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

Goncalves, Rodrigo; Mota, Bruna Salani; Sobreira-Lima, Bruno; Ricci, Marcos Desidério; Soares, José Maria; Munhoz, Alexandre Mendonça; Baracat, Edmund Chada; Filassi, José Roberto

doi:10.1186/s12885-022-09485-5

BMC Cancer

Table 1 Main characteristics of the included studies. The oncological safety of autologous fat grafting: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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

Author	Fertsch [15]	Cohen [16]	Calabrese [17]		Cogliandro [18]	Khan [19]	Krastev [20]	Kronowitz [21]
Type of study	Case-control	Cohort	Cohort		Cohort	Case-control	Cohort	Cohort
Year	2017	2017	2018		2017	2017	2019	2015
Number of patients	200	829	233		70	71	587	2364
Number of cases	100	248	105		46	32	300	1024
Age
AFG	49.6	47,8/48,1^a	48,8/50,3^b		41^c	49	48.1	47,7/45,8^a
No AFG	50.7	52,6/49^a	47,7		41^c	54	49.4	46,5
Follow up (months)
AFG	72.5	45,6/42,5^a	84/75^b		30^c	36	112	59,6/73,5^a
No AFG	76.5	38,8/37,6^a	72		30^c	36	103	43.8
Stage
Stage 0 - AFG	9	51/NA^a	5/9^b		NA	NA	39	174/16^a
Stage 0 - no AFG	9	83/NA^a	6		NA	NA	40	115
Stage 1 - AFG	NA	55/NA^a	16/38^b		NA	NA	99	266/14^a
Stage 1 no AFG	NA	149/NA^a	26		NA	NA	102	208
Stage 2 AFG	NA	46/NA^a	20/17^b		NA	NA	114	199/23^a
Stage 2 no AFG	NA	143/NA^a	32		NA	NA	107	245
Stage 3 AFG	NA	10/NA^a	0		NA	NA	48	65/6^a
Stage 3 no AFG	NA	39/NA^a	0		NA	NA	51	92
Prophylactic surgery	No	No/Yes	No		No	No	No	No/Yes
Breast Reconstruction Type	DIEP	Tissue expander or Autologous or Implant	Tissue expander + Implant		Implant	NA	NA	NA
AFG technique	Coleman	Coleman	Coleman + SVF		Coleman	Coleman	Coleman	NA
Author	Masia [22]	Stumpf [23]	Sorrentino [24]	Silva-Vergara [25]	Seth [5]	Petit DCIS [26]	Petit Invasive [27]	Mazur [28]
Type of study	Cohort	Cohort	Cohort	Cohort	Cohort	Case-control	Case-control	Case-control
Year	2015	2017	2019	2017	2012	2013	2012	2018
Number of patients	214	194	830	615	886	177	963	308
Number of cases	107	27	233	205	69	59	321	56
Age
AFG	49.2	53.6	49.4	49.1	49.4	46	45	NA
No AFG	48.9	56	51	50	48	47	46	NA
Follow up (months)
AFG	89	36	74.1	88.7	43.6	63	56	36
No AFG	120	36	63.8	86.8	42.1	66	57	NA
Stage
Stage 0 - AFG	61	0	31	0	17	59	37	NA
Stage 0 - no AFG	69	0	71	0	176	118	74	NA
Stage 1 - AFG	23	7	94	109	23	0	174	NA
Stage 1 no AFG	26	78	289	237	212	0	348	NA
Stage 2 AFG	14	20	71	79	23	0	86	NA
Stage 2 no AFG	5	89	178	135	288	0	172	NA
Stage 3 AFG	5	0	37	11	4	0	24	NA
Stage 3 no AFG	2	0	58	23	87	0	48	NA
Prophylactic surgery	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	NA
Breast Reconstruction Type	DIEP, SIEA, SGAP, IGAP, TAP	Breast conserving surgery plus AFG	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
AFG technique	Coleman	Coleman	Coleman	Coleman	Coleman	Coleman	NA	Coleman

AFG Autologous fat grafting, DIEP deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap, IGAP inferior gluteal artery perforator flap, NA not available, SGAP superior gluteal artery perforator flap, SIEA superficial inferior epigastric artery flap, SVF stromal vascular fraction, TAP thoracodorsal artery perforator flap
^a in Cohen et al. and Kronowitz et at, the authors performed AFG for patients that undergone cancer surgery and prophylactic surgery. In these studies, the number on the left refers to the patients that undergone cancer surgery and the number on the right refers to the patients that undergone prophylactic surgery
^b in Calabrese et al., the authors employed two modalities of AFG. The number on the left refers to the patients that undergone AFG with adipose tissue enriched with stem cells from the stromal vascular fraction. The number on the right refers to classic Coleman AFG technique
^c in Cogliandro et al., the authors do not present the age and follow-up according to study groups; they only present the mean age and mean follow-up for the whole population

Back to article page

ISSN: 1471-2407

Contact us

Submission enquiries: bmccancer@biomedcentral.com
General enquiries: ORSupport@springernature.com