肿瘤整形保乳手术与传统保乳手术的疗效和安全性对比:最新荟萃分析。

IF 5.7 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Breast Pub Date : 2024-08-05 DOI:10.1016/j.breast.2024.103784
Rui Tian , Yu Zheng , Ruikang Liu , Chen Jiang , Hongmei Zheng
{"title":"肿瘤整形保乳手术与传统保乳手术的疗效和安全性对比:最新荟萃分析。","authors":"Rui Tian ,&nbsp;Yu Zheng ,&nbsp;Ruikang Liu ,&nbsp;Chen Jiang ,&nbsp;Hongmei Zheng","doi":"10.1016/j.breast.2024.103784","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women. The surgical treatment of breast cancer has transitioned progressively from radical mastectomy to breast-conserving surgery. In this meta-analysis, we are aiming to compare oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OS) with conventional breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in terms of efficacy and safety.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We searched Medline, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane databases, <span><span>Clinicaltrial.gov</span><svg><path></path></svg></span>, and CNKI until April 30, 2024. Data from cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Outcomes included primary outcomes (re-excision, local recurrence, positive surgical margin, mastectomy), secondary outcomes and safety outcomes. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to evaluate the quality of outcomes.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Our study included 52 studies containing 46,835 patients. Primary outcomes comprise re-excision, local recurrence, positive surgical margin, and mastectomy, there were significant differences favoring OS over BCS (RR 0.68 [0.56, 0.82], RR 0.62 [0.47, 0.82], RR 0.76 [0.59, 0.98], RR 0.66 [0.44, 0.98] respectively), indicating superior efficacy of OS. Additionally, OS demonstrated significant aesthetic benefits (RR 1.17 [1.03, 1.33] and RR 1.34 [1.18, 1.52]). While total complications were significantly fewer in the OS group (RR 0.70 [0.53, 0.94]), the differences in specific complications were not significant. Furthermore, subgroup analyses were conducted based on nationality, sample size, quality, and type.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>OS demonstrates either superior or at least comparable outcomes across various aspects when compared to BCS.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":9093,"journal":{"name":"Breast","volume":"77 ","pages":"Article 103784"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960977624001152/pdfft?md5=6eae8c5fe3b026bff1fe400b19aa2d71&pid=1-s2.0-S0960977624001152-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy and safety of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery versus conventional breast-conserving surgery: An updated meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Rui Tian ,&nbsp;Yu Zheng ,&nbsp;Ruikang Liu ,&nbsp;Chen Jiang ,&nbsp;Hongmei Zheng\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.breast.2024.103784\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women. The surgical treatment of breast cancer has transitioned progressively from radical mastectomy to breast-conserving surgery. In this meta-analysis, we are aiming to compare oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OS) with conventional breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in terms of efficacy and safety.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We searched Medline, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane databases, <span><span>Clinicaltrial.gov</span><svg><path></path></svg></span>, and CNKI until April 30, 2024. Data from cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Outcomes included primary outcomes (re-excision, local recurrence, positive surgical margin, mastectomy), secondary outcomes and safety outcomes. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to evaluate the quality of outcomes.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Our study included 52 studies containing 46,835 patients. Primary outcomes comprise re-excision, local recurrence, positive surgical margin, and mastectomy, there were significant differences favoring OS over BCS (RR 0.68 [0.56, 0.82], RR 0.62 [0.47, 0.82], RR 0.76 [0.59, 0.98], RR 0.66 [0.44, 0.98] respectively), indicating superior efficacy of OS. Additionally, OS demonstrated significant aesthetic benefits (RR 1.17 [1.03, 1.33] and RR 1.34 [1.18, 1.52]). While total complications were significantly fewer in the OS group (RR 0.70 [0.53, 0.94]), the differences in specific complications were not significant. Furthermore, subgroup analyses were conducted based on nationality, sample size, quality, and type.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>OS demonstrates either superior or at least comparable outcomes across various aspects when compared to BCS.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9093,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Breast\",\"volume\":\"77 \",\"pages\":\"Article 103784\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960977624001152/pdfft?md5=6eae8c5fe3b026bff1fe400b19aa2d71&pid=1-s2.0-S0960977624001152-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Breast\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960977624001152\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Breast","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960977624001152","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言乳腺癌是女性最常见的癌症。乳腺癌的外科治疗已从根治性乳房切除术逐步过渡到保乳手术。在这项荟萃分析中,我们旨在比较肿瘤整形保乳手术(OS)与传统保乳手术(BCS)的疗效和安全性:我们检索了 Medline、Web of Science、Embase、Cochrane 数据库、Clinicaltrial.gov 和 CNKI,直至 2024 年 4 月 30 日。纳入了队列研究和随机对照试验(RCT)的数据。结果包括主要结果(再次切除、局部复发、手术切缘阳性、乳房切除)、次要结果和安全性结果。采用 Cochrane 偏倚风险评估工具和纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表评估结果的质量:我们的研究包括 52 项研究,涉及 46,835 名患者。主要结果包括再次切除、局部复发、手术切缘阳性和乳房切除,与 BCS 相比,OS 有显著差异(分别为 RR 0.68 [0.56, 0.82]、RR 0.62 [0.47, 0.82]、RR 0.76 [0.59, 0.98]、RR 0.66 [0.44, 0.98]),表明 OS 的疗效更优。此外,OS 还具有明显的美观效果(RR 1.17 [1.03, 1.33] 和 RR 1.34 [1.18, 1.52])。虽然 OS 组的总并发症明显较少(RR 0.70 [0.53, 0.94]),但具体并发症的差异并不明显。此外,还根据国籍、样本大小、质量和类型进行了亚组分析:结论:与 BCS 相比,OS 在各个方面都显示出更优越或至少相当的结果。
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
Efficacy and safety of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery versus conventional breast-conserving surgery: An updated meta-analysis

Introduction

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women. The surgical treatment of breast cancer has transitioned progressively from radical mastectomy to breast-conserving surgery. In this meta-analysis, we are aiming to compare oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OS) with conventional breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in terms of efficacy and safety.

Methods

We searched Medline, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane databases, Clinicaltrial.gov, and CNKI until April 30, 2024. Data from cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Outcomes included primary outcomes (re-excision, local recurrence, positive surgical margin, mastectomy), secondary outcomes and safety outcomes. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to evaluate the quality of outcomes.

Results

Our study included 52 studies containing 46,835 patients. Primary outcomes comprise re-excision, local recurrence, positive surgical margin, and mastectomy, there were significant differences favoring OS over BCS (RR 0.68 [0.56, 0.82], RR 0.62 [0.47, 0.82], RR 0.76 [0.59, 0.98], RR 0.66 [0.44, 0.98] respectively), indicating superior efficacy of OS. Additionally, OS demonstrated significant aesthetic benefits (RR 1.17 [1.03, 1.33] and RR 1.34 [1.18, 1.52]). While total complications were significantly fewer in the OS group (RR 0.70 [0.53, 0.94]), the differences in specific complications were not significant. Furthermore, subgroup analyses were conducted based on nationality, sample size, quality, and type.

Conclusion

OS demonstrates either superior or at least comparable outcomes across various aspects when compared to BCS.

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
Breast
Breast 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
8.70
自引率
2.60%
发文量
165
审稿时长
59 days
期刊介绍: The Breast is an international, multidisciplinary journal for researchers and clinicians, which focuses on translational and clinical research for the advancement of breast cancer prevention, diagnosis and treatment of all stages.
期刊最新文献
Inequality in breast cancer: Global statistics from 2022 to 2050 A patient-led survey on information and communication needs of patients with metastatic breast cancer in Ireland and Northern Ireland (CTRIAL-IE 23–05) Editorial Board Factors associated with breast lymphedema after adjuvant radiation therapy in women undergoing breast conservation therapy Treatment of oligometastatic breast cancer: The role of patient selection
×
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