ArticleThe oncologist2026
Salvage treatment strategies for ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence after breast-conserving therapy: a real-world study.
Article 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSalvage mastectomy has long been regarded as the standard treatment for ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) after initial breast-conserving surgery (BCS) combined with radiotherapy. However, the feasibility and oncological outcomes of alternative local treatment strategies-such as repeat BCS (R-BCS) with or without re-irradiation, or mastectomy combined with re-irradiation-remain unclear. MATERIALS AND
methodsUsing data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, we retrospectively analyzed female patients who developed IBTR after initial BCS combined with radiotherapy. Overall survival (OS), breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS), cumulative incidence of second IBTR, and cumulative incidence of contralateral breast cancer were compared between patients treated with salvage mastectomy and those receiving alternative local treatment strategies.
resultsA total of 4651 patients were included. After propensity score matching (PSM), all three groups-R-BCS alone, R-BCS with re-irradiation, and mastectomy with re-irradiation-showed comparable OS, BCSS and contralateral breast cancer risk when compared with salvage mastectomy as the reference. Compared with mastectomy alone, the cumulative incidence of 10-year second IBTR was significantly higher in the R-BCS-alone group (0.36% vs 5.04%, P = .002), while no significant differences were observed for R-BCS combined with re-irradiation or mastectomy combined with re-irradiation (P > .999 and P = .305, respectively). Subgroup analyses suggested that re-irradiation might correlate with inferior survival in triple-negative IBTR.
conclusionFor patients experiencing recurrence after breast-conserving therapy, R-BCS combined with re-irradiation represents a viable alternative to salvage mastectomy. R-BCS alone may increase the risk of second IBTR, while the addition of re-irradiation to mastectomy did not provide additional benefit.
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.