The oncological safety of autologous fat grafting: a systematic review and meta-analysis

• Main Authors: Baracat, E.C (Author), Filassi, J.R (Author), Goncalves, R. (Author), Mota, B.S (Author), Munhoz, A.M (Author), Ricci, M.D (Author), Soares, J.M., Jr (Author), Sobreira-Lima, B. (Author)
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: BioMed Central Ltd 2022
• Subjects: adipose tissue; Adipose Tissue; adverse event; Autologous fat grafting; autotransplantation; Breast cancer; Breast Neoplasms; breast reconstruction; Breast reconstruction; breast tumor; epidemiology; female; Female; human; Humans; Lipofilling; Mammaplasty; meta analysis; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; procedures; Transplantation, Autologous; tumor recurrence
• Online Access: View Fulltext in Publisher

 Objective: To present a systematic review of the literature and a meta-analysis evaluating the oncological safety of autologous fat grafting (AFG). Summary background data: AFG for breast reconstruction presents difficulties during follow-up radiological exams, and the oncological potential of grafted fat is uncertain. Previous studies confirmed that the fatty tissue could be transferred under a good condition suitable would not interfere with mammographic follow-up, although the issue of oncological safety remains. Methods: We reviewed the literature published until 01/18/2021. The outcomes were overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and local recurrence (LR). We included studies that evaluated women with breast cancer who undergone surgery followed by reconstruction with AFG. We synthesized data using the inverse variance method on the log-HR (log of the hazard ratio) scale for time-to-event outcomes using RevMan. We assessed heterogeneity using the Chi2 and I2 statistics. Results: Fifteen studies evaluating 8541 participants were included. The hazard ratios (HR) could be extracted from four studies, and there was no difference in OS between the AFG group and control (HR 0.9, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.54, p = 0.71, I2 = 58%, moderate certainty evidence), and publication bias was not detected. The HR for DFS could be extracted from six studies, and there was no difference between the AFG group and control (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.38, p = 0.96, I2 = 0%, moderate certainty evidence). The HR for LR could be extracted from ten studies, and there was no difference between the AFG group and control (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.12, p = 0.43, I2 = 1%, moderate certainty evidence). Conclusion: According to the current evidence, AFG is a safe technique of breast reconstruction for patients that have undergone BC surgery and did not affect OS, DFS, or LR. © 2022, The Author(s).