ArticleBreast cancer (Tokyo, Japan)2026
Comparative analysis of level II oncoplastic surgery and conventional breast-conserving surgery in breast cancer with a ductal carcinoma in situ component.
Article in Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan), 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo investigate the pathological outcomes, re-excision rates, local recurrence, patient satisfaction, and cosmetic results associated with level II oncoplastic surgery (OBS) techniques compared to conventional breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in the treatment of breast cancer with a ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) component.
methodsBetween January 2020 and December 2023, 163 patients with invasive carcinoma associated with DCIS were deemed suitable for breast-conserving surgery. The patients were divided into two groups: those who underwent conventional BCS and those who underwent level II OBS.
resultsForty patients underwent level II OBS, while 123 patients underwent conventional BCS. The median age was 50 (range 29-65) years for the patients in the level II OBS group and 52 (range 25-68) years for those in the conventional BCS group. Re-excision was performed in three patients (10%) in the level II OBS group compared to 37 patients (30%) in the conventional BCS group, indicating a statistically significant difference (p = 0.035). The median tumor size was 16 (range 3-45) mm in the OBS cohort and 15 (range 4-50) mm in the BCS cohort. Donut mastopexy was the most commonly performed level II oncoplastic procedure (50%). No statistically significant differences were found between the groups in terms of other demographic and histopathological parameters (e.g., tumor laterality, menopausal status, ER, PR, and HER2 positivity, and E-cadherin expression). According to the BREAST-Q survey, the patients in the OBS group reported higher satisfaction with their breasts, better psychosocial well-being, and improved sexual well-being compared to those in the BCS group, with these differences being statistically significant (p < 0.001).
conclusionIn breast cancer with a DCIS component, patients who underwent level II OBS had significantly lower re-excision rates, higher patient satisfaction, and better cosmetic outcomes compared to those who underwent conventional BCS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41015984What 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.