Meta‐analysis of the oncological safety of autologous fat transfer after breast cancer. BJS 2018; 105: 1082-1097.
Published: 5th June 2018
Authors: T. K. Krastev, S. J. Schop, J. Hommes, A. A. Piatkowski, E. M. Heuts, R. R. W. J. van der Hulst et al.
Autologous fat transfer, also known as lipofilling, is a minimally invasive technique that uses the patient's own fat to correct disfiguring sequelae after breast cancer surgery. Despite its obvious clinical benefits, experimental research has demonstrated that autologous fat transfer inherently stimulates angiogenesis and tissue regeneration, which is feared to increase the risk of locoregional recurrence of breast cancer. This meta‐analysis is founded on recently completed large cohort studies on this highly relevant topic.
A literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library on 1 September 2017, adhering to the PRISMA guidelines, to identify all relevant studies of patients with breast cancer exposed to autologous fat transfer. The difference in incidence rate of locoregional recurrence between patients who had autologous fat transfer and controls was the primary outcome in the meta‐analysis.
Fifty‐nine studies and a total of 4292 patients were included. These consisted of seven matched cohorts, 12 cohorts and 40 case series. Mean follow‐up was 5·7 years from the date of primary cancer surgery and 2·7 years after autologous fat transfer. Meta‐analysis of matched cohorts revealed an incidence rate difference of –0·15 (95 per cent c.i. –0·36 to 0·07) per cent per year, which was not statistically significant (
This meta‐analysis of all oncological data from the published literature demonstrated that autologous fat transfer did not result in an increased rate of locoregional recurrence in patients with breast cancer. Autologous fat transfer can therefore be performed safely in breast reconstruction after breast cancer.Full text
You may also be interested in
Meta‐analysis of sentinel lymph node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with initial biopsy‐proven node‐positive breast cancer. BJS 2018; 105: 1541-1552.
Authors: S. R. Tee, L. A. Devane, D. Evoy, J. Rothwell, J. Geraghty, R. S. Prichard et al.
Notes: In selected patients using dual tracer
Feasibility study of combined dynamic imaging and lymphaticovenous anastomosis surgery for breast cancer‐related lymphoedema.
Authors: A. A. Khan, I. Hernan, J. A. Adamthwaite, K. W. D. Ramsey
Notes: Efficient in select patients
Randomized clinical trial
INTEND II randomized clinical trial of intraoperative duct endoscopy in pathological nipple discharge. BJS 2018; 105: 1583-1590.
Authors: G. Gui, A. Agusti, D. Twelves, S. Tang, M. Kabir, C. Montgomery et al.
Notes: Identifies causative lesion
Aesthetic outcome following breast‐conserving surgery assessed by three evaluation modalities in relation to health‐related quality of life.
Authors: C. Dahlbäck, A. Ringberg, J. Manjer
Notes: Better methods needed
Current practice and short‐term outcomes of therapeutic mammaplasty in the international TeaM multicentre prospective cohort study. BJS 2018; 105: 1778-1792.
Authors: R. L. O'Connell, E. Baker, A. Trickey, T. Rattay, L. Whisker, R. D. Macmillan et al.
Notes: Reduces mastectomy rates
Nationwide population‐based study of trends and regional variation in breast‐conserving treatment for breast cancer. BJS 2018; 105: 1768-1777.
Authors: M. C. van Maaren, L. J. A. Strobbe, L. B. Koppert, P. M. P. Poortmans, S. Siesling
Notes: Regional differences remain
Survival and risk of breast cancer recurrence after breast reconstruction with deep inferior epigastric perforator flap. BJS 2018; 105: 1446-1453.
Authors: A. Svee, M. Mani, K. Sandquist, T. Audolfsson, Y. Folkvaljon, A. E. Isern et al.
Best‐practice care pathway for improving management of mastitis and breast abscess. BJS 2018; 105: 1615-1622.
Authors: N. Patani, F. MacAskill, S. Eshelby, A. Omar, A. Kaura, K. Contractor et al.
Notes: Outcomes improve
Meta‐analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound‐guided fine‐needle aspiration and core needle biopsy in diagnosing axillary lymph node metastasis. BJS 2018; 105: 1244-1253.
Authors: I. Balasubramanian, C. A. Fleming, M. A. Corrigan, H. P. Redmond, M. J. Kerin, A. J. Lowery et al.
Notes: Core needle biopsy better
Meta‐analysis of the cumulative risk of endometrial malignancy and systematic review of endometrial surveillance in extended tamoxifen therapy. BJS 2018; 105: 1098-1106.
Authors: C. A. Fleming, H. M. Heneghan, D. O'Brien, D. P. McCartan, E. W. McDermott, R. S. Prichard et al.
Notes: Counselling of patients important
Breast‐conserving surgery followed by whole‐breast irradiation offers survival benefits over mastectomy without irradiation. BJS 2018; 105: 1607-1614.
Authors: J. de Boniface, J. Frisell, L. Bergkvist, Y. Andersson
Notes: Radiotherapy to lower axilla key?
Is axillary ultrasound imaging necessary for all patients with breast cancer?. BJS 2018; 105: 930-932.
Authors: M. Ahmed, M. Douek