Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35894936›Full record

SynthesisCancer2022

Breast cancer recurrence after immediate and delayed postmastectomy breast reconstruction-A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Claudia A Bargon, Danny A Young-Afat, Mehmet Ikinci, Assa Braakenburg, Hinne A Rakhorst, Marc A M Mureau, Helena M Verkooijen, Annemiek Doeksen

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.9field-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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Imaging of the Reconstructed Breast.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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

8 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Claudia A BargonDivision of Imaging and Oncology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5558-1530
Danny A Young-AfatDepartment of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9628-5896
Mehmet IkinciDepartment of Surgery, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, s-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.
Assa BraakenburgDepartment of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, St. Antonius Hospital, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7472-009X
Hinne A RakhorstDepartment of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1663-6092
Marc A M MureauDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6941-7734
Helena M VerkooijenDivision of Imaging and Oncology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9480-1623
Annemiek DoeksenDepartment of Surgery, St. Antonius Hospital, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
St. Antonius Ziekenhuis · NLAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLErasmus MC Cancer Institute · NLJeroen Bosch Ziekenhuis · NLMedisch Spectrum Twente · NLUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NLUtrecht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOncological safety of different types and timings of PMBR after breast cancer remains controversial. Lack of stratified risk assessment in literature makes current clinical and shared decision-making complex. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate differences in oncological outcomes after immediate versus delayed postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR) for autologous and implant-based PMBR separately.

methodsA systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase. The Cochrane Collaboration Handbook and Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist were followed for data abstraction. Variability in point estimates attributable to heterogeneity was assessed using I

resultsFifty-five studies, evaluating 14,217 patients, were included. When comparing immediate versus delayed autologous PMBR, weighted average proportions were: 0.03 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02-0.03) versus 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01-0.04), respectively, for local recurrences, 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01-0.03) versus 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01-0.03) for regional recurrences, and 0.04 (95% CI, 0.03-0.06) versus 0.01 (95% CI, 0.00-0.03) for locoregional recurrences. No statistically significant differences in weighted average proportions for local, regional and locoregional recurrence rates were observed between immediate and delayed autologous PMBR. Data did not allow comparing weighted average proportions of distant metastases and total breast cancer recurrences after autologous PMBR, and of all outcome measures after implant-based PMBR.

conclusionsDelayed autologous PMBR leads to similar (loco)regional breast cancer recurrence rates compared to immediate autologous PMBR. This study highlights the paucity of strong evidence on breast cancer recurrence after specific types and timings of PMBR. LAY SUMMERY: Oncologic safety of different types and timings of postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR) remains controversial. Lack of stratified risk assessment in literature makes clinical and shared decision-making complex. This meta-analysis showed that delayed autologous PMBR leads to similar (loco)regional recurrence rates as immediate autologous PMBR. Data did not allow comparing weighted average proportions of distant metastases and total breast cancer recurrence after autologous PMBR, and of all outcome measures after implant-based PMBR. Based on current evidence, oncological concerns do not seem a valid reason to withhold patients from certain reconstructive timings or techniques, and patients should equally be offered all reconstructive options they technically qualify for.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsMammaplastyFemaleHumansMastectomyNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalTransplantation, Autologousautologousbreast cancerbreast neoplasmbreast reconstructionimplantmetastasisoncological safetyrecurrence

Identifiers

PMID35894936
PMCPMC9546326
OpenAlexW4288068565

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.