SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
Margin status, re-excision, and completion mastectomy after oncoplastic versus conventional breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OBCS) may permit wider excision within a breast-conserving approach, but its effects on margin control and subsequent surgery remain uncertain. Methods: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library from inception through 25 June 2026 for comparative studies of OBCS versus conventional breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Primary outcomes were initial positive margin, re-excision, completion/conversion mastectomy, and any margin-related reoperation. Secondary outcomes were negative/clear margin, recurrence, and complications. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using random-effects Mantel-Haenszel models. Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420261439265). Results: Forty-eight comparative studies comprising 124,903 BCS observations were included (28,085 OBCS; 96,818 conventional BCS). Compared with conventional BCS, OBCS was associated with lower risks of initial positive margin (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40-0.80), re-excision (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46-0.77), completion/conversion mastectomy (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.43-0.90), and any margin-related reoperation (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.51-0.78). OBCS was also associated with a higher likelihood of achieving negative/clear margins (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.04-1.11). No significant between-group differences were observed in local recurrence/ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence or locoregional recurrence. Overall complication risk was higher in the primary analysis, but the association was attenuated to borderline statistical significance after exclusion of registry or administrative-database cohorts. Conclusions: OBCS was associated with more favorable margin-related outcomes and fewer margin-driven reoperations, without a detectable increase in recurrence. These findings support selective use of OBCS as a margin-control and breast-preservation strategy in appropriately selected patients. However, complication estimates should be interpreted cautiously because reporting and ascertainment varied across study designs. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261439265, identifier CRD420261439265.
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.