SynthesisThe oncologist2026
Partial breast irradiation versus whole breast irradiation after breast-conserving surgery in early-stage breast cancer: a systematic review.
Synthesis in The oncologist, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAdjuvant radiotherapy for early-stage breast cancer has progressively shifted toward less extensive treatment approaches. Partial breast irradiation (PBI) has emerged as a safe and effective option for appropriately selected patients.
aimTo systematically compare PBI versus whole breast irradiation (WBI) in early-stage breast cancer with respect to acute and late toxicity, cosmetic outcomes, quality of life, local disease control, and survival.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review of randomized clinical trials evaluating PBI delivered by any technique versus WBI in early-stage breast cancer. Searches were performed in CENTRAL/CCTR, EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, ISRCTN, and ClinicalTrials.gov, following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. Trials with low risk of bias were further evaluated. The CONSORT 2010 statement was used to guide standardized reporting, without influencing study selection.
resultsOf 340 records identified, 55 were randomized trials. After applying eligibility criteria and excluding studies with high or unclear risk of bias, 15 low-risk trials were included. Overall, PBI demonstrated comparable oncologic outcomes to WBI, with reduced treatment-related burden and improved quality of life in selected patients. However, results varied by technique and fractionation schedule. Notably, the RAPID trial reported higher rates of acute and late skin toxicity and worse cosmetic outcomes with twice-daily 3D external beam PBI, highlighting the importance of technique optimization and appropriate patient selection.
conclusionsPBI is a safe and effective alternative to WBI in carefully selected patients with early-stage breast cancer, offering meaningful reductions in toxicity and treatment burden without compromising disease control. Technique-specific considerations remain critical to maximizing both clinical and cosmetic outcomes.
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.