Systematic review: Oncological safety of reconstruction with fat grafting in breast cancer outcomes.
Gentile P., Cervelli V.
Systematic Review with a reported sample of 886, published in J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg (2022) — 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
- J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg (2022)
- Country
- Netherlands
- Reported sample size
- 886
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 36180337
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.bjps.2022.08.026
- Citations
- 7
Abstract (original English)
Background Autologous fat grafting (AFG) has become a commonly used procedure for breast reconstruction (BR) after cancer removal. Nevertheless, oncological considerations remain for AFG after breast cancer surgery. Objectives This article aims to evaluate the oncological safety of AFG in BR and its effect on disease-free survival (DFS) and local-regional recurrences (LRR). Methods A systematic review regarding the use of AFG in BR to identify a difference in incidence rates of LRR and DFS between patients who had AFG and controls was performed using PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, PreMEDLINE, Ebase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Clinicaltrials.gov, Scopus, and Cochrane databases. The protocol was developed following the Preferred Reporting for Items for Systematic Reviews-Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. The included studies had to match predetermined criteria according to the PICOS approach. Results A total of 11 studies were included. Seven studies reported LRR, and 5 studies reported DFS in 5,886 patients. Our systematic review showed that AFG was not associated with increased LRR and DFS. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) for LRR and DFS were 1.26 (0.90-1.76) and 1.27 (0.96-1.69), respectively. Conclusions AFG can, therefore, be performed safely in BR after breast cancer. Further, randomized controlled trials and related systematic reviews, as well as evidence-based
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.