Cited by 109Breast Implant and ReconstructionWomen's cancer prevention and managementBreast Cancer Treatment Studies

Uptake and predictors of post-mastectomy reconstruction in women with breast malignancy – Systematic review

Brennan, M.E., Spillane, A.J.·2013·European Journal of Surgical Oncology (EJSO)

Abstract

Purpose There is enormous range in the reported rates of breast reconstruction. This study explored reasons for this variation by reviewing the published literature to examine rates of reconstruction, factors associated with uptake, and possible barriers.Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed. Eligible studies reported rates of breast reconstruction and variables associated with uptake in women undergoing mastectomy for early invasive or in situ breast malignancy.Results Twenty-eight eligible studies were included, reporting 159,305 cases of breast reconstruction in 940,678 women. In these studies 16·9% of women underwent immediate or delayed reconstruction (range 4·9-81·2%, median 23·3%). Variables associated with reconstruction were: patient/tumour factors (early stage, no adjuvant therapy, young age, white race, private insurance, higher education/income), surgeon/hospital factors and psychological/other factors (including patient choice).Conclusion Rates of breast reconstruction were highly variable. Reconstruction appeared to be offered to a minority of women; around half took up the offer. The main reasons reported for no reconstruction included patient-related and adjuvant therapy-related factors. Clinicians' beliefs about reconstruction may be an important factor. Rates of reconstruction could be increased with early discussion of the options when mastectomy is chosen or required.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ejso.2013.02.021

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brennan, M. E., & Spillane, A. J.
Affiliations
The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Brennan, M.E.
Venue
European Journal of Surgical Oncology (EJSO)
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-06
Volume
39
Issue
6
Pages
527-541
ISSN
0748-7983 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1966100055
Cited by
109
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal of Surgical Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Breast Implant and Reconstruction
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Breast Cancer Treatment Studies
Keywords
breast reconstruction, mastectomy, breast cancer, adjuvant therapy, early breast cancer, breast-conserving surgery, patient factors, patient choice
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Australia, Breast Neoplasms, Carcinoma in Situ, Decision Making, Educational Status, Europe, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Income, Japan, Neoplasm Staging, Prospective Studies, Retrospective Studies, South Africa, United States, Mastectomy, Modified Radical, Mammaplasty, Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review