Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30340548›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2018

Oncological safety of autologous breast reconstruction after mastectomy for invasive breast cancer.

Joachim Geers, Hans Wildiers, Katrien Van Calster, Annouschka Laenen, Giuseppe Floris, Marc Vandevoort, Gerd Fabre, Ines Nevelsteen, Ann Smeets

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

9 authors.

Joachim GeersMultidisciplinary Breast Centre, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Hans WildiersMultidisciplinary Breast Centre, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Katrien Van CalsterMultidisciplinary Breast Centre, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Annouschka LaenenDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Interuniversity Institute of Biostatistics and Statistical Bioinformatics, University Hospitals Sint-Raphaël, Kapucijnenvoer 35, blok D, bus 7001, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Giuseppe FlorisMultidisciplinary Breast Centre, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Marc VandevoortMultidisciplinary Breast Centre, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Gerd FabreMultidisciplinary Breast Centre, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Ines NevelsteenMultidisciplinary Breast Centre, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Ann SmeetsMultidisciplinary Breast Centre, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. ann.smeets@uzleuven.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5123-3272

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe number of patients requesting autologous breast reconstruction (ABR) after mastectomy for breast cancer has increased over the past decades. However, concern has been expressed about the oncological safety of ABR. The aim of our study was to assess the effect of ABR on distant relapse.

methodsIn this retrospective cohort study, data was analysed from patients who underwent mastectomy for invasive breast cancer in University Hospitals Leuven between 2000 and 2011. In total, 2326 consecutive patients were included, 485 who underwent mastectomy with ABR and 1841 who underwent mastectomy alone. The risk of relapse in both groups was calculated using a Cox proportional hazards analysis, adjusted for established prognostic factors. ABR was considered as a time-dependent variable. Additionally, the evolution of the risk over follow-up time was calculated.

resultsWith a median follow-up of 68 months, 8% of patients in the reconstruction group developed distant metastases compared to 15% in the mastectomy alone group (univariate HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50-0.97, p = 0.0323). However, after adjustment for potential confounding factors in a Cox multivariable analysis, the risk of distant relapse was no longer significantly different between groups (multivariate HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.55-1.22, p = 0.3301). Moreover, the risk of metastasis after reconstruction was not time-dependent.

conclusionsThese findings suggest that there is no effect of ABR on distant relapse rate and thus that ABR is an oncological safe procedure. The rate of local recurrence was too low to make any significant conclusions.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsCohort StudiesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMammaplastyMastectomyMiddle AgedNeoplasm InvasivenessNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesTransplantation, AutologousTreatment OutcomeAutologous breast reconstructionInvasive breast cancerMetastasesSurgical stressTumour dormancy

Identifiers

PMID30340548
PMCPMC6194715

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.