Efficacy of Breast-Conserving Surgery Versus Modified Radical Surgery in the Treatment of Early Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.

Objective: The study aims to assess and compare the outcomes of modified radical surgery, preserving the nipple-areola complex, against radical mastectomy in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. Emphasis is placed on the clinical significance of this comparison, including its potential impact on patient outcomes, quality of life, and healthcare resources.

Methods: Relevant literature from January 2017 to January 2022 was searched in the following databases: PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Science Citation Index, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Internet, CCD, and CSPD with keywords. The electric search yielded 613 relevant articles, including 351 from Pubmed, 187 from Embase, 5 from MEDLINE, 21 from CNKI, 4 from CCD, and 45 from CSPD. After duplicate screening, 185 items were eliminated, leaving 428 articles. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated with RevMan 5.3, and sensitivity analysis, cumulative meta-analysis, and publication bias analysis were also performed. A total of 613 relevant articles were collected from the above databases, among which 428 articles remained after the initial screening and were further screened based on the established inclusion and exclusion criteria. The efficacy of modified radical surgery and breast-conserving surgery in the treatment of early breast cancer was assessed by analyzing outcome indicators, including recurrence rate, distant metastatic rate, and three-year survival rate. The methods section details a systematic approach to data collection and analysis, specifying the databases and time frame for the literature search and the statistical tools used for the meta-analysis. The selection process, from the initial number of articles to the final inclusion based on defined criteria, is transparent, ensuring the study's methodological robustness in evaluating the efficacy of surgeries for early breast cancer.

Results: Finally, ten articles were found to match the criteria and included in this study. According to the meta-analysis, there was no statistically significant difference between the breast-conserving therapy (BCT) and modified radical mastectomy (MRM) groups in terms of the recurrence rate (OR = 0.76, 95%CI = 0.39, 1.55, P > .05) and distant metastatic rate (OR = 0.81, 95%CI = 0.46, 1.31, P > .05). Nevertheless, the three-year survival rate was 85.2% in the BCT group and 91.7% in the MRM group; a statistically significant difference was observed in the three-year survival rate (OR = 1.47, 95%CI = 1.01, 2.37, P = .03) between the BCT and MRM groups. Accordingly, breast-conserving surgery and modified radical surgery produced comparable clinical outcomes for the treatment of early breast cancer.

Conclusion: In the treatment of early breast cancer, breast-conserving surgery has the advantages of less bleeding, fewer clinical complications, and favorable cosmetic outcomes compared with modified radical surgery. Furthermore, patients with breast-conserving surgery showed comparable recurrence and distant metastatic rates to those with modified radical surgery in postoperative follow-up, which, therefore is a suitable treatment option for the widespread recommendation. The study's findings hold significant clinical relevance, implying that while BCT remains a viable option, MRM may offer a survival advantage. This insight empowers both patients and clinicians in making informed, personalized treatment decisions tailored to individual circumstances.