Oncoplastic reduction mammaplasty, an effective and safe method of breast conservation

Complications after Oncoplastic Breast Reduction and Impact on Time to Adjuvant Therapy

Background

Although lumpectomy with oncoplastic breast reduction (OBR) improves cosmetic results and ameliorates symptomatic macromastia, associated complications may delay adjuvant therapy.

Methods

This was a single-institution, retrospective study of OBRs (2015-2021). A major complication was defined as need for IV antibiotics, and/or operation under general anesthesia. Association of complications with delay to adjuvant therapy (chemotherapy, radiation) was assessed.

Results

In total, 282 patients were included. The major complication rate was 3.9%, and overall complication rate was 31.2%. The most common complication was incisional dehiscence (23.4%). Body mass index [BMI >35 (P < 0.0001)], diabetes (P = 0.02), and HgbA1c [>6.5 (P = 0.0002)] were significantly associated with having a major complication. The occurrence of any complication was associated with a delay in time to radiation (median 7 versus 8 weeks, P < 0.001). The occurrence of a major complication was associated with a more meaningful delay to radiation (median 7 versus 15 weeks, P = 0.002). Occurrence of any complication, or a major complication, was not associated with delay to chemotherapy.

Conclusions

The overall complication rate observed after OBR falls within the range reported in the literature. Patients with a BMI more than 35, diabetes, and/or HgbA1c more than 6.5 were at increased risk for a major complication, which was associated with a meaningful delay to radiation. Consideration may be given to partial mastectomy alone without oncoplastic reduction in patients with small tumors when the priority to avoid radiation delay is high (eg, high-risk tumors), or the risk of delay is high (eg, diabetic or BMI >35).

Oncoplastic Breast Reduction: A Systematic Review of Postoperative Complications

Background

Breast-conserving therapy with oncoplastic reduction is a useful strategy for partial mastectomy defect reconstruction. The most recently published systematic review of oncoplastic breast reduction outcomes from 2015 showed wound dehiscence in 4.3%, hematoma in 0.9%, infection in 2.8%, and nipple necrosis in 0.9% of patients. We performed a systematic review of oncoplastic breast reduction literature, comparing outcomes and complication rates reported over the past 8 years.

Methods

Studies describing the use of oncoplastic breast reduction and discussion of postoperative complications were included. The primary outcome assessed was the postoperative complication rate; secondary outcomes analyzed were rates of margin expansion, completion mastectomy, and delays in adjuvant therapy due to complications.

Results

Nine articles met inclusion criteria, resulting in 1715 oncoplastic breast reduction patients. The mean rate of hematoma was 3%, nipple necrosis was 2%, dehiscence was 4%, infection was 3%, and seroma was 2%. The need for re-excision of margins occurred in 8% of patients, and completion mastectomy in 2%. Finally, delay in adjuvant treatment due to a postoperative complication occurred in 4% of patients.

Conclusions

Oncoplastic breast reduction is an excellent option for many patients undergoing breast-conserving therapy; however, postoperative complications can delay adjuvant radiation therapy. Results of this systematic literature review over the past 8 years showed a slight increase in complication rate compared to the most recent systematic review from 2015. With increased popularity and surgeon familiarity, oncoplastic breast reduction remains a viable option for reconstruction of partial mastectomy defects despite a slight increase in complication rate.

The no-vertical scar technique for oncoplastic breast reconstruction

INTRODUCTION

Oncoplastic reconstruction can optimize breast conserving therapy. Nipple loss is a concern in patients with significant ptosis and breast hypertrophy particularly with pedicle undermining during tumor resection. The modified Robertson technique (No-Vertical Scar reduction) has been previously described for breast reduction in large, ptotic patients using a wide, bell-shaped inferior pedicle with only inframammary fold and peri‑areolar incisions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the No-Vertical Scar (NVS) technique applied to oncoplastic reconstruction.

METHODS

Women undergoing oncoplastic breast reduction using a NVS, Wise, or Vertical method were assessed. Predictive variables included patient demographics, comorbidities, and sternal notch to nipple (SNN) distance. Outcome variables were delayed wound healing, surgical site infection, seroma, fat necrosis, nipple necrosis, use of a free nipple graft, and time between surgery and adjuvant radiation.

RESULTS

Fifty patients met inclusion criteria using NVS (N = 15), Wise (N = 16), and Vertical (N = 19) methods. The NVS group had a significantly higher BMI (p=.009), greater sternal notch to nipple distance (p=<0.001) and increased resection volume (p=<0.001) as compared to Wise and Vertical groups. There was no significant difference in complications (p=.25). No nipple necrosis occurred, and no free nipple grafts were required.

CONCLUSION

The NVS approach is a useful technique for oncoplastic reconstruction in select patients with macromastia and severe Grade II or Grade III ptosis. The wide, bell-shaped pedicle is versatile for obliterating a lumpectomy cavity and optimizing nipple perfusion if pedicle undermining occurs during resection.

Comparing costs of standard Breast-Conserving Surgery to Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery and Mastectomy with Immediate two-stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Conventional breast-conserving surgery (C-BCS) has equal oncological outcomes and superior cosmetic and patient-reported outcomes compared to mastectomy with immediate two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction (M-IBR). Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OP-BCS) is increasingly being used, as it often has better cosmetic results and it enables larger tumour resection. However, OP-BCS and M-IBR compared to C-BCS lengthens operative time and might lead to more complications and consequently to additional costs. Therefore, this study aimed to compare costs and complication rates of C-BCS, OP-BCS and M-IBR.

METHODS

This single-centre, retrospective cohort study, calculated costs for all patients who had undergone breast cancer surgery between January 2014 and December 2016. Patient-, tumour- and surgery-related data of C-BCS, OP-BCS and M-IBR patients were retrieved by medical record review. Treatment costs were calculated using hospital financial data. Differences in costs and complications were analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 220 patients were included: 74 patients in the C-BCS, 78 in the OP-BCS and 68 in the M-IBR group. From most expensive to least expensive, differences in total costs were found between C-BCS vs. OP-BCS and C-BCS vs. M-IBR (p=<0.01 and p=0.04, respectively). Costs of OP-BCS and M-IBR were comparable. Complication rates were 5.5% for C-BCS, followed by 17% for OP-BCS, and 34% for M-IBR (p<0.01).

CONCLUSION

Considering total treatment costs, OP-BCS was financially non-inferior to M-IBR, whereas complication rates were higher following M-IBR. Therefore, when considering other benefits of OP-BCS, such as higher patient-reported outcomes and similar oncological outcomes, a shift from M-IBR to BCS using oncoplastic techniques seems justified.

Outcome reporting in therapeutic mammaplasty: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic mammaplasty (TM) is an oncological procedure which combines tumour resection with breast reduction and mastopexy techniques. Previous systematic reviews have demonstrated the oncological safety of TM but reporting of critically important outcomes, such as quality of life, aesthetic and functional outcomes, are limited, piecemeal or inconsistent. This systematic review aimed to identify all outcomes reported in clinical studies of TM to facilitate development of a core outcome set.

METHODS

Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science were searched from inception to 5 August 2020. Included studies reported clinical outcomes following TM for adult women. Two authors screened articles independently for eligibility. Data were extracted regarding the outcome definition and classification type (for example, oncological, quality of life, etc.), time of outcome reporting and measurement tools.

RESULTS

Of 5709 de-duplicated records, 148 were included in the narrative synthesis. The majority of studies (n = 102, 68.9 per cent) reported measures of survival and/or recurrence; approximately three-quarters (n = 75, 73.5 per cent) had less than 5 years follow-up. Aesthetic outcome was reported in half of studies (n = 75, 50.7 per cent) using mainly subjective, non-validated measurement tools. The time point at which aesthetic assessment was conducted was highly variable, and only defined in 48 (64.0 per cent) studies and none included a preoperative baseline for comparison. Few studies reported quality of life (n = 30, 20.3 per cent), functional outcomes (n = 5, 3.4 per cent) or resource use (n = 28, 18.9 per cent).

CONCLUSION

Given the oncological equivalence of TM and mastectomy, treatment decisions are often driven by aesthetic and functional outcomes, which are infrequently and inconsistently reported with non-validated measurement tools.

Comparative study of surgical and oncological outcomes in oncoplastic versus non oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer treatment

Background: Oncoplastic surgery has been increasingly used in breast cancer treatment and allows the performance of breast-conserving surgery in cases of larger tumors with unfavorable location or tumor-breast disproportion. Purpose: To compare surgical and oncological outcomes of patients undergoing oncoplastic and nononcoplastic breast-conserving surgery. Methods: Retrospective cohort study with convenience sampling of 866 patients who consecutively underwent breast-conserving surgery from 2011 to 2015. Results: The mean follow-up was 50.4 months. Nononcoplastic breast conservation surgery was performed on 768 (88.7%) patients and oncoplastic surgery on 98 (11.3%) patients. Patients in the oncoplastic group were younger (p<0.0001) and most were premenopausal (p<0.0001). Comorbidities such as diabetes (p=0.003) and hypertension (p=0.0001) were less frequent in this population. Invasive carcinoma >2 cm (p<0.0001), multifocality (p=0.004), ductal in situ carcinoma (p=0.0007), clinically positive axilla (p=0.004), and greater weight of surgical specimens (p<0.0001) were more frequent in the oncoplastic group. A second surgery for margin re-excision was more frequently performed in the nononcoplastic group (p=0.027). There was more scar dehiscence in the oncoplastic group (p<0.001), but there was no difference in early major complications (p=0.854), conversion to mastectomy (p=0.92), or local recurrence (p=0.889). Conclusion: Although used for the treatment of larger and multifocal tumors, surgical re-excisions were performed less often in the oncoplastic group, and there was no increase in conversion to mastectomy or local recurrence. In spite of the higher rate of overall complications in the oncoplastic group, major complications were similar in both groups.

Improving Results in Oncoplastic Surgery

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After studying this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Describe the risks, benefits, and safety profile of oncoplastic procedures for partial breast reconstruction, and how they compare to breast conservation-therapy alone. 2. Have a working knowledge of oncoplastic techniques and how they are addressed from the multidisciplinary perspective. 3. Understand the limitations of oncoplastic techniques and how to avoid unfavorable results.

SUMMARY

Oncoplastic surgical techniques have expanded indications for breast conservation and have improved both oncologic and reconstructive outcomes. This article will focus on some of the barriers to adoption and discuss ways to improve safety through streamlining the process, understanding the oncologic concerns, and evaluating unfavorable outcomes that might interfere with the appropriate delivery of breast cancer care.

Oncoplastic breast-conserving therapy and intraoperative radiotherapy for management of carcinoma in situ of the breast: A single-center experience

Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) has been shown to reduce local recurrence rates among women with early-stage invasive ductal carcinoma, but data regarding its use among women with in situ carcinoma are limited. In this single-institution study, 50 women with in situ carcinoma were treated with oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OPS) and single-dose IORT. All 50 patients had "no tumor on ink," but 9 (16%) had margins < 2 mm and required additional therapy. No local recurrences were observed after a median follow-up of 46 months. Single-dose IORT is an efficacious treatment for well-selected patients with DCIS.

Cosmetic Outcomes Following Breast-Conservation Surgery and Radiation for Multiple Ipsilateral Breast Cancer: Data from the Alliance Z11102 Study

BACKGROUND

Diagnoses of multiple ipsilateral breast cancer (MIBC) are increasing. Historically, the primary treatment for MIBC has been mastectomy due to concerns about in-breast recurrence risk and poor cosmetic outcome. The Alliance Z11102 study prospectively assessed cosmetic outcomes in women with MIBC treated with breast-conserving therapy (BCT).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Z11102 was a multicenter trial enrolling women with two or three separate sites of biopsy-proven malignancy separated by ≥ 2 cm within the same breast. Cosmetic outcome was a planned secondary endpoint. Data were collected with a four-point cosmesis survey (1 = excellent, 4 = poor) and the BREAST-Q (scored 0-100). All patients undergoing successful breast-conserving therapy were treated with whole-breast radiation. Associations were assessed with Chi square or Fisher's exact tests as appropriate.

RESULTS

Cosmetic outcome data for 216 eligible women who completed therapy are included in this analysis. Of the 136 patients who completed the survey 2 years postoperatively, 70.6% (N = 96) felt the result was good or excellent, while 3.7% (N = 5) felt the result was poor. We found no significant differences in patient-reported cosmetic outcomes when stratifying by patient age, number of lesions (two or three), number of incisions, number of lumpectomies, or size of largest area of disease. Mean satisfaction score on the BREAST-Q was 77.2 at 6 months following whole-breast radiation and 73.7 at 3 years following surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

BCT performed for MIBC results in good or excellent cosmesis for the majority of women. From a cosmetic perspective, BCT is a valid surgical approach to women with MIBC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01556243.

Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery: Can We Reduce Rates of Mastectomy and Chemotherapy Use in Patients with Traditional Indications for Mastectomy?

INTRODUCTION

Traditional indications for mastectomy include multiple ipsilateral lesions and/or disease spanning ≥ 5 cm. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy increases breast conservation but does not improve survival. We hypothesized that oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OPS) may allow for breast conservation while providing full staging and tumor profiling information to guide systemic therapy decisions, thereby permitting more judicious chemotherapy use.

METHODS

This was an observational cohort of patients with invasive breast cancer with multiple lesions and/or disease spanning ≥ 5 cm who underwent OPS from 2012 to 2018. Clinicopathologic features, mastectomy rate, chemotherapy use, and recurrence were evaluated.

RESULTS

Overall, 100 patients were identified. Average disease span was 62.8 ± 20.1 mm, with an average of 2.9 lesions (range 1-13). 'No ink on tumor' was achieved at the index operation in 80 patients; 13 patients underwent completion mastectomy to achieve adequate margins. Eighty-one patients completed radiation therapy. Breast conservation was possible in 50/58 (86%) patients who did not receive chemotherapy. Forty-two patients received chemotherapy (8 neoadjuvant, 34 adjuvant), of whom 37 (88%) achieved breast conservation. Twenty-six patients with high-risk features received adjuvant chemotherapy. Oncotype DX testing demonstrated the need for chemotherapy in an additional eight patients. After a median follow-up of 40 months, four patients had a local recurrence, including two who declined radiation therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

OPS can facilitate breast conservation in most patients with traditional indications for mastectomy. Additionally, OPS may reduce unnecessary chemotherapy, especially in patients who qualify for Oncotype DX testing. Further study evaluating long-term oncologic and cosmetic outcomes is warranted.

Extreme oncoplasty: Expanding indications for breast conservation

INTRODUCTION

Presence of multiple lesions and/or tumor span ≥5 cm are traditional indications for mastectomy. Patient desire for breast conservation has increased the interest in extreme oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (EOBCS) to avoid mastectomy; however, perioperative outcomes in this population have not been well described.

METHODS

This is an observational cohort of breast cancer patients with multiple lesions and disease span ≥5 cm who underwent EOBCS. Patient demographics, disease span, margin width, mastectomy and re-excision rates, and cosmesis were evaluated.

RESULTS

One hundred-eleven patients underwent EOBCS between 2012 and 2017. Eighty-two patients presented with multifocal or multicentric disease with an average of 3.2 lesions per breast spanning 57.1 ± 23.6 mm. Eighteen patients presented with unifocal tumors measuring an average of 67.6 mm (range 50-160 mm) on imaging. Eleven patients with an imaging size of <5 cm had a disease span ≥5 cm on final pathology. No tumor on ink occurred in 87 (78.3%) patients. Fifty-seven (51.4%) patients had additional surgery for inadequate margins. Fifteen (12.6%) patients elected to have mastectomy while 42 (37.8%) patients opted for re-excision. Good to excellent cosmetic results were reported in 95% of patients who ultimately achieved breast conservation. Recurrence rate was 1.1% in patients who completed EOBCS and adjuvant radiation therapy.

CONCLUSION

EOBCS can allow for breast conservation in patients who are traditionally counseled to undergo mastectomy. Although the re-excision rate was significant, most patients ultimately achieved breast conservation with adequate margins. Further study is warranted to determine the long-term oncologic outcomes of this approach.

Optimise not compromise: The importance of a multidisciplinary breast cancer patient pathway in the era of oncoplastic and reconstructive surgery

Modern breast cancer care is a complex multidisciplinary undertaking in which the integrated function of multiple constituent parts is critical, and where changes to one therapeutic component may profoundly influence the delivery and outcomes of another. Oncoplastic and reconstructive breast surgery has evolved in the era of longer survival rates for women with breast cancer and aims to enhance oncological and cosmetic outcomes. However, concurrently there has been an expansion in the indications for post-mastectomy radiation therapy (Abdulkarim et al., 2011; Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG), 2014; Poortmans et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2011), the recognition of several biologically distinct breast cancer subtypes (Perou et al., 2000; Sørlie et al., 2001, 2003; Cheang et al., 2008, 2009; Sotiriou et al., 2003; Millar et al., 2011; Blows et al., 2010; Schnitt, 2010; Haque et al., 2012; Dai et al., 2015) and the development of recommendations for prophylactic surgery for high-risk women, including BRCA-mutation carriers (James et al., 2006; Domchek et al., 2010). Primary systemic therapy is increasingly utilised yet has varying efficacy depending on tumour biology (Cortazar et al., 2014). In this paper we review the evidence which informs the multidisciplinary team opinion in the era of oncoplastic and reconstructive breast surgery. We aim to describe an optimal multidisciplinary approach which balances competing risks of multimodal therapies to optimise oncological and cosmetic outcomes.

Breast cancer recurrence after reconstruction: know thine enemy

Breast reconstruction proceeding cancer treatment carries risk, regardless of the type of surgery. From fat grafting, to flap placement, to implants, there is no guarantee that reconstruction will not stimulate breast cancer recurrence. Research in this field is clearly divided into two parts: scientific interventional studies and clinical retrospective evidence. The reconstructive procedure offers hypoxia, a wound microenvironment, bacterial load, adipose derived stem cells; agents shown experimentally to cause increased cancer cell activity. This is compelling scientific evidence which serves to bring uncertainty and fear to the reconstructive procedure. In the absence of clinical evidence, this laboratory literature landscape is now informing surgical choices. Curiously, clinical studies have not shown a clear link between breast cancer recurrence and reconstructive surgery. Where does that leave us? This review aims to analyze the science and the surgery, thereby understanding the oncological fear which accompanies breast cancer reconstruction.