ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2026
Oncological outcome of endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy versus conventional open mastectomy in early breast cancer: a multicenter cohort study.
Article in World journal of surgical oncology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn recent years, endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy (ENM) has been applied in breast cancer treatment, whereas conventional open mastectomy (COM) remains widely adopted in clinical practice. The data about the oncological outcomes of ENM vs. COM was rare, especially the multicenter data.
methodsThis multicenter retrospective cohort study enrolled 2,314 early breast cancer patients diagnosed with stage 0-III, and treated with either ENM or COM from September 1st, 2021 to January 30th, 2025 at three institutions. After exclusions, the final cohort consisted of 1,722 patients, of whom 136 were in the ENM group and 1,586 in the conventional group. Demographic data, clinicopathological features, and oncological outcomes were collected and analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to minimize selection bias and balance confounders.
resultsBefore PSM, the patients in ENM group were significant different from COM group in age, menopausal status, hormone receptor status, HER2 status and molecular subtypes. After PSM, the final analysis cohort comprised 136 patients in the ENM group and 408 patients in the COM group. The median follow-up time was 22 months. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in any of the oncological outcome parameters: local recurrence-free survival between COM and ENM groups (97.8% vs. 97.8%; HR, 0.63; 95%CI, 0.14-2.90; P = 0.50); regional recurrence-free survival between COM and ENM groups (98.8% vs. 99.3%; HR, 1.24; 95%CI, 0.17-9.22; P = 0.84); distant metastasis-free survival between COM and ENM groups(97.3% vs. 98.5%; HR, 1.70; 95%CI, 0.47-6.11; P = 0.48); disease free survival between COM and ENM groups(94.9% vs. 96.3%; HR, 1.24; 95%CI, 0.50-3.10; P = 0.66); overall survival between COM and ENM groups(99.3% vs. 99.3%; HR, 0.76; 95%CI, 0.07-8.72; P = 0.81).
conclusionsIn this multicenter cohort study, ENM group showed no different oncological outcomes from COM group. ENM could be used as a viable alternative to COM for eligible breast cancer 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.