The Oncologic Safety of Breast Fat Grafting and Contradictions Between Basic Science and Clinical Studies: A Systematic Review of the Recent Literature.
Charvet HJ., Orbay H., Wong MS., Sahar DE.
Systematic Review, published in Ann Plast Surg (2015) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
- 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
- Systematic Review
- Journal
- Ann Plast Surg (2015)
- Country
- United States
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 26360655
- DOI
- 10.1097/SAP.0000000000000604
- Citations
- 27
Abstract (original English)
Fat grafting is increasingly popular and is becoming a common practice in plastic surgery for postmastectomy breast reconstruction and aesthetic breast augmentation; however, concerns over the oncologic safety remains a controversial and hot topic among scientists and surgeons. Basic science and laboratory research repeatedly show a potentially dangerous effect of adipose-derived stem cells on breast cancer cells; however, clinical research, although limited, continually fails to show an increase in breast cancer recurrence after breast fat grafting, with the exception of 1 small study on a subset patient population with intraepithelial neoplasm of the breast. The aim of this review is to summarize the recent conflicting basic science and clinical data to better understand the safety of breast fat grafting from an oncological perspective.
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
Evidence level
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.