从乳腺癌患者生存率和生活质量的角度比较保乳手术和乳房切除术的随机对照试验的 Meta 分析》(Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing Breast-Conserving Surgery and Mastectomy in terms of Patient Survival Rate and Quality of Life in Breast Cancer)。

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES International Journal for Quality in Health Care Pub Date : 2024-05-30 DOI:10.1093/intqhc/mzae043
Shuangjian Li, Xin Li, Dan Li, Qian Zhao, Liping Zhu, Tao Wu
{"title":"从乳腺癌患者生存率和生活质量的角度比较保乳手术和乳房切除术的随机对照试验的 Meta 分析》(Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing Breast-Conserving Surgery and Mastectomy in terms of Patient Survival Rate and Quality of Life in Breast Cancer)。","authors":"Shuangjian Li, Xin Li, Dan Li, Qian Zhao, Liping Zhu, Tao Wu","doi":"10.1093/intqhc/mzae043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The study aimed to assess the effects of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) versus mastectomy on survival and quality of life in Stages I, II, and III breast cancer, providing solid evidence for clinical decisions. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on breast cancer treatments, searching databases such as PubMed and the Cochrane Library to compare BCS, and mastectomy's effects on survival and quality of life. A combined total of 16 734 patients in the control group and 17 435 patients in the experimental group were included in this analysis. This meta-analysis used RevMan 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark) software for analysis. Our meta-analysis of 34 169 patients from 11 studies showed that BCS significantly reduced the overall recurrence rate at a median follow-up of 29 months, with a mean difference of 1.27 and a 95% confidence interval of 1.19-1.36, strongly supporting its effectiveness (P < .00001). Furthermore, our analysis found no significant increase in 5-year local recurrence rates for BCS versus mastectomy, indicating its long-term effectiveness with a mean difference of 1.13 (95% confidence interval: [1.03, 1.24], P = .01). Additionally, there was a notable decrease in tissue ischaemic necrosis among patients who had received BCS, with a mean difference of 0.37 (95% confidence interval: [0.33, 0.42], P < .00001), underscoring its benefits and long-term viability. BCS resulted in fewer cases of tissue ischaemic necrosis and higher body image scores compared with mastectomy, suggesting that it is a preferable option for better cosmetic outcomes and potentially favourable effects on prognosis and quality of life.</p>","PeriodicalId":13800,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for Quality in Health Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11141600/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing breast-conserving surgery and mastectomy in terms of patient survival rate and quality of life in breast cancer.\",\"authors\":\"Shuangjian Li, Xin Li, Dan Li, Qian Zhao, Liping Zhu, Tao Wu\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/intqhc/mzae043\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The study aimed to assess the effects of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) versus mastectomy on survival and quality of life in Stages I, II, and III breast cancer, providing solid evidence for clinical decisions. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on breast cancer treatments, searching databases such as PubMed and the Cochrane Library to compare BCS, and mastectomy's effects on survival and quality of life. A combined total of 16 734 patients in the control group and 17 435 patients in the experimental group were included in this analysis. This meta-analysis used RevMan 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark) software for analysis. Our meta-analysis of 34 169 patients from 11 studies showed that BCS significantly reduced the overall recurrence rate at a median follow-up of 29 months, with a mean difference of 1.27 and a 95% confidence interval of 1.19-1.36, strongly supporting its effectiveness (P < .00001). Furthermore, our analysis found no significant increase in 5-year local recurrence rates for BCS versus mastectomy, indicating its long-term effectiveness with a mean difference of 1.13 (95% confidence interval: [1.03, 1.24], P = .01). Additionally, there was a notable decrease in tissue ischaemic necrosis among patients who had received BCS, with a mean difference of 0.37 (95% confidence interval: [0.33, 0.42], P < .00001), underscoring its benefits and long-term viability. BCS resulted in fewer cases of tissue ischaemic necrosis and higher body image scores compared with mastectomy, suggesting that it is a preferable option for better cosmetic outcomes and potentially favourable effects on prognosis and quality of life.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13800,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal for Quality in Health Care\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11141600/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal for Quality in Health Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzae043\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal for Quality in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzae043","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:该研究旨在评估保乳手术(BCS)与乳房切除术对 I 期、II 期和 III 期乳腺癌患者生存期和生活质量的影响,为临床决策提供可靠证据:该研究旨在评估保乳手术(BCS)与乳房切除术对 I 期、II 期和 III 期乳腺癌患者的生存期和生活质量的影响,为临床决策提供可靠的证据:我们对乳腺癌治疗的随机对照试验进行了荟萃分析,搜索了 PubMed 和 Cochrane 图书馆等数据库,比较了保乳手术和乳房切除术对生存期和生活质量的影响。本次分析共纳入了 16734 名对照组患者和 17435 名实验组患者。这项荟萃分析使用 RevMan 5.3(丹麦哥本哈根 Cochrane Collaboration)软件进行分析:我们对 11 项研究中的 34,169 名患者进行的荟萃分析表明,在中位随访 29 个月后,保乳手术显著降低了总复发率,平均差异为 1.27,95% 置信区间为 1.19-1.36,有力地支持了保乳手术的有效性(p结论:与乳房切除术相比,保乳手术导致组织缺血性坏死的病例更少,身体形象评分更高,这表明保乳手术是一种可取的选择,可获得更好的美容效果,并对预后和生活质量产生潜在的有利影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing breast-conserving surgery and mastectomy in terms of patient survival rate and quality of life in breast cancer.

The study aimed to assess the effects of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) versus mastectomy on survival and quality of life in Stages I, II, and III breast cancer, providing solid evidence for clinical decisions. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on breast cancer treatments, searching databases such as PubMed and the Cochrane Library to compare BCS, and mastectomy's effects on survival and quality of life. A combined total of 16 734 patients in the control group and 17 435 patients in the experimental group were included in this analysis. This meta-analysis used RevMan 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark) software for analysis. Our meta-analysis of 34 169 patients from 11 studies showed that BCS significantly reduced the overall recurrence rate at a median follow-up of 29 months, with a mean difference of 1.27 and a 95% confidence interval of 1.19-1.36, strongly supporting its effectiveness (P < .00001). Furthermore, our analysis found no significant increase in 5-year local recurrence rates for BCS versus mastectomy, indicating its long-term effectiveness with a mean difference of 1.13 (95% confidence interval: [1.03, 1.24], P = .01). Additionally, there was a notable decrease in tissue ischaemic necrosis among patients who had received BCS, with a mean difference of 0.37 (95% confidence interval: [0.33, 0.42], P < .00001), underscoring its benefits and long-term viability. BCS resulted in fewer cases of tissue ischaemic necrosis and higher body image scores compared with mastectomy, suggesting that it is a preferable option for better cosmetic outcomes and potentially favourable effects on prognosis and quality of life.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
3.80%
发文量
87
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal for Quality in Health Care makes activities and research related to quality and safety in health care available to a worldwide readership. The Journal publishes papers in all disciplines related to the quality and safety of health care, including health services research, health care evaluation, technology assessment, health economics, utilization review, cost containment, and nursing care research, as well as clinical research related to quality of care. This peer-reviewed journal is truly interdisciplinary and includes contributions from representatives of all health professions such as doctors, nurses, quality assurance professionals, managers, politicians, social workers, and therapists, as well as researchers from health-related backgrounds.
期刊最新文献
Optimizing warfarin and dual oral anticoagulation practices in an academic clinic during a merger amid the COVID-19 pandemic in a marginalized population. International research priorities for integrated care and cross-boundary working: an electronic Delphi study. Intravenous iron staining. Real-world incidence, preventability, and mitigation tools from a long-term quality improvement project. The Future of Global Graduate Training in Quality Improvement and Patient Safety. How can we measure psychological safety in mental healthcare staff? Developing questionnaire items using a nominal groups technique.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1