ReviewCureus2025
Breast-Conserving Surgery Versus Modified Radical Mastectomy in the Management of Non-metastatic Inflammatory Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) is an uncommon yet particularly aggressive subtype of breast carcinoma. The most effective surgical strategy after multimodality therapy continues to be debated, specifically regarding whether breast-conserving surgery (BCS) provides outcomes equivalent to modified radical mastectomy (MRM). This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed survival outcomes between these two surgical options in non-metastatic IBC. Searches of PubMed, SCOPUS, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar up to April 2019 were searched under Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidance. Eligible studies included adults with non-metastatic IBC receiving either BCS or MRM after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). The data were analyzed with a random-effects model. Six studies with 11,252 patients were included. The combined analysis of overall survival (OS) favored mastectomy (RR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.79-0.98; p = 0.02) without heterogeneity (I² = 0%). Hazard ratio analysis (HR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.74-1.07; p = 0.22) and breast-cancer-specific survival (BCSS; HR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.73-1.09; p = 0.27) showed no significant difference. Overall, MRM remains the preferred surgical approach, though BCS can be considered in highly selected cases showing an excellent response to neoadjuvant therapy. Further randomized trials are necessary to refine selection criteria and validate long-term oncologic safety. The findings support MRM as the standard, with BCS viable for selected patients achieving excellent neoadjuvant response.
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.