SynthesisWorld journal of surgical oncology2025
Impact of intraoperative margin optimization strategies compared to standard breast-conserving surgery on oncologic outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and prospective trials.
Synthesis in World journal of surgical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Surgical and Oncologic Impact of Cavity Shave Margins in Breast-Conserving Surgery.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Evaluation of routine four-quadrant re-excision in patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAchieving optimal surgical margins is critical in breast-conserving surgery (BCS) to reduce local recurrence (LR) and the need for re-excision. This meta-analysis evaluated the impact of intraoperative margin optimization strategies on key surgical and oncologic outcomes in patients who underwent BCS.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines, including six randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The outcomes assessed included the re-excision rate (primary outcome), positive margin rate, local recurrence (LR), and overall survival (OS). The risk of bias was evaluated using the ROB 2 tool, and the certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. The study protocol was prospectively registered in the PROSPERO database ( CRD420251000564 ).
resultsIntraoperative margin optimization significantly reduced re-excision rates (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32-0.90), corresponding to 169 fewer re-excisions per 1,000 patients. Positive margin rates were also significantly lower (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.22-0.73), translating to 139 fewer positive margins per 1,000 patients. No statistically significant differences were observed for LR (OR 0.72, 95% CI, 0.16-3.19) or OS (OR 0.87, 95% CI, 0.73-1.03).
conclusionIntraoperative margin optimization effectively reduces positive margins and re-excisions in BCS without adversely affecting LR or OS. The incorporation of these strategies should be considered a standard practice to enhance surgical quality and patient outcomes.
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.