↓ Skip to main content

Current perspectives on cell-assisted lipotransfer for breast cancer patients after radiotherapy

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Surgical Oncology, April 2023
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
4 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Current perspectives on cell-assisted lipotransfer for breast cancer patients after radiotherapy
Published in
World Journal of Surgical Oncology, April 2023
DOI 10.1186/s12957-023-03010-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Qiuwan Wu, Shuai Chen, Wuyun Peng, Donghan Chen

Abstract

Cell-assisted lipotransfer (CAL), a technique of autologous adipose transplantation enriched with adipose-derived stem cells (ADSCs), has the potential to improve cosmetic outcomes at irradiated sites. However, many concerns have been raised about the possibility of ADSCs increasing oncological risk in cancer patients. With the increasing demand for CAL reconstruction, there is an urgent need to determine whether CAL treatment could compromise oncological safety after radiotherapy, as well as to evaluate its efficacy in guiding clinical decisions. A PRISMA-compliant systematic review of the safety and efficacy of CAL in breast cancer patients after radiotherapy was conducted. The PubMed, Ovid, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were comprehensively searched from inception to 31 December 2021. The search initially yielded 1185 unique studies. Ultimately, seven studies were eligible. Based on the limited outcome evidence, CAL did not increase recurrence risk in breast cancer patients but presented aesthetic improvement and higher volumetric persistence in a long-term follow-up. Although breast reconstruction with CAL also had oncological safety after radiotherapy, these patients needed more adipose tissue and had relatively lower fat graft retention than the non-irradiated patients (P < 0.05). CAL has oncological safety and does not increase recurrence risk in irradiated patients. Since CAL doubles the amount of adipose required without significantly improving volumetric persistence, clinical decisions for irradiated patients should be made more cautiously to account for the potential costs and aesthetic outcomes. There is limited evidence at present; thus, higher-quality, evidence-based studies are required to establish a consensus on breast reconstruction with CAL after radiotherapy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 4 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 4 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 1 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 25%
Student > Postgraduate 1 25%
Unknown 1 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 1 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 25%
Engineering 1 25%
Unknown 1 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 April 2023.
All research outputs
#20,952,842
of 25,734,859 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#1,115
of 2,159 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#310,361
of 416,444 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#17
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,734,859 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,159 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 416,444 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.