Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30132338›Full record

ReviewCancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center

Breast Reconstruction and Radiation Therapy.

Johanna H Yun, Roberto Diaz, Amber G Orman

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
8.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 144 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Implant-based reconstruction and adjuvant radiotherapy in breast cancer patients-current status and DEGRO recommendations.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Imaging of the Reconstructed Breast.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  17. Article
  18. [Choice of immediate breast reconstructive methods after modified radical mastectomy].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Johanna H Yun1 Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.
Roberto Diaz2 Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA.
Amber G Orman2 Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA.
Moffitt Cancer Center · USUniversity of South Florida · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe optimal approach to the integration of postmastectomy reconstruction and radiation therapy is not well-established. This review will summarize current literature pertaining to the most common types of reconstruction in the setting of postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). DATA SOURCES: Literature from PubMed was reviewed from 2000 to 2016. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were selected with relevance to "postmastectomy breast reconstruction," "breast reconstruction," and "breast reconstructive methods and PMRT." Surgical outcomes, patient satisfaction, and cost-effectiveness were examined. DATA EXTRACTION: Data from publications was extracted, summarized, and converted to a table. RESULTS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: Implant-based techniques are on the rise, in the setting of PMRT. Implant-based methods are more affordable in the short term and result in immediate breast-mound formation compared to autologous methods. When compared to implant-based reconstruction with PMRT, autologous reconstruction with PMRT results in better quality of life (QoL) and sensory recovery as well as fewer complications and failures. Among autologous flaps, deep inferior epigastric perforator flaps are considered superior to transverse rectus abdominal muscle (TRAM) pedicled flaps and may be more suitable for PMRT. Latissimus dorsi and muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps are also viable options. In delayed autologous, which may be advantageous for high-risk patients, the optimal timing to delay surgery after radiation therapy is unknown. Reconstruction with a 2-stage tissue expander-implant technique offers good to excellent cosmetic outcomes in the setting of PMRT, although there may be complications in this 2-stage process.

conclusionSurgical, cosmetic, quality of life, and life expectancy must be taken into account when selecting the way to integrate breast reconstruction and PMRT.

Indexed as

Patient SatisfactionBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMammaplastyMastectomyPostoperative ComplicationsPractice Guidelines as TopicQuality of LifeRadiotherapy, AdjuvantRisk FactorsSurgical FlapsTime FactorsTreatment Outcomeautologous reconstructionbreast reconstructionimplant reconstructionPMRTquality of life

Identifiers

PMID30132338
PMCPMC6108018
OpenAlexW2888699258

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.