ArticleScientific reports2025
Oncological outcomes of breast-conserving surgery versus mastectomy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy in a contemporary multicenter cohort.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Surgical Management of Young Women with High-Risk Breast Cancer Receiving Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy on the I-SPY2 Trial.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Trial
- Breast-Conserving Therapy for Multiple Ipsilateral Breast Cancer After Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Impact of body mass index on surgical outcomes and delay adjuvant treatment in patients undergoing therapeutic mammoplasty for breast cancer.JPRAS open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate local recurrence (LR), distant recurrence (DR) and death in non-metastatic patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery (BCS) or mastectomy following current neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) regimens. Patients submitted to NAC in 2013-2023 were evaluated (n = 365; mastectomy: 165; BCS: 200). More mastectomy patients were over 70 years old (12.7% versus 7%; p = 0.02) and had T4b tumors (16.4% versus 4.5%; p = 0.0003), whereas more BCS patients had node-negative axilla (42% versus 31.5%; p = 0.02). After a mean follow-up of 65 months (range: 4-124), LR and DR were similar in the mastectomy and BCS groups (4.8% versus 5.0%; p = 0.95 and 10.9% versus 9%; p = 0.58, respectively). More deaths occurred in the mastectomy group (8.5% versus 3%; p = 0.03). Ten-year LR-free survival was higher in the BCS group (98.5% versus 95%; HR: 3.41; 1.09-10.64; p = 0.03), while 10-year DR-free survival was similar in both groups (91% BCS versus 89% mastectomy, HR: 1.25; 0.65-2.42; p = 0.4). Overall survival was better in the BCS group (97% versus 91.5%; HR: 2.62; 1.06-6.69; p = 0.03). Estimated 10-year disease-free survival, stratified according to tumor stage, showed no significant difference except for T4 disease, for which the risk was greater in the mastectomy group (94.5% versus 81.8%; HR: 2.86, 1.54-5.30, p = 0.0008). In the multivariate analysis, T3/T4 staging (OR: 4.37, 1.03-21.91; p = 0.04) and axillary dissection (OR: 5.11, 1.14-35.52; p = 0.04) were associated with LR in the BCS group. In this cohort of patients receiving contemporary NAC, BCS proved to be a safe alternative to mastectomy following treatment with NAC, even in cases of locally advanced BC.
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.