ArticleJAMA surgery2026
Locally Ablative Therapies in Oligometastatic Breast Cancer.
Article in JAMA 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
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Management of de novo metastatic breast cancer (dnMBC) often focuses on palliation. As such, the potential survival benefit of surgery or ablative therapy remains unclear, particularly for those with oligometastatic disease. Objective: To evaluate the association of surgical and/or locally ablative treatment of the primary and/or metastatic sites with overall survival (OS) in patients with single-site oligometastatic dnMBC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a retrospective cohort study using the National Cancer Database. Patients diagnosed with oligometastatic, single-site (ie, brain, bone, liver, or lung) dnMBC receiving systemic therapy were selected from the National Cancer Database (2010-2020). Study groups included no locally ablative therapy/surgery (NLT), primary breast tumor resection only (BR), metastatic site ablative therapy only (MT), and both therapies (BR+MT). Logistic regression identified factors associated with treatment strategy. Multivariable modeling was used to estimate the association of treatment with OS. Data were analyzed from August 2024 to September 2025. Exposures: NLT, BR, MT, or BR+MT therapies for oligometastatic, single-site dnMBC. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was OS. Results: Among 22 433 patients (median [IQR] age, 61 [50-70] years; 22 126 female biological sex at birth [98.6%]; median [IQR] follow-up, 61.5 [60.7-62.5] months), bone-only metastases were most common in 15 441 (68.8%). Locally ablative therapies were uncommon (BR+MT, 1438 [6.4%]; MT, 2381 [10.6%]; BR, 3435 [15.3%] vs NLT, 15 179 [67.7%]). Older age (>70 years, odds ratio [OR], 2.49; 95% CI, 2.24-2.76 vs <50 years [reference]) and higher comorbidity score (>2, OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.16-1.60 vs 0 [reference]) were associated with NLT. Compared with NLT, BR (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.58-0.67) and BR+MT (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.54-0.67) were associated with improved survival, but OS was worse for MT (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.14-1.31). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this cohort study suggest that few patients with single-site dnMBC undergo surgical/ablative therapy, although BR+MT and BR only were associated with improved OS. However, if invasive interventions are considered for patients with single-site dnMBC, resection of the breast primary may be beneficial.
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.