Complications From Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy in Patients Undergoing Immediate Breast Reconstruction: A Population-Based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PurposePrevious studies have shown an increase in the number of women electing for immediate breast reconstruction at the time of mastectomy. Although often not known at the time, some of these women will require postoperative radiation therapy. The purpose of this study was to investigate if exposure to radiation therapy after mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction is associated with an increased risk of further surgery to manage complications arising from radiation.Methods and MaterialsThis retrospective, population-based cohort study included all patients who underwent mastectomy with immediate reconstruction from 2007 to 2014 in the province of Ontario, Canada. Exposure to adjuvant radiation therapy was captured using data from Ontario Health. The study outcome was reoperation for breast reconstruction performed during the follow-up window. Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the effect of radiation therapy exposure on risk of breast reconstruction reoperation.ResultsWe identified 2342 patients who underwent mastectomy with immediate reconstruction over an 8-year period in Ontario, of whom 378 (16.1%) underwent adjuvant radiation therapy. Patients who received radiation were significantly more likely to undergo reoperation during follow-up (hazard ratio, 1.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.49-2.08; P < .0001). Patients with implant-based reconstructions (n = 1629, 69.6%) were not more likely to undergo reoperation than those with flap-based procedures (n = 713, 30.4%) (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-1.21; P = .885).ConclusionsAdjuvant radiation therapy initiated after mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction is associated with an increased risk of additional breast reconstruction surgery, regardless of the type of reconstruction used. Patients with breast cancer who choose to undergo immediate reconstruction after mastectomy should be advised that additional reconstruction procedures may be required.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".