (n = 2560) after NACT. Post-NACT tumour size was 20(9-44) mm, 13(0-23)mm [SMD 0.62, 95%CI(-0.24,1.48), p = 0.16] and 20(10-31)mm [SMD 0.05, 95%CI(-0.53,0.63), p = 0.86] in the OBCS, SBCS and mastectomy groups respectively. The margin re-excision rate was significantly lower in OBCS than in SBCS [2.9%(0-11.1%) vs. 6.1%(0-18.5%); OR 0.35, 95%CI(0.15,0.80), p = 0.01]. All other oncologic outcomes, including positive margin rate, and overall survival, were not statistically different between the groups. Cosmetic outcomes and patient-reported outcome measures were marginally in favour of OBCS [OBCS 50-66% vs SBCS 37.6-55% very satisfied].
conclusionOBCS after NACT appears oncologically safe and a potential alternative in patients with partial or poor tumour response to NACT. Further studies are required, directly comparing well-matched OBCS with SBCS and mastectomy patients after NACT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39673644What 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.