ArticleScientific reports2025
Survival comparison of breast conserving therapy and mastectomy with breast reconstruction for breast cancer using propensity score matched 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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Comparison of quality of life and complications after oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery and implant-based reconstruction for central breast cancer-a retrospective cohort study.Gland surgery · 2026Article
- A Five-Year Single-Center Retrospective Study of Neoadjuvant Therapy Response and Survival in Romanian Women with Breast Cancer.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Epidemiology, early detection, and management of breast cancer in China: A comprehensive review.Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cohort studies have suggested that breast-conserving therapy (BCT) offers better survival outcomes compared to mastectomy in patients with early breast cancer (BC). However, survival comparisons between BCT and mastectomy with breast reconstruction (Mastectomy + BR) are lacking. To investigate this, we conducted a cohort study using data from the SEER database. Patients with first-diagnosed locoregional BC between 2010 and 2016 were included and categorized into BCT and Mastectomy + BR groups. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to reduce selection bias. Breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between the groups. After PSM, 56,420 patients were matched (1:1) into the BCT and Mastectomy + BR groups. No significant differences in BCSS or OS were observed between the two matched groups overall. However, subgroup analyses based on tumor size and nodal status showed that, among patients with node-negative and tumors ≤ 5 cm, Mastectomy + BR was associated with decreased BCSS compared to BCT (HR 1.23, 95% CI 1.02-1.49, P = 0.03). Inferior BCSS for Mastectomy + BR was also observed in tumors located in the upper-outer quadrant (HR 1.54, 95% CI 1.07-2.20, P = 0.02), nipple & central area (HR 4.98, 95% CI 1.44-17.21, P = 0.01), and in triple-negative BC (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.07-1.98, P = 0.02). Additionally, in triple-negative BC, Mastectomy + BR was associated with worse OS (HR 1.33, 95% CI 1.00-1.76, P = 0.048). For patients with node-positive or tumors > 5 cm, no significant differences in BCSS or OS were found between the BCT and Mastectomy + BR groups, except in the HER2-enriched subtype, where Mastectomy + BR was associated with improved BCSS (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.22-0.85, P = 0.015) and a marginal better OS (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.29-1.01, P = 0.055). This study suggests that, except for the HER2-enriched subtype, BCT remains an equivalent or, in specific clinical scenarios, a superior alternative to Mastectomy + BR for the treatment of breast cancer.
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.