Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34780034›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer (Tokyo, Japan)2022

Predictors of delayed breast reconstruction in the Netherlands: a 5-year follow-up study in stage I-III breast cancer patients.

L S E van Egdom, K M de Ligt, L de Munck, L B Koppert, M A M Mureau, H A Rakhorst, S Siesling

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 60% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

L S E van EgdomDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. l.vanegdom@erasmusmc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2640-1948
K M de LigtDepartment of Psychosocial Research, Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
L de MunckDepartment of Research and Development, Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), Utrecht, The Netherlands.
L B KoppertDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
M A M MureauDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center, P.O. 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
H A RakhorstDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
S SieslingDepartment of Research and Development, Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Erasmus MC Cancer Institute · NLNetherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation · NLMedisch Spectrum Twente · NLThe Netherlands Cancer Institute · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDelayed breast reconstruction (DBR) is a valid option for postmastectomy breast cancer patients who have a desire for breast reconstruction but are not considered suitable for immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). The objective of this study was to investigate the clinical practice and predictors of the use of DBR in the Netherlands.

methodsStage I-III breast cancer patients diagnosed from January to March 2012 and treated with mastectomy were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Routinely collected patient, tumor, treatment and hospital characteristics were complemented with data about DBR up to 2018. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors independently associated with postmastectomy DBR. Factors associated with time to DBR were identified through Cox regression analyses.

resultsOf all patients who underwent mastectomy (n = 1,415), 10.2% underwent DBR. DBR patients more often received autologous reconstruction compared to IBR patients (37.5% vs 6.2%, p < 0.001). Age below 50 years (age < 35 OR 15.55, age 35-49 OR 4.18) and neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy (OR 2.59 and OR 2.83, respectively) were significantly associated with DBR. Mean time to DBR was 2.4 years [range 1-6 years]. Time to DBR was significantly associated with age < 35 years (HR 2.22), and a high hospital volume (HR 1.87). DISCUSSION: The use of DBR after mastectomy could not be fully explained by age below 50 years, chemotherapy, and hospital volume. Treatment with radiotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy increased time to DBR. More information about patient preferences is needed to understand the use and timing of reconstruction.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsMammaplastyAdultFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMastectomyMiddle AgedNetherlandsBreast cancerBreast reconstructionCancer registryDelayed breast reconstruction

Identifiers

PMID34780034
PMCPMC8885490
OpenAlexW3212858945

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.