Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36806067›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2023

Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy: should we preserve the pectoral fascia? Protocol of a Dutch double blinded, prospective, randomised controlled pilot study with a within-subject design (PROFAS).

Marloes E Clarijs, Laurentine S E van Egdom, Cornelis Verhoef, Dalibor Vasilic, Linetta B Koppert, PROFAS Collaborator Group

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05391763 (Bilateral Prophylactic Mastectomy; Should we Preserve the Pectoral Fascia?), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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.

NCT05391763 naunknown statusnot on this map

Bilateral Prophylactic Mastectomy; Should we Preserve the Pectoral Fascia?: Protocol of a Dutch Double Blinded, Prospective, Randomized Controlled Pilot Study With a Within-subject Design

TypeinterventionalSponsorErasmus Medical CenterRan2022 to 2023Enrolled21ConditionsBRCA1/2 Mutation, Bilateral Prophylactic Mastectomy, Seroma, Pectoral FasciaArmsFascia pectoralis preservation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Marloes E ClarijsDepartment of Surgical Oncology and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands m.clarijs@erasmusmc.nl.ORCID 0000-0001-7118-3324
Laurentine S E van EgdomDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands.
Cornelis VerhoefDepartment of Surgical Oncology and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands.
Dalibor VasilicDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands.
Linetta B KoppertDepartment of Surgical Oncology and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands.
PROFAS Collaborator Group
Erasmus MC Cancer Institute · NLErasmus MC · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionBilateral prophylactic mastectomy (BPM) in women with a high risk of developing breast cancer has shown to provide the greatest risk reduction. Many surgical guidelines recommend the removal of the pectoral fascia (PF) in mastectomies; however, there is no evidence to support this statement. Reported wound-related complications following mastectomy include seroma, flap necrosis, infection and haematoma. Seroma causes discomfort and may delay the reconstructive procedures. Whether removal or preservation of the PF influences drain volume, seroma formation and other postoperative complications following BPM remains unclear. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of removal versus preservation of the PF on drain policy and seroma after BPM. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a double blinded, prospective, randomised controlled pilot study with a within-subject design. The inclusion criteria are women >18 years, presenting in the Academic Breast Cancer Centre Rotterdam, who are opting for BPM. Patients with a history or diagnosis of breast cancer are excluded. According to the sample size calculation based on the difference in total drain volume, a number of 21 eligible patients will be included. Randomisation will occur within the patient, which means PF preservation in one breast and PF removal in the contralateral breast. The primary study endpoint is total drainage volume. Secondary study outcomes include time to drain removal, number of needle aspirations, postoperative complications and length of hospital stay. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study is approved by the Erasmus Medical Center Review Board (REC 2020-0431). Results will be presented during international conferences and published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05391763; clinicaltrials.gov.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsProphylactic MastectomyFemaleHumansMaleMastectomyPilot ProjectsPostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSeromaBreast surgeryBreast tumoursPlastic & reconstructive surgeryPLASTIC & RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY

Identifiers

PMID36806067
PMCPMC9944307
OpenAlexW4321210551

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.