ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Tissue expander breast reconstruction outcomes following postmastectomy radiation therapy in the era of neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Optimal sequencing of mastectomy, tissue expander breast reconstruction (TE-BR), chemotherapy, and post-mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) remains unclear. While PMRT is known to impact TE-BR outcomes, limited data exist comparing outcomes between patients who also receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) versus adjuvant chemotherapy (AC). Methods: A retrospective review of 126 patients diagnosed with invasive breast carcinoma who underwent mastectomy, TE-BR, and PMRT between 2001 and 2017 was conducted. Patients were stratified into NAC (n=74) and AC (n=52) cohorts. Logistic regression and Kaplan-Meier analyses evaluated TE-BR failure rates, completion rates, and radiation toxicity. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression modeled TE-BR failure probability. Results: TE-BR failure rates were significantly higher in the NAC group (44.6% at a median of 18.7 months) compared to the AC group (26.9% at 23.2 months, p=0.041). Moreover, NAC was associated with increased adverse events and lower TE-BR completion rates (both p=0.001). Univariate analysis identified NAC (p=0.007) and acute RT toxicity (p<0.001) as predictors of TE-BR failure. Multivariate analysis confirmed NAC (HR 2.73, p=0.003) and acute RT toxicity (HR 3.16, p<0.001) as independent risk factors. Acute RT toxicity rates were similar between NAC and AC groups (p=0.604). Completing TE expansion before PMRT in NAC patients was linked to higher failure probability (HR 2.58, p=0.023). Conclusion: Our study is the first to report TE-BR outcomes in women who undergo NAC versus AC in the context of PMRT. Our findings indicate inferior TE-BR outcomes following NAC when PMRT is delivered, emphasizing the importance of shared decision-making between patients and doctors about optimal surgical choice. If eligible, breast conservation or alternate BR technique should be strongly considered in the setting of NAC and future research should explore optimal reconstruction strategies.
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.