ArticleBreast cancer (Tokyo, Japan)2025
Long-term local control and cosmesis of perioperative interstitial brachytherapy for partial breast irradiation following breast-conserving surgery.
Article in Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan), 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMulticatheter interstitial brachytherapy (MIB) is an established technique of partial breast irradiation (PBI). However, postoperative catheter implant is an invasive, inconvenient, and skillful procedure. In this study, local control and cosmesis of perioperative interstitial brachytherapy (PIB) by intraoperative catheter implant were evaluated by comparing with those of whole breast irradiation (WBI) following breast-conserving surgery (BCS).
methodsBetween October 2007 and August 2019, consequent patients who underwent either PIB or WBI following BCS were included. In general, additional indications for PIB to WBI included age ≥ 40 years, tumor ≤ 3 cm, and pN0 or pNmi. WBI was initiated with a total dose of 50 Gy in 25 fractions, whereas PBI was delivered immediately following BCS at 32 Gy in eight fractions. Local recurrence (LR) was the primary endpoint, and subjective and objective cosmetic outcomes at 5 years using the Harvard Cosmesis Scale and BCCT.core software, respectively, were the secondary endpoints.
resultsDuring the 10-year follow-up, the crude rate of LR was 3.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.3-5.4) in 577 patients receiving PIB and 3.3% (95% CI 1.1-5.6) in 241 patients receiving WBI (P = 0.73). The 5- and 10-year LR-free survival rates in the PBI and WBI cohorts were 97.9% versus 97.9% and 95.4% versus 96.8%, respectively (P = 0.64). Multivariate analysis selected age < 50 years as an independent risk factor for LR. Excellent or good cosmesis in the PBI and WBI cohorts assessed by subjective and objective measures was 89.5% versus 84.5% (P = 0.26) and 83.7% versus 68.1% (P < 0.005), respectively.
conclusionsAlthough this study was based on a retrospective chart review in a single institution, the largest series of data with a long follow-up suggested that acceptable local tumor control and cosmesis were achieved following PIB compared with WBI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39907906What 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.