Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30304330›Full record

Observational studyJAMA surgery2019

Long-term Follow-up of Autologous Fat Transfer vs Conventional Breast Reconstruction and Association With Cancer Relapse in Patients With Breast Cancer.

Todor Krastev, Arjen van Turnhout, Eline Vriens, Luc Smits, René van der Hulst

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in JAMA surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 85 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Low expression ofTranslational cancer research · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. [Renaissance of prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: theoretical basis and research status].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2023
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Todor KrastevDepartment of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Arjen van TurnhoutDepartment of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Tergooi Hospital, Hilversum, the Netherlands.
Eline VriensDepartment of General Surgery, Tergooi Hospital, Hilversum, Netherlands.
Luc SmitsDepartment of Statistics and Epidemiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
René van der HulstDepartment of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Maastricht University Medical Centre · NLTergooi · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Autologous fat transfer (AFT or fat grafting) has become an invaluable tool for the correction of disfiguring deformities after breast cancer surgery. However, clinical and animal studies have shown conflicting results regarding its oncologic safety. Objective: To determine whether exposure to AFT vs conventional breast reconstruction is associated with increased rates of cancer relapse in patients with breast cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This matched cohort study involved retrospective medical record review to identify all patients in a local patient database receiving AFT between 2006 and 2014. Each AFT case was matched with a nonexposed control patient with similar baseline characteristics. The mean (SD) follow-up of patients receiving AFT was 9.3 (4.9) years including 5.0 (1.7) years following AFT. Control patients were followed up for a mean (SD) of 8.6 (1.8) years from the primary surgery. Patients were identified through the local patient database of the Tergooi Hospital in Hilversum, the Netherlands. A total of 287 patients with breast cancer (300 affected breasts) who received AFT for breast reconstruction after cancer were included in the intervention group. Each AFT case was matched with a respective control patient based on age, type of oncologic surgery, tumor invasiveness, and disease stage. In addition, individual AFT-control pairs were selected to have the same locoregional recurrence-free interval at baseline. Data were analyzed between 2016 and 2017. Exposures: Reconstruction with AFT vs conventional breast reconstruction or none. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end points were the cumulative incidences of oncologic events in AFT and control patients and their respective hazard ratios. Results: Of the 587 total patients, all were women and the mean age was 48.1 years for the patients undergoing AFT and 49.4 years for the control patients. Eight locoregional recurrences were observed in the treatment group (287 patients) and 11 among the control group (300 patients), leading to an unadjusted hazard ratio of 0.63 (95% CI, 0.25-1.60; P = .33). No increased locoregional recurrence rates were seen in relevant subgroups based on the type of oncological surgery, tumor invasiveness, or pathological stage. In addition, no increased risks with AFT were detected with respect to distant recurrences or breast cancer-specific mortality. Conclusions and Relevance: No significant differences in the locoregional recurrence rates between the AFT and control groups were observed after 5 years of follow-up. These findings confirm the results of previous studies; therefore, clinical evidence suggesting that AFT is associated with increased risk for cancer relapse is still lacking.

Indexed as

Adipose TissueBreast NeoplasmsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMammaplastyMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalTransplantation, Autologous

Identifiers

PMID30304330
PMCPMC6439860
OpenAlexW2895827357

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.