• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

新辅助化疗后即刻种植与自体皮瓣重建对乳腺癌患者复发结局的倾向评分匹配比较。

A propensity score-matched comparison of recurrence outcomes after immediate implant vs autologous flap reconstruction in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer.

机构信息

Department of Breast Surgery, Shanghai East Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.

Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88, Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, Republic of Korea.

出版信息

Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2021 Jun;187(2):417-425. doi: 10.1007/s10549-021-06114-w. Epub 2021 Mar 19.

DOI:10.1007/s10549-021-06114-w
PMID:33740204
Abstract

PURPOSE

We compared oncologic outcomes between breast cancer patients who underwent immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) and those who underwent autologous flap reconstruction (AFR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT).

METHODS

The study group comprised 536 patients with primary breast cancer who underwent NACT followed by immediate IBBR or AFR. After propensity score matching, 138 patients in the IBBR group and 276 patients in the AFR group were selected for comparisons of locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRRFS), disease-free survival (DFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS).

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed between the matched groups in locoregional recurrence rates (IBBR vs. AFR: 12.3% vs. 12%; P = 0.915) and distant metastasis (13% vs. 17%; P = 0.293). There was also no significant difference between the groups in LRRFS (P = 0.956), DFS (P = 0.606), DMFS (P = 0.283), or BCSS (P = 0.121). The 5- and 10-year LRRFS rates were 87.6% and 85.9% in the IBBR group, and 87.7% and 86.1% in the AFR group; the 5- and 10-year DFS rates were 79% and 77.5% in the IBBR group, and 77% and 75% in the AFR group; the 5- and 10-year DMFS rates were 85.9% and 85.9% in the IBBR group, and 83.2% and 81.8% in the AFR group; and the 5- and 10-year BCSS rates were 97.8% and 91.3% in the IBBR group, and 91.8% and 86% in the AFR group, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In this propensity score-matched analysis of oncologic outcomes in breast cancer patients who underwent immediate reconstruction after NACT, no significant differences were observed between the IBBR and AFR groups.

摘要

目的

我们比较了接受新辅助化疗(NACT)后行即刻乳房重建(IBBR)和自体皮瓣重建(AFR)的乳腺癌患者的肿瘤学结局。

方法

研究组纳入 536 例接受 NACT 后行即刻 IBBR 或 AFR 的原发性乳腺癌患者。经过倾向评分匹配后,选择 138 例 IBBR 组患者和 276 例 AFR 组患者进行局部区域无复发生存(LRRFS)、无病生存(DFS)、远处无转移生存(DMFS)和乳腺癌特异性生存(BCSS)的比较。

结果

匹配组间局部区域复发率(IBBR 与 AFR:12.3%与 12%;P=0.915)和远处转移率(13%与 17%;P=0.293)无显著差异。LRRFS(P=0.956)、DFS(P=0.606)、DMFS(P=0.283)和 BCSS(P=0.121)方面两组间也无显著差异。IBBR 组的 5 年和 10 年 LRRFS 率分别为 87.6%和 85.9%,AFR 组分别为 87.7%和 86.1%;IBBR 组的 5 年和 10 年 DFS 率分别为 79%和 77.5%,AFR 组分别为 77%和 75%;IBBR 组的 5 年和 10 年 DMFS 率分别为 85.9%和 85.9%,AFR 组分别为 83.2%和 81.8%;IBBR 组的 5 年和 10 年 BCSS 率分别为 97.8%和 91.3%,AFR 组分别为 91.8%和 86%。

结论

在这项 NACT 后即刻重建的乳腺癌患者肿瘤学结局的倾向评分匹配分析中,IBBR 组和 AFR 组之间未观察到显著差异。

相似文献

1
A propensity score-matched comparison of recurrence outcomes after immediate implant vs autologous flap reconstruction in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer.新辅助化疗后即刻种植与自体皮瓣重建对乳腺癌患者复发结局的倾向评分匹配比较。
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2021 Jun;187(2):417-425. doi: 10.1007/s10549-021-06114-w. Epub 2021 Mar 19.
2
Breast cancer outcomes following immediate breast reconstruction with implants versus autologous flaps: a propensity score-matched study.假体即刻乳房重建与自体皮瓣即刻乳房重建治疗乳腺癌的效果比较:倾向评分匹配研究。
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2022 Jan;191(2):365-373. doi: 10.1007/s10549-021-06350-0. Epub 2021 Nov 10.
3
Oncologic outcomes of immediate breast reconstruction in young women with breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy.接受新辅助化疗的年轻乳腺癌女性即刻乳房重建的肿瘤学结局。
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2022 Jan;191(2):345-354. doi: 10.1007/s10549-021-06428-9. Epub 2021 Oct 31.
4
Long-term Oncologic Outcomes of Immediate Breast Reconstruction vs Conventional Mastectomy Alone for Breast Cancer in the Setting of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.新辅助化疗背景下即刻乳房重建与单纯常规乳腺癌根治术的长期肿瘤学结局比较。
JAMA Surg. 2020 Dec 1;155(12):1142-1150. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.4132.
5
Preservation of the pectoralis major fascia has no impact on the long-term oncologic outcomes of patients with breast cancer treated with conservative mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction: A propensity score matching analysis.保留胸大肌筋膜对接受保乳术和即刻乳房重建的乳腺癌患者的长期肿瘤学结局没有影响:倾向评分匹配分析。
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2023 Nov;86:231-238. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2023.09.001. Epub 2023 Sep 12.
6
Oncologic Safety of Immediate Breast Reconstruction in Breast Cancer Patients Who Underwent Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Short-Term Outcomes of a Matched Case-Control Study.接受新辅助化疗的乳腺癌患者即刻乳房重建的肿瘤学安全性:一项匹配病例对照研究的短期结果
Clin Breast Cancer. 2017 Jun;17(3):204-210. doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2016.10.009. Epub 2016 Oct 27.
7
A Propensity Score-matched Analysis of Long-term Oncologic Outcomes After Nipple-sparing Versus Conventional Mastectomy for Locally Advanced Breast Cancer.保乳术后与传统乳房切除术治疗局部晚期乳腺癌的长期肿瘤学结局的倾向评分匹配分析。
Ann Surg. 2022 Aug 1;276(2):386-390. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004416. Epub 2020 Nov 18.
8
Oncologic Safety of One-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction in Breast Cancer Patients With Positive Sentinel Lymph Nodes: A Single-Center Retrospective Study Using Propensity Score Matching.基于倾向性评分匹配的单中心回顾性研究:前哨淋巴结阳性乳腺癌患者一期假体乳房重建的肿瘤安全性。
Clin Breast Cancer. 2024 Jan;24(1):e1-e8. doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2023.09.007. Epub 2023 Sep 13.
9
Oncologic outcomes after immediate breast reconstruction following mastectomy: comparison of implant and flap using propensity score matching.即刻乳房重建术后的肿瘤学结果:使用倾向评分匹配比较假体和皮瓣。
BMC Cancer. 2020 Jan 30;20(1):78. doi: 10.1186/s12885-020-6568-2.
10
Comparison of outcomes between immediate implantbased and autologous reconstruction: 15-year, single-center experience in a propensity score-matched Chinese cohort.即刻种植与自体重建的疗效比较:一项在倾向性评分匹配的中国队列中进行的 15 年单中心经验。
Cancer Biol Med. 2021 Dec 1;19(9):1410-21. doi: 10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2021.0368.

引用本文的文献

1
Postoperative Outcomes in Prepectoral Versus Retropectoral Immediate Implant-based Breast Reconstruction Across Body Mass Index Categories.不同体重指数类别下,胸前与胸后即刻植入式乳房重建的术后结果
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2025 Jan 10;13(1):e6425. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000006425. eCollection 2025 Jan.
2
Implants versus autologous tissue flaps for breast reconstruction following mastectomy.乳房切除术乳房再造中假体与自体组织皮瓣的比较。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Oct 31;10(10):CD013821. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013821.pub2.
3
Neoadjuvant systemic therapy for breast cancer.

本文引用的文献

1
Oncologic outcomes after immediate breast reconstruction following mastectomy: comparison of implant and flap using propensity score matching.即刻乳房重建术后的肿瘤学结果:使用倾向评分匹配比较假体和皮瓣。
BMC Cancer. 2020 Jan 30;20(1):78. doi: 10.1186/s12885-020-6568-2.
2
National Patterns of Breast Reconstruction and Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy for Breast Cancer, 2005-2015.2005-2015 年美国全国范围内乳腺癌保乳乳房重建和乳头保留乳房切除术的模式。
Ann Surg Oncol. 2019 Oct;26(10):3194-3203. doi: 10.1245/s10434-019-07554-x. Epub 2019 Jul 24.
3
A Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcomes After Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Conventional Mastectomy with Reconstruction.
乳腺癌新辅助全身治疗
Br J Surg. 2023 Jun 12;110(7):765-772. doi: 10.1093/bjs/znad103.
4
Reconstructive types effect the prognosis of patients with tumors in the central and nipple portion of breast cancer? An analysis based on SEER database.重建类型对乳腺癌中央区和乳头区肿瘤患者的预后有影响吗?基于监测、流行病学和最终结果(SEER)数据库的分析。
Front Oncol. 2023 Jan 23;12:1092506. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.1092506. eCollection 2022.
5
Implant-based versus Autologous Reconstruction after Mastectomy for Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.乳腺癌乳房切除术后植入物重建与自体组织重建的系统评价和Meta分析
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2022 Mar 11;10(3):e4180. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000004180. eCollection 2022 Mar.
6
Boomerang latissimus dorsi flap in total breast reconstruction: report of three cases.回飞棒背阔肌肌皮瓣在全乳重建中的应用:三例报告
Gland Surg. 2022 Jan;11(1):290-299. doi: 10.21037/gs-21-595.
保乳术后与传统乳房切除术及重建术后患者报告结局的比较。
Ann Surg Oncol. 2018 Oct;25(10):2909-2916. doi: 10.1245/s10434-018-6585-4. Epub 2018 Jul 2.
4
Breast Implants and the Risk of Anaplastic Large-Cell Lymphoma in the Breast.乳房植入物与乳房间变性大细胞淋巴瘤的风险。
JAMA Oncol. 2018 Mar 1;4(3):335-341. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.4510.
5
Determinants of short and long term outcomes in patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction following neoadjuvant chemotherapy.新辅助化疗后即刻进行乳房重建患者短期和长期预后的决定因素
J Surg Oncol. 2017 Dec;116(7):797-802. doi: 10.1002/jso.24741. Epub 2017 Jul 11.
6
Oncologic Safety of Immediate Breast Reconstruction in Breast Cancer Patients Who Underwent Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Short-Term Outcomes of a Matched Case-Control Study.接受新辅助化疗的乳腺癌患者即刻乳房重建的肿瘤学安全性:一项匹配病例对照研究的短期结果
Clin Breast Cancer. 2017 Jun;17(3):204-210. doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2016.10.009. Epub 2016 Oct 27.
7
Expanding the Indications for Total Skin-Sparing Mastectomy: Is It Safe for Patients with Locally Advanced Disease?扩大保留全层皮肤乳房切除术的适应症:对局部晚期疾病患者是否安全?
Ann Surg Oncol. 2016 Jan;23(1):87-91. doi: 10.1245/s10434-015-4734-6. Epub 2015 Jul 14.
8
The oncological safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy - a Swedish matched cohort study.保留乳头的乳房切除术的肿瘤学安全性——一项瑞典配对队列研究。
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014 Oct;40(10):1209-15. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2014.07.037. Epub 2014 Aug 20.
9
Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis.乳腺癌的病理完全缓解和长期临床获益:CTNeoBC 汇总分析。
Lancet. 2014 Jul 12;384(9938):164-72. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62422-8. Epub 2014 Feb 14.
10
Immediate reconstruction with implants in women with invasive breast cancer does not affect oncological safety in a matched cohort study.在一项匹配队列研究中,浸润性乳腺癌女性即刻用种植体重建不影响肿瘤安全性。
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011 Jun;127(2):439-46. doi: 10.1007/s10549-011-1437-y. Epub 2011 Mar 16.