Oncological Safety of Autologous Fat Grafting in Breast Reconstruction after Mastectomy for cancer: A case-control study.
Berti M., Goupille C., Doucet M., Arbion F., Vilde A., Body G.
Retrospective Study with a reported sample of 412, published in J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod (2021) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.
- 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
- Retrospective Study
- Journal
- J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod (2021)
- Country
- France
- Reported sample size
- 412
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 34695621
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.jogoh.2021.102257
- Citations
- 5
Abstract (original English)
Objective The use of autologous fat grafting in the context of breast reconstruction is still a matter of controversy. The objective of this study was to compare the local relapse rate in women who had a fat grafting session in the context of breast reconstruction after breast cancer management, to those who had breast reconstruction without fat grafting. Methods We performed a retrospective, monocentric, case-control study from January 2007 to December 2017 in our hospital. The cases included women who underwent breast reconstruction with autologous fat grafting and controls, undergoing breast reconstruction without fat grafting. We compared survival and local recurrence between the two groups. Results 412 women were included: 109 (26.5%) in the lipofilling group and 303 women (73.5%) in the "no lipofilling" group. In the overall study population, lipofilling did not appear to be a predictive factor for recurrence, HR = 1.39 [0.63 - 3.06], p = 0.41; or a predictive factor for overall survival, HR = 0.84 [0.23 - 3.02], p = 0.79, or for distant metastases, HR = 1.10 [0.43 - 2.79], p = 0.84. In contrast, in the subgroup of women treated for invasive cancer, the multivariate analysis showed that lipofilling in this context was an independent predictive factor for local recurrence (HR= 5.06 [1.97 - 10.6], p = 0.04). Conclusion we found an increased risk of local recurrence after li
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • Without an adequate control group, treatment effects cannot be separated from other factors.
Evidence level
Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.