Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39485904›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of surgery2024

Chest wall perforator flaps are safe and can decrease mastectomy rates in breast cancer surgery: multicentre cohort study.

Andreas Karakatsanis, Farid Meybodi, Eirini Pantiora, Elisabeth Elder, Faustine Cabel, Jeremy Hsu, James French, Iliana Aristokleous, Olivia Sjökvist, Daniel Önefäldt and 4 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. 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

14 authors.

Andreas KarakatsanisDepartment for Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-3622-3575
Farid MeybodiWestmead Breast Cancer Institute, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia.
Eirini PantioraDepartment for Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Elisabeth ElderWestmead Breast Cancer Institute, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia.
Faustine CabelWestmead Breast Cancer Institute, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia.
Jeremy HsuWestmead Breast Cancer Institute, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia.
James FrenchWestmead Breast Cancer Institute, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia.
Iliana AristokleousDepartment for Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Olivia SjökvistDepartment for Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Daniel ÖnefäldtDepartment for Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Jaime NaviaSection for Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Akademiska University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden.
Rachel L O'ConnellBreast Unit, Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK.
Jennifer E RusbyBreast Unit, Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK.
Peter A BarryBreast Unit, Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChest wall perforator flaps are emerging in oncoplastic breast conservation, mostly as an alternative to mastectomy. However, standardization and consensus on patient selection, techniques, and outcomes have not yet been reached. The aim of this international multicentre collaborative study was to explore practice patterns and outcomes in high-volume centres from different countries.

methodsPatients with both pre-invasive and invasive breast cancer treated at the Uppsala University Hospital in Uppsala, Sweden, the Royal Marsden Hospital in London, UK, and the Westmead Breast Cancer Institute in Sydney, Australia, were included in this study. The rationale for offering chest wall perforator flaps and surgical outcomes were prospectively documented.

resultsIn total, 603 patients were analysed median age of 54 (interquartile range (i.q.r.) 48-63) years, median BMI of 25.0 (i.q.r. 22.5-28.1) kg/m2, median tumour extent of 30 (IQR 19-45) mm, median breast volume of 280 (i.q.r. 216-430) ml, and median calculated resection ratio of 16% (i.q.r. 9%-28%). In 67.7%, the treating surgeon had offered chest wall perforator flaps to avoid mastectomy. The procedure was performed as day surgery in 69.5% of patients, with an overall complication rate of 8.6% and the majority of complications being classified as Clavien-Dindo grade I (5.3% of patients). The re-excision rate was 15.9%, with only 1.5% of patients converting to a mastectomy. There were no flap losses. At a median follow-up of 22 (range 12 to 98) months, rates of local recurrence, distant recurrence, and breast cancer-related mortality were 1.9%, 4.9%, and 1.7% respectively.

conclusionChest wall perforator flaps are a useful option to allow more women to avoid mastectomy. In experienced hands, the procedure is safe and should be offered to suitable patients.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsMastectomyPerforator FlapThoracic WallAgedFemaleHumansMammaplastyMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID39485904
PMCPMC11529790

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.