Patient-Reported Impact of Oncoplastic Breast Conservation Compared to Mastectomy with Reconstruction: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Given the oncologic safety and clinical benefits of oncoplastic breast conservation surgery (O-BCS), we conducted a systematic review to evaluate patient-reported outcomes, including breast satisfaction and physical, psychosocial, and sexual well-being in those undergoing O-BCS compared to mastectomy and reconstruction (M-R). This study aimed to inform clinical decision-making for patients with breast cancer not suitable for standard breast conservation. Methods: According to PRISMA Guidelines, we identified studies from MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Google Scholar. Studies were included where they compared patient-reported outcomes between O-BCS and M-R using a validated assessment tool such as the BREAST-Q questionnaire. The quality of studies was appraised using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Results: Out of the 3434 citations identified by our search, a total of 11 studies were deemed suitable for inclusion, and 9 studies used the validated BREAST-Q assessment tool. There were a total of 1808 O-BCS and 1413 M-R patients. All studies showed improved or equivalent breast satisfaction, psychosocial well-being, and sexual well-being after O-BCS. Physical well-being was reported to be superior in the M-R group. The findings are limited by the moderate to high risk of bias, heterogeneity, variation in outcome measures, differing follow-up durations, and differences in adjustment. Conclusion: Given the potentially positive impact on patient-reported outcomes, where indicated and feasible, oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery should be offered as a valid surgical alternative to mastectomy and reconstruction as part of a patient-centered individualized treatment approach for breast cancer.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".