Observational studyBreast cancer research and treatment2026
Outcomes of postmastectomy radiotherapy in immediate autologous versus implant-based breast reconstruction: a multi-institutional cohort study.
Observational study in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2026. 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo compare late toxicities, cosmetic outcomes, and reconstruction failure in patients undergoing immediate autologous reconstruction (AR) versus implant-based reconstruction (IBR) followed by postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT).
methodsA multi-institutional retrospective cohort study (2013-2024) assessed patients undergoing mastectomy with immediate reconstruction and PMRT. Primary endpoints were reconstruction failure (loss or replacement of the index implant reconstruction, or total flap loss) and late toxicities, including contracture, fat necrosis, and cosmesis (Kroll scale).
results113 patients were included (68 AR, 45 IBR). AR utilised deep inferior epigastric perforator flaps; IBR cohort consisted of 41 direct-to-implant procedures and four latissimus dorsi flaps combined with implants. Among available baseline variables, cohorts were broadly similar except that AR patients were slightly older. Reconstruction failure was analysed in all IBR patients; four IBR patients were not evaluable for subsequent capsular contracture and cosmetic assessment because of implant removal before late assessment. Reconstruction failure occurred exclusively in IBR (28.9% [13 of 45] vs. 0% [0/68] in AR; P < 0.001). Clinically significant firmness was observed in 46.3% (19/41) of IBR versus 14.7% (10/68) of AR patients (P < 0.001). Fat necrosis occurred in 16.2% of AR patients without flap loss. Good/Excellent physician-assessed cosmesis was more frequent after AR (83.8% vs. 36.6%; P < 0.001). Recurrence rates were comparable between cohorts.
conclusionsAR was associated with higher reconstruction survival and more favourable physician-assessed cosmetic outcomes compared with predominantly direct-to-implant, subpectoral IBR after PMRT. For patients with a high probability of requiring PMRT, AR should be discussed early and strongly considered when clinically feasible.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42902044What 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.