SynthesisWorld journal of surgical oncology2026
Diagnostic accuracy and surgical outcomes of fluorescence-guided surgery in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in World journal of surgical oncology, 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.
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntraoperative evaluation of breast surgical margins is essential for reducing re-excision rates in lumpectomy patients. Fluorescence-guided surgery (FGS) has emerged as a promising technique to enhance intraoperative detection of cancer and optimize surgical outcomes. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the diagnostic accuracy of FGS and its effect on positive margin and reoperation rates.
methodsA systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for articles published from inception up to October 3, 2025. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity). Secondary outcomes included positive margin rates and reoperation rates, analyzed as mean differences derived from within-study comparisons of pre- and post-implementation data. Statistical analyses were performed using Stata 18.0 and R 4.4.2.
results18 studies comprising 1283 patients were included. 11 studies evaluating diagnostic accuracy demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 0.72 (95% CI: 0.62–0.81; I2 = 65.97%) and specificity of 0.75 (95% CI: 0.67–0.81; I2 = 93.96%), with a summary area under the curve (AUC) of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.76–0.83). Regarding surgical outcomes, the pooled positive margin rate was 14% (95% CI: 0.08–0.21; I2 = 53.5%) and the reoperation rate was 10% (95% CI: 0.05–0.16; I2 = 72.2%). FGS was associated with a 16% (95% CI: 0.09–0.23; I2 = 47.4%) absolute reduction in reoperations. Key limitations included significant heterogeneity across studies regarding fluorophores, imaging systems, tumor types, and the unit of analysis used.
conclusionFGS demonstrates tangible clinical impact by moderately improving diagnostic accuracy and reducing both positive margin and reoperation rates. While the technique offers real-time visual feedback and a strong safety profile, standardizing operative protocols and validating tumor-specific probes are necessary to address current variations in practice and establish FGS as a mainstay in breast surgery.
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.