Oncologic risks of autologous fat grafting to the breast.
Fraser JK., Hedrick MH., Cohen SR.
Narrative Review with a reported sample of 2000, published in Aesthet Surg J (2011) — 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
- Aesthet Surg J (2011)
- Country
- England
- Reported sample size
- 2000
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 21239674
- DOI
- 10.1177/1090820X10390922
- Citations
- 43
Abstract (original English)
As the frequency of fat grafting to the breast has increased, some investigators have raised the possibility that this procedure may potentially increase the risks associated with breast cancer. Their concerns included not only interference with cancer detection, but also promotion of tumor formation or recurrence mediated by mechanisms such as aromatase expression, angiogenesis, and tumor stromal cells. However, published clinical studies describing outcomes of fat grafting to the breast in more than 2000 patients have not reported any increase in new or recurrent cancers. The reason for this apparent disconnect may lie in the small sample sizes and relatively short follow-up, but it may also reside in the considerable gap between laboratory studies or theoretical considerations suggesting potential risks and the actual clinical practice. This review discusses potential risks of current and novel approaches to autologous fat grafting to the breast within the context of both the underlying science and clinical practice.
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.