Pre‐mastectomy Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy: A Strategy to Enhance Outcomes in Immediate Breast Reconstruction

The pre‐mastectomy sentinel lymph node biopsy (PM‐SLNB) is a technique that provides knowledge regarding nodal status prior to mastectomy. Because radiation exposure is associated with poor outcomes in breast reconstruction and reconstructed breasts can interfere with the planning and delivery of radiation therapy (RT), information regarding nodal status has important implications for patients who desire immediate breast reconstruction. This study explores the safety and utility of PM‐SLNB as part of the treatment strategy for breast cancer patients desiring immediate reconstruction. We reviewed the charts of adult patients (≥18 years old) who underwent PM‐SLNB from January 2004 to January 2011 at our institution. PM‐SLNB was offered to patients with stage I or IIa, clinically and/or radiographically node‐negative breast cancer who desired immediate breast reconstruction following mastectomy. PM‐SLNB was also offered to patients with ductal carcinoma in situ if features concerning for invasive carcinoma were present. Ninety‐one patients underwent PM‐SLNB of 94 axillae. PM‐SLNB was positive in 25.5% of breasts (n = 24). Nineteen node‐positive patients (79.2%) have undergone or planning to undergo delayed reconstruction at our institution. Seventeen of these 19 node‐positive patients (89.5%) have received adjuvant RT. Two patients (10.5%) elected against RT despite our recommendation for it. No biopsy‐positive patient underwent immediate reconstruction or suffered a radiation‐induced complication with their breast reconstruction. There were two minor complications associated with PM‐SLNB, both in node‐negative patients. This study demonstrates the utility of PM‐SLNB in providing information regarding nodal status, and therefore the need for adjuvant RT, prior to mastectomy. This knowledge can be used to appropriately counsel patients regarding optimal timing of breast reconstruction.     

Postoperative Expansion is not a Primary Cause of Infection in Immediate Breast Reconstruction with Tissue Expanders

Perioperative infection is the most common and dreaded complication associated with tissue expander (TE) breast reconstruction. Historically, the expansion period was thought to be the time of greatest hazard to the implant. However, recent institutional observations suggest infectious complications occur prior to expansion. This investigation, therefore, was conducted to determine the timing of infectious complications associated with two‐stage TE breast reconstructions. Following IRB approval, a retrospective review of all consecutive two‐stage immediate TE breast reconstructions at a single institution from November 2007 to November 2011 was conducted. Reconstructions were then divided into two cohorts: those suffering infectious complications and those that did not. Infectious complications including minor cellulitis, major cellulitis, abscess drainage, and explantation were identified. Various operative and patient variables were evaluated in comparison. Eight hundred ninety immediate two‐stage TE breast reconstructions met inclusion criteria. Patients suffering infection were older (55.4 years versus 49.3 years; p < 0.001), and more likely to have therapeutic mastectomy (94% versus 61%; p < 0.0001), the use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM; 72.5% versus 54.9%; p = 0.001), and greater initial TE fill (448.6 mL versus 404.7 mL; p = 0.0078). The average time to developing of infectious symptoms was 29.6 days (range 9–142 days), with 94.6% (n = 87) of infections prior to the start of expansion. Perioperative infections in immediate two‐stage TE to implant breast reconstructions are significant and occur mostly prior to the start of expansion. Thus, challenging the conventional wisdom that instrumentation during expander filling as the primary cause of implant infections. Possible etiologic factors include greater age, therapeutic mastectomy versus prophylactic mastectomy, larger initial TE fill, and the use of ADM.     

Risk Factors and Risk Scoring Tool for Infection during Tissue Expansion in Tissue Expander and Implant Breast Reconstruction

Tissue expander and implant (TE/I) breast reconstruction has been increasing recently. In TE/I breast reconstruction, infection leads to reconstruction failure and is the most serious complication. The infection rate was reported to be higher during the tissue expander period than the implant period. However, few studies have investigated the risk factors for infection during tissue expansion following TE/I breast reconstruction. The goal of this study was to identify risk factors for infection during tissue expansion in TE/I breast reconstruction and to develop a simple risk scoring tool for infection that can be used for clinical application. In this retrospective cohort study, 981 patients who received TE/I breast reconstruction were surveyed and analyzed at one of the main clinics performing TE/I breast reconstruction in Japan. Numerous potential risk factors were collected from the clinical charts. Multiple logistic regression analyses were used to identify risk factors for infection. To develop a risk scoring tool, we converted the coefficients of the identified predictors estimated in the multiple logistic regression analyses into simplified risk scores. We assessed the tool discrimination by drawing a receiver operating characteristic curve and calculating the area under the curve. Infection was noted in 47 patients (4.79%) during tissue expansion. In multiple logistic regression analyses, diabetes, repeated expander insertions, larger expander size (≥400 cc), postoperative hormone therapy before silicone implant surgery, preoperative chemotherapy, and nipple‐sparing mastectomy were identified as risk factors for infection during expansion. The area under the curve of the risk scoring tool for infection was 0.734 (95% CI: 0.662–0.807). We have revealed risk factors and proposed a risk scoring tool for infection during tissue expansion in TE/I breast reconstruction. This study may contribute to the prevention and prediction of infection.     

Delayed‐immediate hybrid breast reconstruction—Increasing patient input and precision in breast reconstruction

The benefits of breast reconstruction via free tissue transfer with simultaneous implant placement, that is, hybrid breast reconstruction, in select patients are well‐known. Challenges exist, however, and are related to proper implant selection as well as postoperative mastectomy skin necrosis. Here, the authors present an approach that increases reconstructive precision while minimizing postoperative mastectomy skin necrosis. A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent immediate prepectoral tissue expander placement (stage 1) followed by delayed‐immediate hybrid breast reconstruction (stage 2) was performed. Parameters of interest included patient demographics, postoperative complications, and revision rates. A total of 31 patients with a mean age of 48.7 years (range, 30‐67 years) and a mean BMI of 26.3 kg/m² (range, 21.0‐35.3 kg/m²) who underwent bilateral breast reconstruction were included. Of the 62 free abdominal flaps, 45 (72.6%) and 17 (27.4%) were MS‐TRAM and DIEP flaps, respectively. The most common implant volume was 240 cc (range, 140‐445 cc). Following stage 1, minor and major complications were observed in nine (29%) and one (3.2%) patients, respectively. No major complications were noted after stage 2. Of note, no patient developed mastectomy skin necrosis or requested a change in implant size following stage 2. Delayed‐immediate hybrid breast reconstruction improves the ability to more precisely match patient expectations related to breast size and is associated with a reduction in the rate of mastectomy skin necrosis following the critical second stage of reconstruction.     

Impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on rate of tissue expander/implant loss and progression to successful breast reconstruction following mastectomy

PURPOSE: We examined the frequency and causes of tissue expander (TE) and permanent implant (PI) reconstruction failure in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Charts were reviewed from 120 patients with clinical stage II/III breast cancer enrolled between 2004 and 2007 into a prospective clinical trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patient demographics, tobacco use, radiation treatment, and data relating to the loss of TE, as well as progression to PI and PI loss, were collected. RESULTS: Of 120 patients, 61 underwent 75 mastectomies. Twenty-six patients had 34 TEs placed at the time of mastectomy. Eleven (32%) TEs required removal prior to definitive reconstruction. Fourteen (41%) TEs successfully progressed to PI exchange. Four of the PIs required removal. TE loss occurred most frequently due to infection and extrusion. Radiation, smoking history, or elevated body mass index (BMI) did not significantly affect reconstruction loss. CONCLUSION: Thirty-eight percent of immediate TEs or PI placements at the time of mastectomy failed to progress to definitive reconstruction in patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy, suggesting that reconstruction with TEs or PI reconstruction should be used cautiously in this patient population.     

Operative risk stratification in the obese female undergoing implant‐based breast reconstruction

The prevalence of obesity is growing, and breast reconstruction in the obese patient is becoming the norm rather than the exception. Our aim was to evaluate implant reconstruction outcomes in the obese female in the presence of coincident surgical risk factors and identify potential risk‐reducing interventions. A review of consecutive obese women (BMI ≥ 30) who underwent mastectomy and implant breast reconstruction was performed. Patient demographics, comorbidities, oncologic treatments, and reconstructive procedures and their complications were recorded. A total of 151 women (242 breast reconstructions) were included with mean follow‐up of 28 months. Average BMI was 36. Eighty percent of cases were immediate and 20% delayed. ADMs were utilized in 58% of cases. About 25% of patients had diabetes with one‐third achieving perioperative glycemic control. About 18% of women were active smokers, and 33% had radiotherapy. Major and minor complications occurred in 42% and 11% of patients, respectively. About 24% of reconstructed breasts required implant removal. Obese patients with prior radiation were three times as likely to develop infection (P = 0.008) and 2.5× as likely to undergo explantation (P = 0.002). Skin flap necrosis was three times as likely in obese smokers (P = 0.01). Increased rates of wound breakdown were identified in obese patients with increasing age (P = 0.005), smoking (P = 0.0035), and radiation (P = 0.023). In the obese radiated and smoking patient subgroups, surgical modifications (use of autologous tissue, delayed breast reconstruction timing, and no ADM) were associated with reduction in the relative risk for implant complications. While obesity alone increases implant breast reconstruction complication rates, the presence of additional risk factors compounds these rates. The use of surgical modifications may reduce the occurrence of perioperative complications in the obese female with coincident surgical risk factors undergoing implant breast reconstruction.     

Oncoplastic Mammoplasty as a Strategy for Reducing Reconstructive Complications Associated with Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy

Given the high complication rates in patients who require radiation therapy (XRT) after mastectomy and immediate reconstruction, and the low local recurrence rates following neo‐adjuvant chemotherapy and breast conservation therapy, we sought to determine if using neo‐adjuvant chemotherapy and oncoplastic mammoplasty as an alternative to mastectomy and immediate reconstruction is an effective strategy for reducing complication rates in the setting of XRT. A prospectively maintained data base was queried for patients who received neo‐adjuvant chemotherapy and XRT between 2001 and 2010 and underwent either oncoplastic mammoplasty or mastectomy with immediate reconstruction. Rates of postoperative complications between groups were compared using Fisher's exact test. Outcomes from 37 patients who underwent oncoplastic mammoplasty were compared to 64 patients who underwent mastectomy with immediate reconstruction. Mean follow‐up was 33 months (range 4–116 months). Rates of postoperative complications, including unplanned operative intervention for a reconstructive complication (2.7% versus 37.5%, p < 0.001), skin flap necrosis (10.8% versus 29.7%, p = 0.05), and infection (16.2% versus 35.9, p = 0.04) were significantly higher in the mastectomy group. Overall, 45.3% of patients who underwent mastectomy developed at least one breast complication, compared to 18.9% of patients who underwent oncoplastic mammoplasty (p = 0.01). If XRT is indicated after mastectomy, attempts should be made to achieve breast conservation through the use of neo‐adjuvant therapy and oncoplastic surgery in order to optimize surgical outcomes. Breast conservation with oncoplastic reconstruction does not compromise oncologic outcome, but significantly reduces complications compared to postmastectomy reconstruction followed by XRT.     

Psychosocial and Sexual Well‐Being Following Nipple‐Sparing Mastectomy and Reconstruction

Nipple‐sparing mastectomy (NSM) is considered an oncologically safe option for select patients. As many patients are candidates for nipple‐sparing or skin‐sparing mastectomy (SSM), reliable patient‐reported outcome data are crucial for decision‐making. The objective of this study was to determine whether patient satisfaction and/or health‐related quality of life (HRQOL) were improved by preservation of the nipple with NSM compared to SSM and nipple reconstruction. Subjects were identified from a prospectively maintained database of patients who completed the BREAST‐Q following mastectomy and breast reconstruction between March and October 2011 at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Fifty‐two patients underwent NSM followed by immediate expander‐implant reconstruction. A comparison group consisted of 202 patients who underwent SSM followed by immediate expander‐implant reconstruction and later nipple reconstruction. HRQOL and satisfaction domains as measured by BREAST‐Q scores were compared in multivariate linear regression analyzes that controlled for potential confounding factors. NSM patients reported significantly higher scores in the psychosocial (p = 0.01) and sexual well‐being (p = 0.02) domains compared to SSM patients. There was no significant difference in the BREAST‐Q physical well‐being, satisfaction with breast, or satisfaction with outcome domains between the NSM and SSM groups. NSM is associated with higher psychosocial and sexual well‐being compared to SSM and nipple reconstruction. Preoperative discussion of such HRQOL outcomes with patients may facilitate informed decision‐making and realistic postoperative expectations.     

Socioeconomic and Geographic Differences in Immediate Reconstruction after Mastectomy in the United States

Disparities are evident in breast cancer diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes. This study examines multiple socioeconomic and geographic regions across the US to determine if disparities exist in the type of reconstruction obtained after mastectomy. This is a retrospective study evaluating socioeconomic and geographic variables of 14,764 women who underwent mastectomy in 2008 using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS). Statistical analysis was performed on three groups of women: patients without reconstruction (NR), patients who underwent breast implant/tissue expander reconstruction (TE), and patients with autologous reconstruction such as free or pedicled flaps (FLAP). The majority of patients (63.9%) had NR, while 23.9% had TE and 12.2% underwent FLAP. Compared to patients with NR, women with TE or FLAP were younger (64.9 years versus 51.3 and 51.1 years, p < 0.001), had fewer chronic conditions (2.60 and 2.54 chronic conditions for TE and FLAP respectively versus 3.85 for NR, p < 0.001) and higher mean hospital charges ($42,850 TE and $48,680 FLAP versus $22,300 NR, p < 0.001). Both Medicare and Medicaid insurance carriers had a higher proportion of women that did not get reconstructed compared to other insurance types (p < 0.001). Compared to NR, reconstructed women more often lived in urban areas and zip codes with higher average incomes (p < 0.001). This is the first national study analyzing insurance type and geographic variations to show statistically significant disparities in rate and type of immediate reconstruction after mastectomy. These inequalities need to be addressed to extend immediate reconstruction options to all women undergoing mastectomy.     

Is Unilateral Implant or Autologous Breast Reconstruction Better in Obtaining Breast Symmetry?

Unilateral breast reconstruction poses a special set of challenges to the reconstructive breast surgeon compared to bilateral reconstructions. No studies to date provide an objective comparison between autologous and implant based reconstructions in matching the contralateral breast. This study compares the quantitative postoperative results between unilateral implant and autologous flap reconstructions in matching the native breast in shape, size, and projection using three‐dimensional (3D) imaging. Sixty‐four patients who underwent unilateral mastectomy with tissue expander (TE)‐implant (n = 34) or autologous microvascular free transverse rectus abdominus myocutaneous (TRAM; n = 18) or deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP; n = 12) flap (n = 30) reconstruction from 2007 to 2010 were analyzed. Key patient demographics and risk factors were collected. Using 3D scans of patients obtained during pre and postoperative visits including over 1 year follow‐ups for both groups, 3D models were constructed and analyzed for total breast volume, anterior‐posterior projection from the chest wall, and 3D comparison. No significant differences in mean age, body mass index, or total number of reconstructive surgeries were observed between the two groups (TE‐implant: 52.2 ± 10, 23.9 ± 3.7, 3 ± 0.9; autologous: 50.7 ± 9.4, 25.4 ± 3.9, 2.9 ± 1.3; p > 0.05). The total volume difference between the reconstructed and contralateral breasts in the TE‐implant group was insignificant: 27.1 ± 22.2 cc, similar to the autologous group: 29.5 ± 24.7 cc, as was the variance of breast volume from the mean. In both groups, the reconstructed breast had a larger volume. A‐P projections were similar between the contralateral and the reconstructed breasts in the TE‐implant group: 72.5 ± 3.21 mm versus 71.7 ± 3.5 mm (p > 0.05). The autologous reconstructed breast had statistically insignificant but less A‐P projection compared to the contralateral breast (81.9 ± 16.1 mm versus 61.5 ± 9.5 mm; p > 0.05). Variance of A‐P projection from the mean was additionally insignificant between the contralateral and reconstructed breasts. Both groups produced similar asymmetry scores based on global 3D comparison (TE‐implant: 2.24 ± 0.3 mm; autologous: 1.96 ± 0.2 mm; p > 0.05). Lastly, when the autologous group was further subdivided into TRAM and DIEP cohorts, no significant differences in breast volume, A‐P projection or symmetry existed. Using 3D imaging, we demonstrate that both TE‐implant and autologous reconstruction can achieve symmetrical surgical results with the same number of operations. This study demonstrates that breast symmetry, while an important consideration in the breast reconstruction algorithm, should not be the sole consideration in a patient’ decision to proceed with autologous versus TE‐implant reconstruction.     

Risk of breast implant removal after one- versus two-stage breast reconstructive surgery

BackgroundTo date, both one- and two-stage techniques are used in immediate ‘implant-based breast reconstruction’ (IBBR) after mastectomy. Because it is still unknown what technique offers the best clinical outcomes, a multicenter retrospective study was conducted to compare both breast reconstruction techniques.MethodsAll patients, who underwent a mastectomy followed by immediate one- or two-stage IBBR during 2010 - 2016 were included. Our primary outcome measure was explantation of the ‘tissue expander’ (TE) and/ or implants within 60 days after breast reconstruction. Secondary outcomes were overall complication rate and secondary corrections.FindingsAmong a total of 383 women, TE/ implant explantation rate was higher in one-stage (19.9%) than in two-stage (11.3%) treated patients (p = 0.082). Overall complication rate (35.7% and 19.9% respectively, p = 0.008) and secondary corrections (29.8% and 20.3% respectively, p = 0.156) were also higher in one-stage compared to two-stage IBBR respectively. However, explantation (OR = 1.55; 95%CI = 0.67-3.58, p = 0.301) and complication (OR = 1.85; 95%CI = 0.92-3.37, p = 0.084) rates were comparable in one- and two-stage IBBR in our stratified multivariate logistic regression analyses, when controlling for history of smoking, nipple-sparing mastectomy, neoadjuvant radiation therapy, and removed breast tissue weight. A remarkable outcome in this study is that women treated with prophylactic surgery were more likely to have an explantation of the TE/ implant after a one-stage IBBR (OR = 4.49; 95%CI = 1.10-18.3, p = 0.037) than two-stage IBBR. In contrast, no association between type of IBBR and risk of TE/implants removal was found among women with a therapeutic mastectomy (OR = 0.82; 95%CI = 0.24-2.79, p =  = 0.74).ConclusionOne- and two-stage IBBR showed a comparable explantation and complication rate in our retrospective study. In one-stage IBBR more secondary corrections were detected. In addition, women who have to decide on a prophylactic mastectomy should be aware of a significantly higher risk of explantation of their implant after one-stage IBBR.     

Long‐term complications and reconstruction failures in previously radiated breast cancer patients receiving salvage mastectomy with autologous reconstruction or tissue expander/implant‐based reconstruction

Salvage mastectomy (SM) is the standard of care for patients with local recurrence (LR) after breast conservation therapy (BCT), often with immediate reconstruction. Complications of reconstruction are a concern for these patients, and long‐term data are limited. We sought to compare rates of complications requiring re‐operation (CRR) and reconstruction failure (RF) between autologous reconstruction (AR) and tissue expander/implant reconstruction (TE/I). Patients with locally recurrent breast cancer after BCT, treated with SM and immediate AR or TE/I between 2000 and 2008, were identified. CRR was defined as unplanned return to operating room for wound infection, dehiscence, necrosis (including flap, skin, or fat), hematoma, or hernia (for AR) and extrusion, leak, or capsular contracture (for TE/I). RF was defined as conversion to another reconstruction technique or to flat chest wall. This study included 103 patients with 107 reconstructions. Median follow‐up was 6.6 years. CRR and RF were significantly higher with TE/I (n = 34) compared to AR (n = 73) at 5 years (50.9% vs 25.5%; P = 0.02) and (42.1% vs 5.8%; P < 0.001). On univariate analysis (UVA), TE/I (HR = 2.14; P = 0.02) and diabetes (HR = 5.10; P = 0.007) were significant predictors for CRR. On UVA, TE/I (HR = 7.30; P < 0.001) and older age at reconstruction (HR = 1.03; P = 0.003) were significant predictors for RF. In this population of previously irradiated patients, TE/I was associated with significantly higher CRR and RF. Complications continue to occur up to 10 years after TE/I. AR should be considered in appropriately selected patients, though TE/I may remain a reasonable option in patients without high‐risk factors for surgical complications.     

Reconstruction options and outcomes for breast sarcoma patients

Breast sarcomas constitute a rare and heterogeneous group of tumors. Given their aggressive nature and the potential for extensive resections, rates of reconstruction have been low. We retrospectively reviewed subjects derived from our institutional registry presented between 2003 and 2015. Thirty‐four patients with primary breast sarcoma were identified. The average age was 51.9 years and the average follow‐up was 58 months. The most common histological type was malignant phyllodes (61.8%). Two patients suffered cancer recurrence. Twelve patients (35.3%) underwent reconstruction. Four underwent implant‐based reconstruction, seven had autologous‐based reconstruction, and one had combined reconstruction. Major complications were one flap loss and one implant removal. Our relatively high rates of breast reconstruction suggest a newly increased willingness to offer reconstruction to this rarer patient population.     

Immediate Breast Reconstruction after mastectomy with polyurethane implants versus textured implants: A retrospective study with focus on capsular contracture

BackgroundCapsular contracture (CC) is the most common complication following Immediate Breast Reconstruction (IBR) with breast implants. Different implant surfaces were developed aiming to reduce the incidence of CC. We evaluated the incidence and degree of CC after Direct-to-Implant (DTI) IBR with insertion of textured (TE) or polyurethane (PU) covered implants.MethodsA retrospective review of consecutive patients treated at our Institution with mastectomy and one-stage IBR and implant reconstruction between 2013 and 2018, with or without post mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT), was conducted. Immediate breast reconstruction was performed by implanting 186 PU covered implants and 172 TE implants.ResultsThree-hundred-twelve women underwent 358 DTI IBR with PU or TE implants, were analyzed with a median follow-up time of 2.3 years (range 1.0–3.0). The overall rate of CC Baker grade III and IV was 11.8% (95%CI: 8.4–16.3), while, after PU and TE implant placement it was 8.1% (95% CI: 4.1–15.7) and 15.8% (95% CI: 4.1–15.7) [p = 0.009]), respectively. Irradiated breasts developed CC more frequently rather than non-irradiated breasts (HR = 12.5, p < 0.001), and the relative risk was higher in the TE group compared with the PU group (HR = 0.3, p = 0.003).ConclusionsAfter mastectomy and one-stage IBR, the use of PU covered implants is associated with a lower incidence of CC compared to TE implants. This advantage is amplified several folds for patients who necessitate PMRT. Footnote: Capsular contracture (CC); Immediate Breast Reconstruction (IBR); Directto- Implant (DTI); Textured (TE); Polyurethane (PU); Post mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT); Nipple Sparing mastectomy (NSM).     

Does immediate breast reconstruction compromise the delivery of adjuvant chemotherapy?

BackgroundImmediate breast reconstruction (IBR) provides psychological benefit to many early breast cancer patients however concerns persist regarding its potential impact on chemotherapy delivery. We investigated the association between IBR, complications and adjuvant chemotherapy delivery.MethodRetrospective analysis of patients in an academic breast service, who underwent mastectomy, with or without reconstruction, and received adjuvant chemotherapy.ResultsComparisons were made between 107 patients who received IBR and 113 who received mastectomy alone. Those receiving IBR were on average younger, with lower body mass index (BMI) and better prognoses. Overall complication rates were comparable (mastectomy alone: 45.1% versus IBR: 35.5%, p = 0.2). There was more return to surgery in the IBR group with 11.5% of tissue expanders requiring removal, whilst more seromas occurred in the mastectomy group. There was no significant difference in the median time to chemotherapy.ConclusionWe found no evidence that IBR compromised the delivery of adjuvant chemotherapy, although there was a significant incidence of implant infection.     

保留NAC的改良根治术并一期乳房重建术治疗早期乳腺癌的临床效果

目的:探讨保留乳头乳晕复合体(NAC)的乳腺癌改良根治术并一期乳房重建术治疗早期乳腺癌的安全性及可行性。方法:将2010-2014年乳腺癌患者170例,根据患者意愿分别行保留NAC的乳腺癌改良根治术并一期乳房重建术(观察组,102例),与未保留NAC的皮下乳腺癌改良根治术(对照组,68例)。比较两组术后相关指标、患者对乳房重建的满意度、生活质量情况及随访期间不良事件以及复发、转移发生率。结果:两组术后创面引流时间及引流量无统计学意义差异(均P0.05)。观察组患者术后满意率(97.06%vs.51.47%)、FACT总评分(150.89±25.34)vs.(100.24±18.47)、生活质量高水平率(83.33%vs.51.47%)均高于对照组(均P0.05)。两组不良事件发生率、远处转移率及复发率相似,组间无统计学差异(均P0.05)。结论:保留NAC的改良根治术并一期乳房重建术治疗早期乳腺癌安全、可行,且在术后美学效果、改善患者生活质量方面明显优于未保留NAC的皮下乳腺癌改良根治术。     

Reconstrucción mamaria inmediata mediante implante prepectoral de poliuretano. Resultados preliminares del estudio prospectivo PreQ-20

IntroductionIn recent years, mastectomy and reconstruction techniques have evolved towards less aggressive procedures, improving the satisfaction and quality of life of women. For this reason, mastectomy has become a valid option for both women with breast cancer and high-risk women. The objective of this study is to analyze the safety of mastectomy and immediate prepectoral reconstruction with polyurethane implant in women with breast cancer and risk reduction.MethodObservational prospective study to evaluate the feasibility and safety of immediate reconstruction using prepectoral polyurethane implant. All women (with breast cancer or high risk for breast cancer) who underwent skin-sparing or skin-and-nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate reconstruction with a prepectoral polyurethane implant were included. Women with breast sarcomas, disease progression during primary systemic therapy, delayed, autologous or retropectoral reconstruction, and those who did not wish to participate in the study were excluded. Surgical procedures were performed by both senior and junior surgeons. All patients received the corresponding complementary treatments. All adverse events that occurred during follow-up and the risk factors for developing them were analyzed.Results159 reconstructions were performed in 102 women, 80.4% due to breast carcinoma. Fourteen patients developed complications, the most frequent being seroma and wound dehiscence. Eight women required a reoperation (5.0%), seven of them due to implant exposure. Four reconstructions (2.5%) resulted in loss of the implant. Three patients progressed from their oncological process: a local relapse in the mastectomy flap, an axillary progression and a systemic progression.ConclusionsPrepectoral reconstruction with a polyurethane implant is a procedure with a low incidence of postoperative complications (8.8%) and implant loss (2.5%). Its use is safe with perioperative cancer treatments (neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy).     

Breast reconstruction after mastectomy: A ten-year analysis of trends and immediate postoperative outcomes

The landscape of breast reconstruction has changed significantly. This study assesses trends in type of reconstruction performed after mastectomy and impact on immediate postoperative complications.MethodsData for 67,450 patients undergoing mastectomy for breast cancer were analyzed using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database for years 2005-2014. Primary outcomes were wound, nonwound related infections, and bleeding complications. Data were analyzed by univariate and multivariate analysis.ResultsThe percentage of patients that underwent reconstruction after breast cancer increased from 26.94% in 2005 to 43.30% in 2014 (p < 0.01). There was increased wound (5.59%), bleeding (6.82%), and infection (1.80%) complications after flap-based reconstruction (p < 0.01). There was no difference in wound, infection, and bleeding complications between immediate implant reconstruction and tissue expander (TE) at 4.38 vs. 3.89% (p = 0.18), 0.82 vs. 0.7%, p = 0.46), and 0.76 vs. 0.64% (p = 0.45), respectively. Several independent factors were associated with increased wound complications in patients undergoing all or any forms of reconstruction after mastectomy such as being overweight (OR 1.38, CI 1.23–1.55), obese (OR 2.11, CI 1.89–2.35), morbidly obese (OR 3.84, CI 3.34-4.43), ASA Class III (OR 1.35, CI 1.08-1.69), ASA Class IV (OR 1.49, 1.06-2.10), diabetic (OR 1.28 , CI 1.14–1.43), and smokers (OR 1.76, CI 1.59–1.94). TRAM flap was associated with increased risk of wound complication (OR 1.87, CI 1.28–2.75).ConclusionMore women are undergoing reconstruction as utilization of TE increases drastically. Immediate implant placement has only seen moderate increase likely due to surgeon preference.     

Patterns of care and predictors of adjuvant radiation therapy in phyllodes tumor of the breast

Patterns of care, utilization, and predictors of adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) for phyllodes tumors of the breast were retrospectively analyzed using the National Cancer Database. We identified 3080 patients; 53.4% received lumpectomy and 35.9% mastectomy. 25.9% of patients had lymph node sampling or dissection. 23.2% received adjuvant RT, which doubled in utilization over a decade. Predictors of RT were younger age, fewer comorbidities, less favorable pathologic features, and treatment at academic centers. There was no association between RT and overall survival (AHR 1.21, 95% CI 0.97‐1.53, P = .097). Despite national guidelines recommending against nodal sampling or RT, it remains prevalent. Further research on indications for adjuvant radiation for phyllodes is needed.     

Proton beam therapy reirradiation for breast cancer: Multi‐institutional prospective PCG registry analysis

To investigate adverse events (AEs, CTCAE v4.0) and clinical outcomes for proton beam therapy (PBT) reirradiation (reRT) for breast cancer. From 2011 to 2016, 50 patients received PBT reRT for breast cancer in the prospective Proton Collaborative Group (PCG) registry. Acute AEs occurred within 180 days from start of reRT. Late AEs began or persisted beyond 180 days. Fisher's exact and Mann‐Whitney rank‐sum tests were utilized. Kaplan‐Meier methods were used to estimate overall survival (OS) and local recurrence‐free survival (LFRS). Median follow‐up was 12.7 months (0‐41.8). Median prior RT dose was 60 Gy (10‐96.7). Median reRT dose was 55.1 Gy (45.1‐76.3). Median cumulative dose was 110.6 Gy (70.6‐156.8). Median interval between RT courses was 103.8 months (5.5‐430.8). ReRT included regional nodes in 84% (66% internal mammary node [IMN]). Surgery included the following: 44% mastectomy, 22% wide local excision, 6% lumpectomy, 2% reduction mammoplasty, and 26% no surgery. Grade 3 AEs were experienced by 16% of patients (10% acute, 8% late) and were associated with body mass index (BMI) > 30 kg/m² (P = 0.04), bilateral recurrence (P = 0.02), and bilateral reRT (P = 0.004). All grade 3 AEs occurred in patients receiving IMN reRT (P = 0.08). At 1 year, LRFS was 93%, and OS was 97%. Patients with gross disease at time of PBT trended toward worse 1‐year LRFS (100% without vs. 84% with, P = 0.06). PBT reRT is well tolerated with favorable local control. BMI > 30, bilateral disease, and IMN reRT were associated with grade 3 AEs. Toxicity was acceptable despite median cumulative dose > 110 Gy.