Immediate and delayed autologous abdominal microvascular flap breast reconstruction in patients receiving adjuvant, neoadjuvant or no radiotherapy: a meta-analysis of clinical and quality-of-life outcomes.


Journal

BJS open
ISSN: 2474-9842
Titre abrégé: BJS Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101722685

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
04 2020
Historique:
received: 31 08 2019
accepted: 11 11 2019
entrez: 25 3 2020
pubmed: 25 3 2020
medline: 13 5 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Effects of postmastectomy 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 postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy (PMRT), preoperative radiotherapy (neoadjuvant radiotherapy) and no radiotherapy, aiming to establish evidence-based optimal timings for radiotherapy and BRR to guide contemporary management. The study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42017077945). Embase, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, CENTRAL, Science Citation Index and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched (January 2000 to August 2018). Study quality and risk of bias were assessed using GRADE and Cochrane's ROBINS-I respectively. Some 12 studies were identified, involving 1756 patients (350 PMRT, 683 no radiotherapy and 723 neoadjuvant radiotherapy), with a mean follow-up of 27·1 (range 12·0-54·0) months for those having PMRT, 16·8 (1·0-50·3) months for neoadjuvant radiotherapy, and 18·3 (1·0-48·7) months for no radiotherapy. Three prospective and nine retrospective cohorts were included. There were no randomized studies. Five comparative radiotherapy studies evaluated PMRT and four assessed neoadjuvant radiotherapy. Studies were of low quality, with moderate to serious risk of bias. Severe complications were similar between the groups: PMRT versus no radiotherapy (92 versus 141 patients respectively; odds ratio (OR) 2·35, 95 per cent c.i. 0·63 to 8·81, P = 0·200); neoadjuvant radiotherapy versus no radiotherapy (180 versus 392 patients; OR 1·24, 0·76 to 2·04, P = 0·390); and combined PMRT plus neoadjuvant radiotherapy versus no radiotherapy (272 versus 453 patients; OR 1·38, 0·83 to 2·32, P = 0·220). QOL and cosmetic studies used inconsistent methodologies. Evidence is conflicting and study quality was poor, limiting recommendations for the timing of autologous BRR and radiotherapy. The impact of PMRT and neoadjuvant radiotherapy appeared to be similar. En pacientes sometidas a una reconstrucción mamaria (breast reconstruction, BRR) con tejido autólogo se discuten los efectos de la radioterapia post-mastectomía (post-mastectomy radiotherapy, PMRT) en las complicaciones quirúrgicas, el resultado estético y la calidad de vida (quality of life, QOL). Esta revisión sistemática evaluó dichos resultados tras una reconstrucción mamaria con un colgajo libre abdominal en pacientes tratadas con PMRT, radioterapia preoperatoria (Neo RT) y sin radioterapia (RT), a fin de establecer los momentos óptimos de la RT y BRR basados en la evidencia, como guía del tratamiento actual. MÉTODOS: El estudio se registró en la base de datos PROSPERO (CRD42017077945). Se realizaron búsquedas en Embase, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, CENTRAL, Science Citation Index y Clinicaltrials.gov (enero de 2000-agosto de 2018). La calidad de los estudios y el riesgo de sesgo se evaluaron mediante las herramientas GRADE y ROBINS-I de la Cochrane, respectivamente. Se identificaron 12 estudios que incluían 1.756 pacientes (350 PMRT, 683 sin RT y 723 Neo RT), con una mediana de seguimiento de 27,1 meses (rango 12,0-54,0) para PMRT, 16,8 meses (1,0-50,3) para Neo RT y 18,3 meses (1,0-48,7) para sin RT. Se incluyeron tres cohortes prospectivas y nueve retrospectivas. No hubo estudios aleatorizados. Los estudios comparativos de RT evaluaron la PMRT (n = 5) y la Neo RT (n = 4). Todos los estudios fueron de baja calidad, con riesgos de sesgo de moderados a graves. Las complicaciones graves fueron similares entre los grupos: PMRT (n = 92) versus sin RT (n = 141), razón de oportunidades (odds ratio, OR) 2,35, i.c. del 95% 0,63-8,81), P = 0,200; Neo RT (n = 180) versus no RT (n = 392) (OR 1,24, i.c. del 95% 0,76-2,04), P = 0,390; o RT combinada (PMRT y neoadyuvante) (n = 272) versus no RT (n = 453) (OR 1,38, i.c. del 95% 0,83-2,32), P = 0,220. Los estudios de calidad de vida y de resultados estéticos utilizaron metodologías poco consistentes. CONCLUSIÓN: La evidencia es contradictoria y la calidad de los estudios muy pobre, hechos que limitan las posibles recomendaciones para el momento de la BRR con tejido autólogo y la RT. El impacto de la PMRT o la Neo RT parecen ser similares.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Effects of postmastectomy 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 postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy (PMRT), preoperative radiotherapy (neoadjuvant radiotherapy) and no radiotherapy, aiming to establish evidence-based optimal timings for radiotherapy and BRR to guide contemporary management.
METHODS
The study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42017077945). Embase, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, CENTRAL, Science Citation Index and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched (January 2000 to August 2018). Study quality and risk of bias were assessed using GRADE and Cochrane's ROBINS-I respectively.
RESULTS
Some 12 studies were identified, involving 1756 patients (350 PMRT, 683 no radiotherapy and 723 neoadjuvant radiotherapy), with a mean follow-up of 27·1 (range 12·0-54·0) months for those having PMRT, 16·8 (1·0-50·3) months for neoadjuvant radiotherapy, and 18·3 (1·0-48·7) months for no radiotherapy. Three prospective and nine retrospective cohorts were included. There were no randomized studies. Five comparative radiotherapy studies evaluated PMRT and four assessed neoadjuvant radiotherapy. Studies were of low quality, with moderate to serious risk of bias. Severe complications were similar between the groups: PMRT versus no radiotherapy (92 versus 141 patients respectively; odds ratio (OR) 2·35, 95 per cent c.i. 0·63 to 8·81, P = 0·200); neoadjuvant radiotherapy versus no radiotherapy (180 versus 392 patients; OR 1·24, 0·76 to 2·04, P = 0·390); and combined PMRT plus neoadjuvant radiotherapy versus no radiotherapy (272 versus 453 patients; OR 1·38, 0·83 to 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 radiotherapy. The impact of PMRT and neoadjuvant radiotherapy appeared to be similar.
ANTECEDENTES
En pacientes sometidas a una reconstrucción mamaria (breast reconstruction, BRR) con tejido autólogo se discuten los efectos de la radioterapia post-mastectomía (post-mastectomy radiotherapy, PMRT) en las complicaciones quirúrgicas, el resultado estético y la calidad de vida (quality of life, QOL). Esta revisión sistemática evaluó dichos resultados tras una reconstrucción mamaria con un colgajo libre abdominal en pacientes tratadas con PMRT, radioterapia preoperatoria (Neo RT) y sin radioterapia (RT), a fin de establecer los momentos óptimos de la RT y BRR basados en la evidencia, como guía del tratamiento actual. MÉTODOS: El estudio se registró en la base de datos PROSPERO (CRD42017077945). Se realizaron búsquedas en Embase, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, CENTRAL, Science Citation Index y Clinicaltrials.gov (enero de 2000-agosto de 2018). La calidad de los estudios y el riesgo de sesgo se evaluaron mediante las herramientas GRADE y ROBINS-I de la Cochrane, respectivamente.
RESULTADOS
Se identificaron 12 estudios que incluían 1.756 pacientes (350 PMRT, 683 sin RT y 723 Neo RT), con una mediana de seguimiento de 27,1 meses (rango 12,0-54,0) para PMRT, 16,8 meses (1,0-50,3) para Neo RT y 18,3 meses (1,0-48,7) para sin RT. Se incluyeron tres cohortes prospectivas y nueve retrospectivas. No hubo estudios aleatorizados. Los estudios comparativos de RT evaluaron la PMRT (n = 5) y la Neo RT (n = 4). Todos los estudios fueron de baja calidad, con riesgos de sesgo de moderados a graves. Las complicaciones graves fueron similares entre los grupos: PMRT (n = 92) versus sin RT (n = 141), razón de oportunidades (odds ratio, OR) 2,35, i.c. del 95% 0,63-8,81), P = 0,200; Neo RT (n = 180) versus no RT (n = 392) (OR 1,24, i.c. del 95% 0,76-2,04), P = 0,390; o RT combinada (PMRT y neoadyuvante) (n = 272) versus no RT (n = 453) (OR 1,38, i.c. del 95% 0,83-2,32), P = 0,220. Los estudios de calidad de vida y de resultados estéticos utilizaron metodologías poco consistentes. CONCLUSIÓN: La evidencia es contradictoria y la calidad de los estudios muy pobre, hechos que limitan las posibles recomendaciones para el momento de la BRR con tejido autólogo y la RT. El impacto de la PMRT o la Neo RT parecen ser similares.

Autres résumés

Type: Publisher (spa)
En pacientes sometidas a una reconstrucción mamaria (breast reconstruction, BRR) con tejido autólogo se discuten los efectos de la radioterapia post-mastectomía (post-mastectomy radiotherapy, PMRT) en las complicaciones quirúrgicas, el resultado estético y la calidad de vida (quality of life, QOL). Esta revisión sistemática evaluó dichos resultados tras una reconstrucción mamaria con un colgajo libre abdominal en pacientes tratadas con PMRT, radioterapia preoperatoria (Neo RT) y sin radioterapia (RT), a fin de establecer los momentos óptimos de la RT y BRR basados en la evidencia, como guía del tratamiento actual. MÉTODOS: El estudio se registró en la base de datos PROSPERO (CRD42017077945). Se realizaron búsquedas en Embase, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, CENTRAL, Science Citation Index y Clinicaltrials.gov (enero de 2000-agosto de 2018). La calidad de los estudios y el riesgo de sesgo se evaluaron mediante las herramientas GRADE y ROBINS-I de la Cochrane, respectivamente.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32207573
doi: 10.1002/bjs5.50245
pmc: PMC7093792
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Meta-Analysis Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

182-196

Subventions

Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_U137686858
Pays : United Kingdom

Informations de copyright

© 2019 The Authors. BJS Open published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJS Society Ltd.

Références

Stat Med. 2002 Jun 15;21(11):1539-58
pubmed: 12111919
Pain. 1999 Nov;83(2):157-62
pubmed: 10534586
Ann Plast Surg. 2012 Oct;69(4):380-2
pubmed: 22964681
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017 Apr;139(4):846-853
pubmed: 28350657
Ann Oncol. 2015 Jun;26(6):1043-4
pubmed: 25851631
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018 Feb 1;110(2):
pubmed: 28954300
Arch Intern Med. 2006 May 22;166(10):1092-7
pubmed: 16717171
BMJ. 2009 Jul 21;339:b2700
pubmed: 19622552
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018 Sep;142(3):594-605
pubmed: 29927832
Contemp Clin Trials. 2015 Nov;45(Pt A):139-45
pubmed: 26343745
Br J Surg. 2011 Mar;98(3):323-5
pubmed: 21254003
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017 Oct;43(10):1805-1807
pubmed: 28847645
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017 Jun;139(6):1279-1288
pubmed: 28198770
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014 Jul;134(1):173e-175e
pubmed: 25028843
Br J Surg. 2009 Oct;96(10):1135-40
pubmed: 19787763
Ann Surg Oncol. 2014 May;21(5):1732-8
pubmed: 24473643
JAMA Surg. 2018 Oct 1;153(10):891-899
pubmed: 29926096
Ann Surg. 2019 Feb;269(2):211-220
pubmed: 29697448
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2019 Jun;145(6):1485-1493
pubmed: 31020418
JAMA Surg. 2018 Oct 1;153(10):901-908
pubmed: 29926077
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012 Feb;129(2):293-302
pubmed: 22286412
BMC Womens Health. 2009 May 01;9:11
pubmed: 19409078
BMJ. 2017 Nov 6;359:j4891
pubmed: 29109079
Lancet. 2017 Feb 25;389(10071):847-860
pubmed: 27814965
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011 May;127(1):15-22
pubmed: 21336948
J Clin Nurs. 2005 Aug;14(7):798-804
pubmed: 16000093
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017 Jul;164(2):445-450
pubmed: 28444532
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018 Sep;171(2):391-398
pubmed: 29872939
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Apr 10;35(11):1256-1258
pubmed: 28068174
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005 Jan;115(1):105-13
pubmed: 15622239
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002 May;109(6):1919-24; discussion 1925-6
pubmed: 11994594
Prog Mol Biol Transl Sci. 2017;151:1-32
pubmed: 29096890
Lancet Oncol. 2014 Nov;15(12):1303-10
pubmed: 25439688
Br J Surg. 2015 Oct;102(11):1360-71
pubmed: 26179938
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016 Dec 3;14(1):167
pubmed: 27914467
Braz J Phys Ther. 2016 Jan 19;20(2):105-13
pubmed: 26786084
Surg Clin North Am. 2013 Apr;93(2):455-71
pubmed: 23464696
Br J Surg. 2016 Apr;103(5):524-36
pubmed: 26924354
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011 Jan 5;103(1):31-46
pubmed: 21131574
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Dec;18(12):e742-e753
pubmed: 29208440
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011 Mar;127(3):1100-6
pubmed: 21364413
BMJ Open. 2018 Jan 10;8(1):e019117
pubmed: 29326191
Pain. 1975 Sep;1(3):277-99
pubmed: 1235985
BMJ. 2016 Oct 12;355:i4919
pubmed: 27733354
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2017 Aug;70(8):1068-1075
pubmed: 28602265
Clin Breast Cancer. 2018 Aug;18(4):e571-e585
pubmed: 29572079
Ann Surg. 2010 Dec;252(6):929-42
pubmed: 20729711
Breast J. 2011 Nov-Dec;17(6):579-85
pubmed: 21906206
Lancet Oncol. 2018 Nov;19(11):1516-1529
pubmed: 30337220
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Sep 1;99(1):165-172
pubmed: 28816143
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009 Dec;124(6):1754-8
pubmed: 19952630
Ann Surg. 2004 Aug;240(2):205-13
pubmed: 15273542
Ann Surg Oncol. 2018 Oct;25(10):2839-2845
pubmed: 29971671
Ann Surg Oncol. 2017 Jan;24(1):38-51
pubmed: 27646018
Br J Surg. 2018 Feb;105(3):209-222
pubmed: 29116657
BMJ. 2004 Jun 19;328(7454):1490
pubmed: 15205295
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006 Oct;118(5):1079-86; discussion 1087-8
pubmed: 17016170
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Feb;20(2):254-266
pubmed: 30639093
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009 Aug;124(2):345-53
pubmed: 19644246
Med Care. 2007 May;45(5 Suppl 1):S3-S11
pubmed: 17443116
Ann Surg Oncol. 2016 Jul;23(7):2350-6
pubmed: 26957504
BJS Open. 2017 Nov 13;1(5):148-157
pubmed: 29951617
J Reconstr Microsurg. 2017 Feb;33(2):130-136
pubmed: 27798949
Lancet. 2014 Jun 21;383(9935):2127-35
pubmed: 24656685
BMJ. 2019 Jan 24;364:k5267
pubmed: 30679170
Qual Life Res. 2018 May;27(5):1159-1170
pubmed: 29550964
J Gen Intern Med. 2001 Sep;16(9):606-13
pubmed: 11556941
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013 Dec;132(6):1401-8
pubmed: 24281570
Am J Infect Control. 1999 Apr;27(2):97-132; quiz 133-4; discussion 96
pubmed: 10196487
N Engl J Med. 2002 Oct 17;347(16):1227-32
pubmed: 12393819
Ann Plast Surg. 2013 May;70(5):553-6
pubmed: 23542852
Br J Cancer. 2013 Jun 11;108(11):2299-303
pubmed: 23695015
Ann Plast Surg. 2012 Jul;69(1):14-8
pubmed: 21629047

Auteurs

A Khajuria (A)

Kellogg College, Nuffield Department of Surgery, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.

W N Charles (WN)

Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.

M Prokopenko (M)

Department of Plastic Surgery, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK.

A Beswick (A)

School of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

A L Pusic (AL)

Patient-Reported Outcomes, Value and Experience Centre, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

A Mosahebi (A)

Department of Plastic Surgery, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK.

D J Dodwell (DJ)

Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Z E Winters (ZE)

Surgical Intervention Trials Unit, Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH