Trial reportThe British journal of surgery2026
Survival after breast-conserving surgery and radiotherapy versus mastectomy: propensity score analyses within a randomized anaesthesiology trial.
Trial report in The British journal of 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLarge randomized studies show equivalent survival after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) + adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) and mastectomy. In contrast, more recent observational studies suggest BCS + RT to be superior, but it is questionable whether patients in these treatment arms are comparable. Here, overall survival (OS) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) after BCS + RT and mastectomy are compared within a randomized trial comparing intravenous and inhalation anaesthesia during breast cancer surgery.
methodsThe patient cohort was recruited from the randomized CAN-study. Patients with tumours >30 mm, patients with tumours <10 mm, and patients who underwent BCS without RT were excluded. OS and BCSS were estimated using multivariable Cox regression analyses and three different propensity score models.
resultsThe final study cohort included 830 women, of whom 601 underwent BCS + RT (median age 64 years) and 229 underwent mastectomy (median age 68 years). Women who underwent mastectomy had more co-morbidities and more unfavourable tumour characteristics. Mastectomy was associated with significantly less favourable OS in unadjusted, adjusted, and two of the three propensity score analyses. BCSS was inferior in the mastectomy group in the unadjusted analysis, with an HR of 2.27 (95% c.i. 1.20 to 4.30). In the adjusted and three propensity score analyses, BCSS was equal in the treatment groups, with an adjusted HR of 1.02 (95% c.i. 0.43 to 2.42).
conclusionIn this study, which was designed to approximate a randomized trial as closely as possible, no significant difference in BCSS was observed between BCS + RT and mastectomy. Differences in OS likely reflect occult selection bias of patients with higher co-morbidity burden to mastectomy.
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.