Expander/implant breast reconstruction before radiotherapy: Outcomes in a single-institute cohort
Strahlentherapie und Onkologie, ISSN: 0179-7158, Vol: 188, Issue: 12, Page: 1074-1079
2012
- 18Citations
- 61Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations18
- Citation Indexes17
- 17
- CrossRef9
- Clinical Citations1
- PubMed Guidelines1
- Captures61
- Readers61
- 53
Article Description
Background and purpose: Radiotherapy (RT) of reconstructed breasts was associated with major complications and poor cosmetic outcome. The present study assessed complication rates, the link between risk factors and prosthesis removal, as well as cosmetic outcomes. Patients and methods: From 1997 to 2009, 101 consecutive patients received RT after breast reconstruction because of risk factors for relapse (92) or because relapse had occurred (9). At RT, 90 patients had temporary tissue expanders and 11 had permanent implants. Twelve patients underwent neo-adjuvant chemotherapy; all patients received adjuvant chemo- and/or hormone therapy. Results: At a median follow-up of 50 months, late toxicities occurred in 28 patients: pain in 7, lymphedema in 6, G1 cutaneous toxicity in 5, and subcutaneous toxicity in 19 (2G1, 9G2, 7G3, 1G4), with more than one side effect in 12. In 8 patients the prosthesis ruptured (3), was displaced (3), was displaced and ruptured (1), or lost shape (1). Capsular contracture was classified in 89 patients as IA in 14, IB in 47, II in 10, III in 11, and IV in 7. Twelve prostheses (11.9%) were removed. The only significant factor for prosthesis removal was age (p = 0.007). Judgments of cosmetic results were available from 81 physicians and 84 patients. Outcome was excellent/good in 58/81 physician judgments and in 57/84 patient evaluations. Overall inter-rater agreement on outcome was good (κ-value 0.64; 95% CI: 0.48-0.79). Conclusion: RT to reconstructed breasts was associated with low rates of late toxicity and prosthesis removal. Cosmetic outcomes were, on the whole, good to excellent. © 2012 Urban & Vogel. Zusammenfassung: Hintergründe und Ziel: Radiotherapie (RT) rekonstruierter Brüste hatte oft hohe Komplikationsraten und schlechte kosmetische Ergebnisse. Diese Studie untersuchte Komplikationsraten, Zusammenhänge zwischen Risikofaktoren und Prothesenentfernung sowie kosmetische Ergebnisse. Patienten und Methoden: Von 1997 bis 2009 erhielten 101 konsekutive Patientinnen eine RT nach Brustrekonstruktion wegen des Vorliegens von Risikofaktoren für ein Rezidiv (92), oder weil es zu einem Rezidiv gekommen war (9). Zum Zeitpunkt der RT hatten 90 Patienten vorläufige Gewebeexpander und elf dauerhafte Implantate. Zwölf Patienten erhielten eine neo-adjuvante Chemotherapie; alle Patienten erhielten adjuvante Chemo- und/oder Hormon - Therapie. Ergebnisse: Bei einer mittleren Nachbeobachtungszeit von 50 Monaten kam eine späte Toxizität bei 28 Patientinnen vor: Schmerzen in sieben, Lymphödem in sechs, G1 Hauttoxizität in fünf, subkutane Toxizität in 19 (2G1, 9G2, 7G3, 1G4). Mehr als eine Nebenwirkung hatten zwölf Patientinnen. In acht Patienten rupturierte die Prothese (3), dislozierte (3), dislozierte und rupturierte (1) oder verlor ihre Form (1). Kapselzusammenziehung wurde bei 89 Patientinnen als IA in 14, IB in 47, II in 10, III in 11 und IV in 7 Fällen klassifiziert. Zwölf Prothesen (11,9%) wurden entfernt. Der einzige bedeutende Faktor für die Protheseentfernung war das Alter (p = 0,007). Urteile zu kosmetischen Ergebnissen waren von 81 Ärzten und 84 Patienten verfügbar. Das Ergebnis war auch bei 58/81 der Arzturteile und 57/84 der Patientinneneinschätzungen ausgezeichnet bis gut. Die Inter-Rater- Übereinstimmung über das Ergebnis war insgesamt gut (κ-Wert 0,64; 95-%-CI: 0,48-0,79). Schlussfolgerung: RT bei rekonstruierten Brüsten hatte niedrige Komplikationsraten in Bezug auf spätere Nebenwirkungen und Prothesenentfernung. Kosmetische Ergebnisse waren überwiegend ausgezeichnet bis gut. © 2012 Urban & Vogel.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84872867613&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00066-012-0231-z; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23111470; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00066-012-0231-z; http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/s00066-012-0231-z; http://www.springerlink.com/index/pdf/10.1007/s00066-012-0231-z; http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00066-012-0231-z; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00066-012-0231-z; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00066-012-0231-z; https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs00066-012-0231-z.pdf; http://link.springer.com/10.1007%2Fs00066-012-0231-z?from=SL
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know