The prognosis outcomes of autologous fat transfer for breast reconstruction after breast cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Autologous fat transfer (AFT) is a minimally invasive technique that employs a patient’s own fat to correct disfiguring sequelae for breast reconstruction in postoperative breast cancer patients. However, the results of studies on this topic were controversial. In order to explore the effect of AFT on breast reconstruction after breast cancer surgery, we included cohort studies and conducted a meta-analysis. Methods: A literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases for relevant studies published up to September 14, 2020. We identified the eligible studies based on the PICOS principles, populations (patients diagnosed with breast cancer), interventions (patients undergoing AFT after breast cancer surgery), controls (patients who did not receive AFT after breast cancer surgery), outcomes [local recurrence (LR) rate, regional recurrence (RRR) rate, locoregional recurrence (LRR) rate, distant metastasis rate, systemic recurrence (SR) rate, and total death rate], study design (cohort studies). The I2 statistic was conducted to estimate heterogeneity. Relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were presented to evaluate whether AFT compromises oncological safety in breast reconstruction. Funnel plots and Egger’s test were adopted to assess publication bias. Quality assessment for the included studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Results: Twenty-two cohort studies involving 9,971 postoperative patients with breast cancer were identified, with 3,622 receiving AFT being the experimental group, and 6,349 not receiving AFT in the control group. The overall quality of the included studies was rated as high. No significant differences in the rate of LR (RR: 0.916, 95% CI: 0.704–1.192), RRR (RR: 1.175, 95% CI: 0.773–1.787), LRR (RR: 0.788, 95% CI: 0.617–1.006), distant metastasis (RR: 1.133, 95% CI: 0.906–1.417), and total deaths (RR: 0.753, 95% CI: 0.539–1.051) were observed between the experimental group and control group (P>0.05). However, the AFT group had a lower rate of SR (RR: 0.671, 95% CI: 0.491–0.915, P=0.012). Conclusions: The AFT group did not increase the rate of LR, RRR, LRR, distant metastasis, and total deaths in postoperative patients, which may indicate that AFT can be performed safely in breast reconstruction after excision of breast tumor.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".