Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

Personalized Breast Reconstruction After Breast-Conserving Therapy: Risk-Informed Approaches to Technique Selection and Timing

Sorenson TJ., Boyd CJ., Lisk R., Karp NS.

Narrative Review on Hip, published in J Pers Med (2026) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

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
Read the A–D evidence level guide

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
J Pers Med (2026)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
42042564
PMCID
PMC13117285
DOI
10.3390/jpm16040197

Abstract (original English)

Breast-conserving therapy (BCT), consisting of lumpectomy followed by adjuvant radiation, provides oncologic outcomes equivalent to mastectomy for many patients with breast cancer. As survivorship increases, the demand for aesthetic restoration after BCT has grown; however, reconstructive strategies in this setting remain less standardized than those following mastectomy. Reconstruction after BCT presents distinct challenges due to partial tissue loss, nonuniform radiation injury, progressive fibrosis, and wide variability in patient expectations and tolerance for revision surgery. Consequently, mastectomy-based reconstructive algorithms are often insufficient for guiding care in this population. This review synthesizes contemporary reconstructive options following BCT through a personalized medicine framework, emphasizing patient-specific risk factors that influence technique selection, timing, and long-term outcomes. Key determinants include radiation exposure, breast morphology, comorbid conditions, prior breast surgery, and psychosocial preferences. Oncoplastic volume displacement, implant-based augmentation, fat grafting, and autologous reconstruction each demonstrate distinct risk profiles in the post-BCT tissue environment and require individualized application. Timing of reconstruction and willingness to undergo staged procedures play a central role in outcome durabilit

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 evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research