Trial reportMedicine2025
Comparison of tumor clipping and marking of skin projection methods in patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: A randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Topographic sketching for surgical planning after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: a non-invasive localization method.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn patients scheduled for breast-conserving surgery (BCS) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the primary mass is marked with a metallic clip. A comparative study was conducted to determine the efficacy and safety of tattoo application as an alternative to this invasive procedure.
methodsForty patients (clip: 20, tattoo: 20) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, in the group marked with clips, nonpalpable patients were marked with wire, and BCS was performed; in the tattoo group, BCS was performed with the skin containing the tattoo. All statistical analyses was performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 25.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk). The study was ultimately completed with a total of 40 patients, comprising 20 patients in each group. In comparison to the standard method, the effect size of our study in reducing complications was d = 0.5, and the power was 88%. This power analysis demonstrates that the necessary number of targeted patients has been successfully reached.
resultsThere were no significant differences between the groups in terms of demographic and clinicopathological features in the 40 patients included in the study (P > .05). The radiological distance of the tumor to the skin was significantly lower in the group of patients who were marked with the tattoo technique than in the group of patients who underwent clipping (tattoo: 15.7 ± 7.4 vs clip: 20.7 ± 9.5) (P = .045). Reexcision requirement was lower in the tattoo group (35% vs 15%, P = .273). All 4 patients whose surgical margin closeness of the tumor was found to 1 to 2 mm, were in the clip group (P = .106). Complications (hematoma/ecchymosis) were observed in 6 (15%) patients in the clip group, and pain was observed in 5 (12.5%) patients. All patients with complications were included in the clip-marked group. Clip migration was observed in 3 (15%) of the patients. No complications were observed in the tattoo group.
conclusionTattooing, which is an alternative to the method of marking the mass with metallic clips (accepted as the standard today) before neoadjuvant treatment, is an easy and inexpensive method with fewer complications.
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.