Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40558300›Full record

GuidelineCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2025

Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction in Patients with Non-Metastatic Breast Cancer: An Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) Clinical Practice Guideline.

Toni Zhong, Glenn G Fletcher, Muriel Brackstone, Simon G Frank, Renee Hanrahan, Vivian Miragias, Christiaan Stevens, Danny Vesprini, Alyssa Vito, Frances C Wright

Abstract readPractice Guideline
In one paragraph

Guideline in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
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

10 authors.

Toni ZhongPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University Health Network, Toronto, ON M5G 2C4, Canada.
Glenn G FletcherProgram in Evidence-Based Care, Department of Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8V 5C2, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0676-7416
Muriel BrackstoneDepartment of Surgical Oncology, London Regional Cancer Program, London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON N6A 5W9, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7741-2199
Simon G FrankDepartment of Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON K1H 8L6, Canada.
Renee HanrahanDepartment of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5T 1P5, Canada.
Vivian MiragiasPatient Representative, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Christiaan StevensRadiation Treatment Program, Royal Victoria Hospital, Barrie, ON L4M 6M2, Canada.
Danny VespriniDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Hospital, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9714-2782
Alyssa VitoPatient Representative, Port Perry, ON, Canada.
Frances C WrightDepartment of Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada.

Funding

Cancer Care Ontario not applicable
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several postmastectomy breast reconstruction techniques and procedures have been implemented, although with limited evaluation of benefits and adverse effects. We conducted a systematic review on the plane and timing of reconstruction, and on the use of nipple-sparing mastectomy, acellular dermal matrix, and autologous fat grafting as the evidence base for an updated clinical practice guideline on breast reconstruction for Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario). Both immediate and delayed reconstruction may be considered, with preferred timing depending on factors such as patient preferences, type of mastectomy, skin perfusion, comorbidities, pre-mastectomy breast size, and desired reconstructive breast size. Immediate reconstruction may provide greater psychological or quality of life benefits. In patients who are candidates for skin-sparing mastectomy and without clinical, radiological, and pathological indications of nipple-areolar complex involvement, nipple-sparing mastectomy is recommended provided it is technically feasible and acceptable aesthetic results can be achieved. Surgical factors including incision location are important to reduce necrosis by preserving blood supply and to minimize nerve damage. There is a role for both prepectoral and subpectoral implants; risks and benefits will vary, and decisions should be made during consultation between the patient and surgeons. In patients who are suitable candidates for implant reconstruction and have adequate mastectomy flap thickness and vascularity, prepectoral implants should be considered. Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) has led to an increased use of prepectoral reconstruction. ADM should not be used in case of poor mastectomy flap perfusion/ischemia that would otherwise be considered unsuitable for prepectoral reconstruction. Care should be taken in the selection and handling of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) to minimize risks of infection and seroma. Limited data from small studies suggest that prepectoral reconstruction without ADM may be feasible in some patients. Autologous fat grafting is recommended as a treatment for contour irregularities, rippling following implant-based reconstruction, and to improve tissue quality of the mastectomy flap after radiotherapy.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsMammaplastyMastectomyFemaleHumansOntarioSystematic Reviews as Topicacellular dermal matrixautologous fat graftingautologous reconstructionbreast implantsbreast reconstructiondelayed reconstructionimmediate reconstructionnipple-sparing mastectomyprepectoralsubpectoral

Identifiers

PMID40558300
PMCPMC12191886

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.