Literature DB >> 34846109

Comparison of outcomes between immediate implantbased and autologous reconstruction: 15-year, single-center experience in a propensity score-matched Chinese cohort.

Shanshan He1, Bowen Ding1, Gang Li2, Yubei Huang3, Chunyong Han1, Jingyan Sun1, Qingfeng Huang1, Jing Liu1, Zhuming Yin1, Shu Wang1, Jian Yin1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The number of immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) procedures has been increasing in China. This study aimed to investigate the oncological safety of IBR, and to compare the survival and surgical outcomes between implant-based and autologous reconstruction.
METHODS: Data from patients diagnosed with invasive breast cancer who underwent immediate total breast reconstruction between 2001 and 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Long-term breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS), disease-free survival (DFS), and locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS) were evaluated. Patient satisfaction with the breast was compared between the implant-based and autologous groups. BCSS, DFS, and LRFS were compared between groups after propensity score matching (PSM).
RESULTS: A total of 784 IBR procedures were identified, of which 584 were performed on patients with invasive breast cancer (implant-based, n = 288; autologous, n = 296). With a median follow-up of 71.3 months, the 10-year estimates of BCSS, DFS, and LRFS were 88.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) (85.1%-93.0%)], 79.6% [95% CI (74.7%-84.8%)], and 94.0% [95% CI (90.3%-97.8%)], respectively. A total of 124 patients completed the Breast-Q questionnaire, and no statistically significant differences were noted between groups (P = 0.823). After PSM with 27 variables, no statistically significant differences in BCSS, DFS, and LRFS were found between the implant-based (n = 177) and autologous (n = 177) groups. Further stratification according to staging, histological grade, lymph node status, and lymph-venous invasion status revealed no significant survival differences between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Both immediate implant-based and autologous reconstruction were reasonable choices with similar long-term oncological outcomes and patient-reported satisfaction among patients with invasive breast cancer in China.
Copyright © 2021 Cancer Biology & Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Chinese; Oncological safety; autologous; immediate breast reconstruction; implant-based; propensity-score matched

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34846109      PMCID: PMC9500225          DOI: 10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2021.0368

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Biol Med        ISSN: 2095-3941            Impact factor:   5.347


  35 in total

1.  Balance diagnostics after propensity score matching.

Authors:  Zhongheng Zhang; Hwa Jung Kim; Guillaume Lonjon; Yibing Zhu
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2019-01

2.  Barriers, beliefs and practice patterns for breast cancer reconstruction: A provincial survey.

Authors:  Christopher J Coroneos; Karina Roth-Albin; Ajit S Rai; Amrit S Rai; Sophocles H Voineskos; Melissa C Brouwers; Ronen Avram; Barbara Heller
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2016-12-28       Impact factor: 4.380

3.  Higher reconstruction failure and less patient-reported satisfaction after post mastectomy radiotherapy with immediate implant-based breast reconstruction compared to immediate autologous breast reconstruction.

Authors:  F C J Reinders; D A Young-Afat; M C T Batenburg; S E Bruekers; E A van Amerongen; J F M Macaré van Maurik; A Braakenburg; E Zonnevylle; M Hoefkens; T Teunis; H M Verkooijen; H J G D van den Bongard; W Maarse
Journal:  Breast Cancer       Date:  2019-12-19       Impact factor: 4.239

4.  Patient-Reported Outcomes 1 Year After Immediate Breast Reconstruction: Results of the Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium Study.

Authors:  Andrea L Pusic; Evan Matros; Neil Fine; Edward Buchel; Gayle M Gordillo; Jennifer B Hamill; Hyungjin M Kim; Ji Qi; Claudia Albornoz; Anne F Klassen; Edwin G Wilkins
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2017-03-27       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Association of the Implant Surface Texture Used in Reconstruction With Breast Cancer Recurrence.

Authors:  Kyeong-Tae Lee; Sungjin Kim; Byung-Joon Jeon; Jai Kyong Pyon; Goo-Hyun Mun; Jai Min Ryu; Se Kyung Lee; Jonghan Yu; Seok Won Kim; Jeong Eon Lee; Seok Jin Nam; Sa Ik Bang
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2020-12-01       Impact factor: 14.766

6.  Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. III. Vascular invasion: relationship with recurrence and survival in a large study with long-term follow-up.

Authors:  S E Pinder; I O Ellis; M Galea; S O'Rouke; R W Blamey; C W Elston
Journal:  Histopathology       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 5.087

7.  The use of propensity score methods with survival or time-to-event outcomes: reporting measures of effect similar to those used in randomized experiments.

Authors:  Peter C Austin
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-09-30       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Survival Differences in Women with and without Autologous Breast Reconstruction after Mastectomy for Breast Cancer.

Authors:  John L Semple; Kelly Metcalfe; Farah Shoukat; Ping Sun; Steven Narod
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2017-04-03

9.  Short-term safety outcomes of mastectomy and immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without mesh (iBRA): a multicentre, prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Shelley Potter; Elizabeth J Conroy; Ramsey I Cutress; Paula R Williamson; Lisa Whisker; Steven Thrush; Joanna Skillman; Nicola L P Barnes; Senthurun Mylvaganam; Elisabeth Teasdale; Abhilash Jain; Matthew D Gardiner; Jane M Blazeby; Chris Holcombe
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2019-01-09       Impact factor: 41.316

Review 10.  Psychosocial Aspects of Immediate versus Delayed Breast Reconstruction.

Authors:  Anne-Sophie Heimes; Kathrin Stewen; Annette Hasenburg
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2017-12-13       Impact factor: 2.860

View more
  1 in total

1.  Nomogram for prognosis of patients with esophageal squamous cell cancer after minimally invasive esophagectomy established based on non-textbook outcome.

Authors:  Shao-Jun Xu; Lan-Qin Lin; Ting-Yu Chen; Cheng-Xiong You; Chao Chen; Rui-Qin Chen; Shu-Chen Chen
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2022-05-12       Impact factor: 4.584

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.