Immediate breast reconstruction with prostheses after conservative treatment plus intraoperative radiotherapy. Long term esthetic and oncological outcomes

Is Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy Indicated after Previous Breast Surgery? A Series of 387 Institutional Cases

BACKGROUND

Previous breast surgery does not represent an absolute contraindication for nipple-sparing mastectomy, although it may negatively interfere with surgical outcomes. The aim of the authors' study was to confirm the feasibility of nipple-sparing mastectomy after previous breast surgery, focusing on skin incisions and risk factors, complications, and oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively identified 368 patients who underwent 387 nipple-sparing mastectomies and reconstruction after previous surgery (quadrantectomy, breast resection, augmentation and reduction mammaplasty, mastopexy) at the European Institute of Oncology from January of 2003 to November of 2017. Patterns of skin incisions (i.e., radial, hemiperiareolar, periareolar, vertical pattern, inframammary fold, Wise-pattern, and round-block) for primary surgery and for mastectomy, type of reconstruction, and radiotherapy have been recorded. The authors collected data regarding early and late complications and further operations (implant change, fat grafting) performed within 2 years to improve cosmetic outcomes. Oncologic follow-up has been reported for in-breast recurrences.

RESULTS

Complete and partial nipple-areola complex necrosis occurred, respectively, in 2.8 percent and in 5.4 percent of cases. The authors recorded 5.4 percent failures resulting in implant removal. The analysis of risk factors for complications or for the need for further operations showed no significant association with skin incision for first surgery and mastectomy, use of the same skin incision, previous radiotherapy, or type of primary surgery. Five-year overall survival and disease-free survival were 99.1 and 93.8 percent, respectively. No nipple recurrence was recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors' results confirm that nipple-sparing mastectomy can be a safe surgical procedure after previous breast surgery. Surgical planning should be tailored to each patient.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Current Trends in the Oncologic and Surgical Managements of Breast Cancer in Women with Implants: Incidence, Diagnosis, and Treatment

Breast augmentation is the most common cosmetic surgery in the United States, and thousands of augmented patients develop breast cancer each year. The possible effects of implants on cancer incidence, diagnosis, and treatment usually generate a disarming confusion. The present paper represents an update of the more recent oncologic and surgical strategies, aiming to support plastic and general surgeons in such challenging aspects. Several aspects of breast cancer management in augmented women are investigated, including (1) risk estimation and cancer characteristics, stage at diagnosis, and prognosis; (2) cancer diagnosis with clinical examination, mammography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging; (3) cancer treatment including breast conservation, intraoperative radiotherapy, sentinel node biopsy and mastectomy, and reconstruction. A brief resume of recommendations and conclusions is suggested, elucidating correct trends in the oncologic management of augmented patients and refusing well-established misconceptions: (1) breast augmentation does not increase the risk of breast cancer incidence, and it does not influence the prognosis; (2) possible risks exist in cancer detection due to technical difficulties; (3) sentinel lymph node detection is feasible; (4) intraoperative radiotherapy represents a good chance for conserving treatment; (5) immediate reconstruction with submuscular-subfascial implants is the most common procedure after mastectomy, and biological substitutes could support this procedure. Breast clinicians should be alerted because of high expectations of this subgroup of patients, accustomed to emphasize the aesthetic result.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V

This journal requires that the authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

Systematic Review: Aesthetic Assessment of Breast Reconstruction Outcomes by Healthcare Professionals

BACKGROUND

Achieving an aesthetic outcome following postmastectomy breast reconstruction is both an important goal for the patient and plastic surgeon. However, there is currently an absence of a widely accepted, standardized, and validated professional aesthetic assessment scale following postmastectomy breast reconstruction.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed to identify all articles that provided professional assessment of the aesthetic outcome following postmastectomy, implant- or autologous tissue-based breast reconstruction. A modified version of the Scientific Advisory Committee's Medical Outcomes Trust (MOT) criteria was used to evaluate all professional aesthetic assessment scales identified by our systematic review. The criteria included conceptual framework formation, reliability, validity, responsiveness, interpretability, burden, and correlation with patient-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 120 articles were identified: 52 described autologous breast reconstruction, 37 implant-based reconstruction, and 29 both. Of the 12 different professional aesthetic assessment scales that exist in the literature, the most commonly used scale was the four-point professional aesthetic assessment scale. The highest score on the modified MOT criteria was assigned to the ten-point professional aesthetic assessment scale. However, this scale has limited clinical usefulness due to its poor responsiveness to change, lack of interpretability, and wide range of intra- and inter-rater agreements (Veiga et al. in Ann Plast Surg 48(5):515-520, 2002).

CONCLUSIONS

A "gold standard" professional aesthetic assessment scale needs to be developed to enhance the comparability of breast reconstruction results across techniques, surgeons, and studies to aid with the selection of procedures that produce the best aesthetic results from both the perspectives of the surgeon and patients.

Intraoperative full-dose of partial breast irradiation with electrons delivered by standard linear accelerators for early breast cancer

Purpose. To assess feasibility, efficacy, toxicity, and cosmetic results of intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) with electrons delivered by standard linear accelerators (Linacs) during breast conserving surgeries for early infiltrating breast cancer (BC) treatment. Materials and Methods. A total of 152 patients with invasive ductal carcinoma (T ≤ 3.0 cm) at low risk for local relapses were treated. All had unicentric lesions by imaging methods and negative sentinel node. After a wide local excision, 21 Gy were delivered on the parenchyma target volume with electron beams. Local recurrences (LR), survival, toxicity, and cosmetic outcomes were analyzed. Results. The median age was 58.3 years (range 40–85); median follow-up was 50.7 months (range 12–101.5). There were 5 cases with LR, 2 cases with distant metastases, and 2 cases with deaths related to BC. The cumulative incidence rates of LR, distant metastases, and BC death were 3.2%, 1.5%, and 1.5%, respectively. Complications were rare, and the cosmetic results were excellent or good in most of the patients. Conclusions. IORT with electrons delivered by standard Linacs is feasible, efficient, and well tolerated and seems to be beneficial for selected patients with early infiltrating BC.