ArticleGland surgery2026
Oncologic safety of breast-conserving surgery in node-positive breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Gland surgery, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The oncologic safety of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) compared with mastectomy in women with node-positive breast cancer remains uncertain in the modern era of systemic therapy and radiotherapy (RT). The aim of this study was to clarify the comparative survival and recurrence outcomes of BCS with RT versus mastectomy in women with pathologically confirmed node-positive breast cancer through a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: RCTs enrolling women with pathologically confirmed node-positive breast cancer and directly comparing BCS plus RT with mastectomy were systematically identified. Searches of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL were conducted through May 2025, following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS), and risk ratios (RRs) for locoregional recurrence (LRR) were pooled using random-effects models. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool, and sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate robustness across trial eras and locoregional treatment strategies. Results: Ten RCTs comprising 11,714 node-positive patients were included. All BCS patients received whole-breast irradiation (WBI), and nearly all participants received systemic therapy appropriate to tumor biology. Pooled analyses showed no significant differences between BCS and mastectomy for OS [HR 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.81-1.07], DFS (HR 1.03, 95% CI: 0.93-1.12), BCSS (HR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.81-1.18), or LRR (RR 0.98, 95% CI: 0.81-1.16). Heterogeneity was negligible (I Conclusions: BCS with RT provides survival and recurrence outcomes equivalent to mastectomy in women with node-positive breast cancer. These findings support BCS as a safe, patient-centered surgical option in the modern multimodality treatment era and provide a strong evidence base for harmonizing guidelines and reducing unnecessary radical surgery. Future trials incorporating molecular profiling and response-adapted strategies are warranted to refine patient selection.
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.