Mesenchymal stem cell therapy for breast cancer-related secondary lymphedema (Review)
Han S., Cai J., Zhang Y., Lu F.
Narrative Review, published in Mol Clin Oncol (2025) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Narrative Review
- Journal
- Mol Clin Oncol (2025)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 40599719
- PMCID
- PMC12210111
- DOI
- 10.3892/mco.2025.2868
Abstract (original English)
Secondary lymphedema, affecting ~15-30% of patients who survive breast cancer, is a common consequence following treatment. At present, there is no gold standard for the treatment of breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL). Conventional methods such as physiotherapy and surgery demonstrate a limited effectiveness in mitigating lymphatic swelling or discomfort and fail to provide substantial physiological improvement or a definitive cure for lymphedema. However, stem cell therapy has garnered notable attention due to its regenerative potential and its capacity to modulate inflammatory processes. Mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) therapies exhibit promise in ameliorating BCRL by addressing edema, promoting lymphangiogenesis and mitigating fibrosis. It is shown that MSC therapy promotes the regeneration of autologous lymphatic networks and improves vascular conditions in rodent tail and hindlimb lymphedema models, which offers relief from lymphedema symptoms including limb volume asymmetry and impaired lymphatic drainage. However, currently, due to a lack of a universally recognized or standardized treatment regimen for BCRL, there is a need for additional clinical studies featuring larger sample sizes and extended follow-up periods to further investigate this prospective therapeutic modality. The present review aims to provide guidance for further research and therapeutic interventions
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.
Evidence level
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.