ArticleGland surgery2025
Cohort study comparing volume replacement oncoplastic breast surgery with standard wide local excision for breast cancer.
Article in Gland surgery, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Volume replacement oncoplastic breast surgery (VR-OPS) allows breast conservation for women who would otherwise undergo mastectomy or compromise cosmetic outcomes with wide local excision (WLE). VR-OPS remains understudied in the literature. The aim of this study was to compare 7-year outcomes of VR-OPS Methods: This is a single-centre retrospective chart review compared VR-OPS (2012-2016) to WLE (2013-2014), analysing clinicopathological, treatment, surgical, and follow-up data. Results: Eighty patients underwent WLE and 79 VR-OPS. No differences in smoking status, cancer type, or grade were observed between the groups. Women in the VR-OPS group were significantly younger, more likely to be node positive, and had larger tumours. Consequently, they received more neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and axillary surgery. VR-OPS resulted in significantly more clear margins [relative risk (RR) =0.3638; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.1621 to 0.8162; P=0.01], translating to a decreased need for mastectomy (RR =0.2250; 95% CI: 0.0502 to 1.0089; P=0.06). There was also a significant decrease in the need for further breast surgery for symmetrisation after VR-OPS (RR =0.1266; 95% CI: 0.0162 to 0.9887; P=0.04). Although VR-OPS had slightly more post-op complications (RR =1.8228; 95% CI: 0.8982 to 3.6993; P=0.09), this was not statistically significant. Importantly there was no difference in long-term oncological outcomes specifically local-recurrence (RR =0.7949; 95% CI: 0.1152 to 5.484; P=0.81) and overall-survival (RR =0.6551; 95% CI: 0.2633 to 1.6302; P=0.36). Conclusions: This study observed no significant differences in long-term local recurrence and survival between the VR-OPS and WLE groups. VR-OPS represents an oncologically safe surgical option especially for larger tumours.
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.