4.6 Article

Impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on wound complications after breast surgery

期刊

SURGERY
卷 152, 期 3, 页码 382-388

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2012.05.001

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [T32 CA090217-12, T32 CA090217-11, T32 CA090217] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer is increasing. The objective was to examine risk of postoperative wound complications in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast Cancer. Methods. Patients undergoing breast surgery from 2005 to 2010 were selected from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Patients were included if preoperative diagnosis suggested malignancy and an axillary procedure was performed. We performed a stepwise multivariable regression analysis of predictors of postoperative wound complications, overall and stratified by type of breast surgery. Our primary variable of interest was receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Results. Of 44,533 patients, 4.5% received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Wound complications were infrequent with or without neoadjuvant chemotherapy (3.4% vs 3.1%; P = .4). Smoking, functional dependence, obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and mastectomy were associated with wound complications. No association with neoadjuvant chemotherapy was seen (odds ratio [OR], 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-1.32); however, a trend was observed toward increased complications in neoadjuvant patients undergoing mastectomy with immediate reconstruction (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 0.98-2.58). Conclusion. Postoperative wound complications after breast surgery are infrequent and not associated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Given the trend toward increased complications in patients undergoing mastectomy with immediate reconstruction, however, neoadjuvant chemotherapy should be among the many factors considered when making multidisciplinary treatment decisions. (Surgery 2012;152:382-8.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据