M De Berti1, C Goupille2, M Doucet1, F Arbion3, A Vilde4, G Body5, L Ouldamer6. 1. Department of Gynaecology, Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Tours, Hôpital Bretonneau, 2 boulevard Tonnellé, 37044 Tours, France; François-Rabelais University, Tours, France. 2. Department of Gynaecology, Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Tours, Hôpital Bretonneau, 2 boulevard Tonnellé, 37044 Tours, France; François-Rabelais University, Tours, France; INSERM unit 1069, Tours, France. 3. Department of Pathology, Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Tours, Hôpital Bretonneau, 2 boulevard Tonnellé, 37044 Tours, France. 4. Department of Radiology, Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Tours, Hôpital Bretonneau, 2 boulevard Tonnellé, 37044 Tours, France. 5. Department of Gynaecology, Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Tours, Hôpital Bretonneau, 2 boulevard Tonnellé, 37044 Tours, France; François-Rabelais University, Tours, France; Department of Radiology, Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Tours, Hôpital Bretonneau, 2 boulevard Tonnellé, 37044 Tours, France. 6. Department of Gynaecology, Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Tours, Hôpital Bretonneau, 2 boulevard Tonnellé, 37044 Tours, France; François-Rabelais University, Tours, France; Department of Radiology, Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Tours, Hôpital Bretonneau, 2 boulevard Tonnellé, 37044 Tours, France. Electronic address: l.ouldamer@chu-tours.fr.
Abstract
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 lipofilling in women who were managed for invasive breast cancer. This suggests that special consideration should be given to women who have had invasive breast cancer before lipofilling.
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 lipofilling in women who were managed for invasive breast cancer. This suggests that special consideration should be given to women who have had invasive breast cancer before lipofilling.