ArticleBreast (Edinburgh, Scotland)2026
Locoregional control of downstaged breast-conserving surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: A propensity-matched study in Chinese patients.
Article in Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland), 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS) associated with breast-conserving surgery (BCS) based on the regressed tumor extent after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) (neoadjuvant group) versus upfront BCS without NAC (adjuvant group) in nonmetastatic Chinese patients. Two approaches of 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM), pre-NAC and post-NAC baseline matching, were employed. In the pre-NAC baseline matching, clinicopathological features prior to NAC in the neoadjuvant group were matched with corresponding features in the adjuvant group; whereas in the post-NAC baseline matching, the features after NAC in the neoadjuvant group were matched with those in the adjuvant group. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between groups after matching, with a median follow-up duration of 50.8 months. In the pre-NAC baseline matching, a total of 553 case pairs were matched. The 5-year LRFSs did not significantly differ between neoadjuvant and adjuvant groups (94.37% vs 93.85%, P > 0.05), nor did the 8-year LRFSs (91.80% vs 92.08%, P > 0.05). In the post-NAC baseline matching, 645 case pairs were included. Again, no statistically significant differences were observed in the 5-year (94.78% vs. 92.44%, P > 0.05) and 8-year LRFS (91.26% vs. 89.67%, P > 0.05) between the two groups. Subgroup analyses stratified by RECIST response and tumor shrinkage extent likewise demonstrated no significant difference in both approaches. These findings indicate that, under contemporary treatment regimens and surgical standards, post-NAC BCS based on the regressed tumor extent did not increase the risk of locoregional recurrence in Chinese patients.
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.