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
Prognostic impact of repeat sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence. BJS 2019; 106: 574-585.
Authors: I. G. M. Poodt, G. Vugts, R. J. Schipper, R. M. H. Roumen, H. J. T. Rutten, A. J. G. Maaskant‐Braat et al.
Notes: No impact
Effect of preoperative injection of superparamagnetic iron oxide particles on rates of sentinel lymph node dissection in women undergoing surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ (SentiNot study). BJS 2019; 106: 720-728.
Authors: A. Karakatsanis, A.‐F. Hersi, L. Pistiolis, R. Olofsson Bagge, P. M. Lykoudis, S. Eriksson et al.
Short‐term cost‐effectiveness of one‐stage implant‐based breast reconstruction with an acellular dermal matrix versus two‐stage expander‐implant reconstruction from a multicentre randomized clinical trial. BJS 2019; 106: 586-595.
Authors: V. L. Negenborn, J. M. Smit, R. E. G. Dikmans, H. A. H. Winters, J. W. R. Twisk, P. Q. Ruhé et al.
Autologous fat transplantation alters gene expression patterns related to inflammation and hypoxia in the irradiated human breast. BJS 2019; 106: 563-573.
Authors: A. Lindegren, I. Schultz, I. Sinha, L. Cheung, A. A. Khan, M. Tekle et al.
Notes: Effects on fibrosis after radiotherapy
Authors: F. Magnoni, G. Massari, G. Santomauro, V. Bagnardi, E. Pagan, G. Peruzzotti et al.
Authors: Y. Grant, R. Al‐Khudairi, E. St John, M. Barschkett, D. Cunningham, R. Al‐Mufti et al.
Notes: Reoperations expensive
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. BJS 2019; 106: 100-110.
Authors: A. A. Khan, I. Hernan, J. A. Adamthwaite, K. W. D. Ramsey
Notes: Effective in selected 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. BJS 2019; 106: 90-99.
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