ArticleScience progress
Optimizing radiotherapy for early-stage breast cancer: A comparative SEER-based analysis of neoadjuvant, intraoperative, and postoperative approaches.
Article in Science progress. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectiveTo compare long-term survival in early-stage breast cancer patients treated with different radiation therapy modalities.MethodsData was retrospectively derived from SEER database. We compared overall survival (OS), breast cancer specific survival (BCSS) and second primary malignancies (SPM) in early-stage breast cancer patients treated with postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) versus those treated neoadjuvant radiotherapy (NART) and intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) after propensity score matching by 1:1.ResultsA total of 457,166 patients were included in this study. After matching, the 20-year OS of 1441 patients in NART cohort was lower than that in PORT cohort (p < 0.01), particularly in hormone receptor positive patients (p < 0.01). NART were dependent prognostic factors for 20-year OS [Hazard Ratio (HR):1.21, 95%CI: 1.06-1.38, p < 0.01). No significant difference in BCSS was observed between NART and PORT treatments. Additionally, patients undergoing NART had a lower risk of all SPM (p = 0.01) and second solid cancers (p = 0.02) but a comparable risk of second hematological malignancies (p = 0.55) than patients administered PORT. HR-positive was a risk factor for SPM. No OS, BCSS or SPM risk difference were significantly observed in the 2096 pairs of IORT and PORT groups.ConclusionCompared to PORT, NART and IORT don't offer survival advantages for early-stage breast cancer patients. Altering the sequence of radiotherapy requires careful evaluation.
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.