ReviewJournal of personalized medicine2026
Personalized Breast Reconstruction After Breast-Conserving Therapy: Risk-Informed Approaches to Technique Selection and Timing.
Review in Journal of personalized medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Surgical Burden of Breast Cancer Treatment: Implications of Mastectomy, Breast Conservation, and Reconstruction Choices.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Breast-conserving therapy (BCT), consisting of lumpectomy followed by adjuvant radiation, provides oncologic outcomes equivalent to mastectomy for many patients with breast cancer. As survivorship increases, the demand for aesthetic restoration after BCT has grown; however, reconstructive strategies in this setting remain less standardized than those following mastectomy. Reconstruction after BCT presents distinct challenges due to partial tissue loss, nonuniform radiation injury, progressive fibrosis, and wide variability in patient expectations and tolerance for revision surgery. Consequently, mastectomy-based reconstructive algorithms are often insufficient for guiding care in this population. This review synthesizes contemporary reconstructive options following BCT through a personalized medicine framework, emphasizing patient-specific risk factors that influence technique selection, timing, and long-term outcomes. Key determinants include radiation exposure, breast morphology, comorbid conditions, prior breast surgery, and psychosocial preferences. Oncoplastic volume displacement, implant-based augmentation, fat grafting, and autologous reconstruction each demonstrate distinct risk profiles in the post-BCT tissue environment and require individualized application. Timing of reconstruction and willingness to undergo staged procedures play a central role in outcome durability and patient satisfaction. Across reconstructive strategies, revision burden emerges as a clinically meaningful, patient-centered outcome that is not adequately captured by traditional short-term complication metrics. A risk-informed approach that integrates individualized risk assessment with transparent counseling and shared decision-making may improve alignment between reconstructive planning and patient goals. Personalized reconstruction after BCT requires moving beyond technique-driven paradigms toward flexible, longitudinal care pathways. Future efforts should focus on developing BCT-specific predictive models and incorporating patient-reported outcomes to advance personalized reconstructive care.
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.