ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery2026
The Impact of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy on Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Outcomes.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Chemotherapy-Related Toxicity and Preoperative Physiologic Reserve as Risk Markers for Complications After Immediate Breast Reconstruction.Journal of breast cancer · 2026Article
- The Impact of Time and Place on BREAST-Q REACT: A Multi-Institutional Examination.Journal of surgical oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNeoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) is a critical component of breast cancer treatment, yet its impact on tissue expander (TE)-based breast reconstruction remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of NACT on complication rates after immediate TE-based breast reconstruction and on the commencement of adjuvant radiotherapy.
methodsFemale patients who underwent immediate TE-based breast reconstruction between 2017 and 2022 were included. Inclusion criteria consisted of patients who completed NACT within 2 months of mastectomy and those who did not receive chemotherapy. Patients who underwent bilateral prophylactic mastectomy, delayed reconstruction, adjuvant chemotherapy, and neoadjuvant radiation therapy were excluded.
resultsA total of 2013 patients were included, of whom 1202 (59.7%) received NACT, and 811 (40.3%) did not receive chemotherapy. The rate of TE loss was significantly higher in the NACT cohort than in the control cohort (9.8% versus 3.9%; P < 0.001). Multivariable regression models showed that NACT significantly increases the rate of TE loss (OR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.47 to 3.93; P < 0.001) but no other complications, including cellulitis. NACT did not delay the commencement to radiation therapy. However, patients who developed cellulitis started radiation therapy on average 17 days later than those who did not (95% CI, 3.5 to 31; P = 0.014).
conclusionsNACT is a significant predictor of TE loss but does not prolong the commencement to radiotherapy. The increased rate of TE loss among the NACT group may reflect a higher rate of adjuvant radiation treatment and the combination of the deleterious effects of NACT and radiation therapy on wound healing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.