Meta-analysis of clinical and quality of life outcomes following immediate and delayed autologous abdominal micro-vascular flap breast reconstruction in patients receiving adjuvant, neoadjuvant or no radiotherapy
File(s)bjs5.50245.pdf (445.62 KB)
Published version
Author(s)
Type
Journal Article
Abstract
Background
Effects of post-mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) on autologous breast reconstruction (BRR) are controversial regarding surgical complications, cosmetic appearance and quality of life (QOL). This systematic review evaluated these outcomes after abdominal free flap reconstruction in patients undergoing post-operative adjuvant radiotherapy (PMRT), pre-operative radiotherapy (Neo RT) and no radiotherapy (RT), aiming to establish evidence-based optimal timings of RT and BRR to guide contemporary management.
Methods
Study has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42017077945). Embase, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, CENTRAL, Science Citation Index, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched (January 2000 - August 2018). Study quality and bias-risk were assessed using GRADE and Cochrane’s ROBINS-I, respectively.
Results
Some 12 studies were identified, involving 1756 patients (350 PMRT, 683 no RT and 723 Neo RT), with a mean follow-up of 27.1 [range 12.0-54.0] (PMRT), 16.8 [1.0-50.3] (Neo RT) and 18.3 [1.0-48.7] (no RT) months. Three prospective and nine retrospective cohorts were included. There were no randomised studies. Comparative RT studies evaluated PMRT (n=5) and Neo RT (n=4). Studies were low quality, with moderate to serious bias-risks. Severe complications were similar between groups: PMRT (n=92) versus (vs) no RT (n=141), (Odds Ratio (OR) 2.35, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.63-8.81), p=0.200; Neo RT (n=180) vs no RT (n=392) (OR 1.24, CI 0.76-2.04), p=0.390; or combined (PMRT and neo-adjuvant) RT (n=272) vs no RT (n=453) (OR 1.38, CI 0.83-2.32), p=0.220. QOL and cosmetic studies used inconsistent methodologies.
Conclusion
Evidence is conflicting and study quality was poor limiting recommendations for the timing of autologous BRR and RT. The impacts of PMRT or Neo RT seem similar.
Effects of post-mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) on autologous breast reconstruction (BRR) are controversial regarding surgical complications, cosmetic appearance and quality of life (QOL). This systematic review evaluated these outcomes after abdominal free flap reconstruction in patients undergoing post-operative adjuvant radiotherapy (PMRT), pre-operative radiotherapy (Neo RT) and no radiotherapy (RT), aiming to establish evidence-based optimal timings of RT and BRR to guide contemporary management.
Methods
Study has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42017077945). Embase, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, CENTRAL, Science Citation Index, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched (January 2000 - August 2018). Study quality and bias-risk were assessed using GRADE and Cochrane’s ROBINS-I, respectively.
Results
Some 12 studies were identified, involving 1756 patients (350 PMRT, 683 no RT and 723 Neo RT), with a mean follow-up of 27.1 [range 12.0-54.0] (PMRT), 16.8 [1.0-50.3] (Neo RT) and 18.3 [1.0-48.7] (no RT) months. Three prospective and nine retrospective cohorts were included. There were no randomised studies. Comparative RT studies evaluated PMRT (n=5) and Neo RT (n=4). Studies were low quality, with moderate to serious bias-risks. Severe complications were similar between groups: PMRT (n=92) versus (vs) no RT (n=141), (Odds Ratio (OR) 2.35, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.63-8.81), p=0.200; Neo RT (n=180) vs no RT (n=392) (OR 1.24, CI 0.76-2.04), p=0.390; or combined (PMRT and neo-adjuvant) RT (n=272) vs no RT (n=453) (OR 1.38, CI 0.83-2.32), p=0.220. QOL and cosmetic studies used inconsistent methodologies.
Conclusion
Evidence is conflicting and study quality was poor limiting recommendations for the timing of autologous BRR and RT. The impacts of PMRT or Neo RT seem similar.
Date Issued
2020-04
Date Acceptance
2019-11-11
Citation
BJS Open, 2020, 4 (2), pp.182-196
ISSN
2474-9842
Publisher
Wiley
Start Page
182
End Page
196
Journal / Book Title
BJS Open
Volume
4
Issue
2
Copyright Statement
© 2019 The Authors. BJS Open published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJS Society Ltd
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Identifier
https://bjssjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/bjs5.50245
Publication Status
Published
Date Publish Online
2019-12-29