ArticleTranslational breast cancer research : a journal focusing on translational research in breast cancer2026
Comparative outcomes of conventional versus endoscopic-assisted surgery for breast phyllodes tumors: a single center retrospective cohort study.
Article in Translational breast cancer research : a journal focusing on translational research in breast cancer, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Breast phyllodes tumors (PTs) tend to grow rapidly and often present as large tumors. Consequently, conventional surgery (CS) typically leaves large and conspicuous scars on the breast. In contrast, endoscopic-assisted surgery (EAS) via the axillary approach offers smaller, more concealed incisions, leaving the breast surface unscarred. However, whether this technique can enhance aesthetic outcomes without increasing the risk of PTs recurrence remains unclear. The study aimed to compare the oncologic safety and cosmetic outcomes of EAS versus CS in patients with PTs. Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed PTs who received surgical treatment were included, and they were stratified into two groups: EAS group and CS group. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the baseline differences between two groups. Oncologic safety, cosmetic satisfaction, intraoperative indicators, and postoperative complications were compared between patients underwent EAS and CS. Results: After 3:1 PSM, 200 patients were included in the final analysis (147 CS and 53 EAS). The median follow-up was 23.77 months. EAS was associated with a significantly longer operative time (83.77±26.81 Conclusions: In this matched cohort study, EAS approved to be a safe and feasible substitute to CS for PTs, offering equivalent oncologic outcomes while significantly improving cosmetic satisfaction and psychological well-being.
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.