MARCOS DESIDERIO RICCI
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina - Médico
LIM/58 - Laboratório de Ginecologia Estrutural e Molecular, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina
LIM/58 - Laboratório de Ginecologia Estrutural e Molecular, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina
3 resultados
Resultados de Busca
Agora exibindo 1 - 3 de 3
- The oncological safety of autologous fat grafting: a systematic review and meta-analysis(2022) GONCALVES, Rodrigo; MOTA, Bruna Salani; SOBREIRA-LIMA, Bruno; RICCI, Marcos Desiderio; JR, Jose Maria Soares; MUNHOZ, Alexandre Mendonca; BARACAT, Edmund Chada; FILASSI, Jose RobertoObjective 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 Chi(2) and I-2 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, I-2 = 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, I-2 = 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, I-2 = 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.
- Nipple- and areola-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of breast cancer(2016) MOTA, Bruna S.; RIERA, Rachel; RICCI, Marcos Desiderio; BARRETT, Jessica; CASTRIA, Tiago B. de; ATALLAH, Alvaro N.; BEVILACQUA, Jose Luiz B.Background The efficacy and safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy and areola-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of breast cancer are still questionable. It is estimated that the local recurrence rates following nipple-sparing mastectomy are very similar to breast-conserving surgery followed by radiotherapy. Objectives To assess the efficacy and safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy and areola-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer in women. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase (via OVID) and LILACS (via Biblioteca Virtual em Saude [BVS]) using the search terms ""nipple sparing mastectomy"" and ""areola-sparing mastectomy"". Also, we searched theWorld HealthOrganization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov. All searches were conducted on 30th September 2014 and we did not apply any language restrictions. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) however if there were no RCTs, we expanded our criteria to include non-randomised comparative studies (cohort and case-control studies). Studies evaluated nipple-sparing and areola-sparing mastectomy compared tomodified radical mastectomy or skin-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive breast cancer. Data collection and analysis Two review authors (BS and RR) performed data extraction and resolved disagreements. We performed descriptive analyses and metaanalyses of the data using Review Manager software. We used Cochrane's risk of bias tool to assess studies, and adapted it for nonrandomised studies, and we evaluated the quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria. Main results We included 11 cohort studies, evaluating a total of 6502 participants undergoing 7018 procedures: 2529 underwent a nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM), 818 underwent skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) and 3671 underwent traditional mastectomy, also known as modified radical mastectomy (MRM). No participants underwent areola-sparing mastectomy. There was a high risk of confounding for all reported outcomes. For overall survival, the hazard ratio (HR) for NSM compared to SSM was 0.70 (95% CI 0.28 to 1.73; 2 studies; 781 participants) and the HR for NSM compared to MRM was 0.72 (95% CI 0.46 to 1.13; 2 studies, 1202 participants). Local recurrence was evaluated in two studies, the HR for NSM compared to MRM was 0.28 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.68; 2 studies, 1303 participants). The overall risk of complications was different in NSM when compared to other types of mastectomy in general (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.82, 2 studies, P = 0.03; 1067 participants). With respect to skin necrosis, there was no evidence of a difference with NSMcompared to other types of mastectomy, but the confidence interval was wide (RR 4.22, 95% CI 0.59 to 30.03, P = 0.15; 4 studies, 1948 participants). We observed no difference among the three types of mastectomy with respect to the risk of local infection (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.09, P = 0.91, 2 studies; 496 participants). Meta-analysis was not possible when assessing cosmetic outcomes and quality of life, but in general the NSMstudies reported a favourable aesthetic result and a gain in quality of life compared with the other types of mastectomy. The quality of evidence was considered very low for all outcomes due to the high risk of selection bias and wide confidence intervals. Authors' conclusions The findings from these observational studies of very low-quality evidence were inconclusive for all outcomes due to the high risk of selection bias.
- Accuracy of frozen section in intraoperative margin assessment for breast-conserving surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis(2021) GARCIA, Mila Trementosa; MOTA, Bruna Salani; CARDOSO, Natalia; MARTIMBIANCO, Ana Luiza Cabrera; RICCI, Marcos Desiderio; CARVALHO, Filomena Marino; GONCALVES, Rodrigo; SOARES JUNIOR, Jose Maria; FILASSI, Jose RobertoBackground and objectives It is well established that tumor-free margin is an important factor for reducing local recurrence and reoperation rates. This systematic review with meta-analysis of frozen section intraoperative margin assessment aims to evaluate the accuracy, and reoperation and survival rates, and to establish its importance in breast-conserving surgery. Methods A thorough review was conducted in all online publication-databases for the related literature up to March 2020. MeSH terms used: ""Breast Cancer"", ""Segmental Mastectomy"" and ""Frozen Section"". We included the studies that evaluated accuracy of frozen section, reoperation and survival rates. To ensure quality of the included articles, the QUADAS-2 tool (adapted) was employed. The assessment of publication bias by graphical and statistical methods was performed using the funnel plot and the Egger's test. The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019125682). Results Nineteen studies were deemed suitable, with a total of 6,769 cases. The reoperation rate on average was 5.9%. Sensitivity was 0.81, with a Confidence Interval of 0.79-0.83, p = 0.0000, I2 = 95.1%, and specificity was 0.97, with a Confidence Interval of 0.97-0.98, p = 0.0000, I-2 = 90.8%, for 17 studies and 5,615 cases. Accuracy was 0.98. Twelve studies described local recurrence and the highest cumulative recurrence rate in 3 years was 7.5%. The quality of the included studies based on the QUADAS-2 tool showed a low risk of bias. There is no publication bias (p = 0.32) and the funnel plot showed symmetry. Conclusion Frozen section is a reliable procedure with high accuracy, sensitivity and specificity in intraoperative margin assessment of breast-conserving surgery. Therefore, this modality of margin assessment could be useful in reducing reoperation rates.