1
|
Zhao J, Chen Z, Wang M, Hai L, Xiao C. Transaxillary Single-Port Endoscopic Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy with Immediate Implant-based Breast Reconstruction in Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy or Not: A Comparative Study with Analysis of Surgical Complications and Patient-Reported Outcomes. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2023; 47:2304-2321. [PMID: 37700196 DOI: 10.1007/s00266-023-03644-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/20/2023] [Accepted: 08/24/2023] [Indexed: 09/14/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND In most cases, transaxillary single-port endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (E-NSM-IIBR) is conducted in patients with early-stage breast cancer, ensuring surgical safety while achieving improved breast aesthetics. However, whether E-NSM-IIBR is appropriate in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is still unclear. The aim of this study was to report the surgical safety and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of breast cancer patients who underwent E-NSM-IIBR with NAC in comparison to those who did not receive NAC. METHODS A retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients who underwent E-NSM-IIBR with or without NAC at a single center between January 2021 and July 2022. Patient demographics, postoperative complications, and PROs evaluated using the BREAST-Q version 2.0 questionnaire were compared between the two groups. Factors associated with PROs at 9 months after surgery were assessed with linear regression analysis. RESULTS A total of 92 patients who underwent E-NSM-IIBR were included in the study, with 27 patients receiving NAC and 65 patients not receiving NAC. There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between the two groups. The BREAST-Q version 2.0 questionnaire was completed by 24 out of 27 patients (88.9%) in the NAC group and 59 out of 65 patients (90.8%) in the non-NAC group at 9 months after surgery. The patient-reported outcomes in various domains of the BREAST-Q did not show a significant difference between the two cohorts. The results of the multiple linear regression analysis indicated that in the both groups age (β = - 0.985, 95% CI - 1.598 to - 0.371, p = 0.003 in the NAC group; β = - 0.510, - 1.011 to - 0.009, p = 0.046 in the non-NAC group) and rippling (β = - 21.862, - 36.768 to - 6.955, p = 0.006 in the NAC group; β = - 7.787, - 15.151 to - 0.423, p = 0.039 in the non-NAC group) significantly impacted the patients' satisfaction with breasts, and PMRT was negatively associated with patients' physical well-being of chest (β = - 13.813, - 26.962 to - 0.664, p = 0.040 in the NAC group; β = - 18.574, - 30.661 to - 6.487, p = 0.003 in the non-NAC group). Our findings revealed that patients with larger implant volumes had higher scores in psychosocial well-being (β = 0.082, 0.001 to 0.162, p = 0.047), whereas implant displacement (β = - 14.937, - 28.175 to - 1.700, p=0.028) had a negative impact on patients' psychological well-being in the non-NAC group. However, our results did not demonstrate any significant influencing factors on patients' psychosocial well-being within the NAC group. CONCLUSION Our preliminary experiences confirm that E-NSM-IIBR is a safe option for selected patients even after NAC, with favorable patient-reported outcomes comparable with those in the primary surgery setting. The postoperative long-term outcomes of patients who undergo radiation therapy after NAC merit further investigation in the future. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III This journal requires that 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 .
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jingjing Zhao
- The First Department of Breast Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Huan-Hu-Xi Road, He-Xi District, Tianjin, China
| | - Zujin Chen
- The First Department of Breast Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Huan-Hu-Xi Road, He-Xi District, Tianjin, China
| | - Mengdie Wang
- The First Department of Breast Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Huan-Hu-Xi Road, He-Xi District, Tianjin, China
| | - Linyue Hai
- The First Department of Breast Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Huan-Hu-Xi Road, He-Xi District, Tianjin, China
| | - Chunhua Xiao
- The First Department of Breast Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Huan-Hu-Xi Road, He-Xi District, Tianjin, China.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Sabitovic A, Trøstrup H, Damsgaard TE. The impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on surgical outcomes following autologous and implant-based immediate breast reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2023; 87:17-23. [PMID: 37804643 DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2023.09.048] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/13/2023] [Revised: 08/02/2023] [Accepted: 09/12/2023] [Indexed: 10/09/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) on the complication rate after implant-based and autologous breast reconstruction remains unclear. The aim of this study was to systematically review and perform a meta-analysis of previously published studies on immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) in breast cancer patients treated with NACT compared with controls. METHODS PubMed and EMBASE were searched to identify studies assessing the impact of NACT on major and minor complications after IBR. The primary effect measures were relative risk (RR), 95% confidence interval (95% CI), and p-value. RESULTS Eight studies comprising 51,731 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Of these, 5161 patients received NACT and 46,570 patients did not receive NACT. In regard to major complications, NACT did not statistically significant increase the rate of reconstructive failure (RR = 1.35, 95% CI = 0.96-1.91, p = 0.09), the rate of mastectomy skin-flap necrosis (RR = 1.39, 95% CI = 0.61-3.17, p = 0.44), or the rate of reoperation (RR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.87-1.37, p = 0.45). Regarding minor complications, NACT did not significantly increase the rate of wound complications (RR = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.87-1.28, p = 0.62). In a subgroup analysis of implant-based breast reconstruction following NACT, single-stage direct-to-implant (DTI) had a significantly lower implant failure rate compared with two-staged tissue expander/implant (TE/I) (RR = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.26-0.71, p = 0.0011). CONCLUSION NACT did not increase the major or minor complication rate after IBR with either autologous tissue or implants. Thus, NACT and IBR should be considered safe procedures. The review of studies describing patients undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction following NACT could indicate that single-stage DTI was a safer procedure than two-staged TE/I. However, the association requires further evaluation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ajla Sabitovic
- Department of Plastic Surgery and Burns Treatment, Copenhagen University Hospital, Denmark; Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Hannah Trøstrup
- Department of Plastic Surgery and Burns Treatment, Copenhagen University Hospital, Denmark; Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Tine Engberg Damsgaard
- Department of Plastic Surgery and Burns Treatment, Copenhagen University Hospital, Denmark; Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Scardina L, Di Leone A, Biondi E, Carnassale B, Sanchez AM, D’Archi S, Franco A, Moschella F, Magno S, Terribile D, Gentile D, Fabi A, D’Angelo A, Barone Adesi L, Visconti G, Salgarello M, Masetti R, Franceschini G. Prepectoral vs. Submuscular Immediate Breast Reconstruction in Patients Undergoing Mastectomy after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Our Early Experience. J Pers Med 2022; 12:jpm12091533. [PMID: 36143318 PMCID: PMC9504024 DOI: 10.3390/jpm12091533] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/20/2022] [Revised: 09/15/2022] [Accepted: 09/16/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Conservative mastectomy with immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction (IPBR) is an oncologically accepted technique that offers improved esthetic results and patient quality of life. Traditionally, implants have been placed in a submuscular (SM) plane beneath the pectoralis major muscle (PMM). Recently, prepectoral (PP) placement of the prosthesis has been increasingly used in order to avoid morbidities related to manipulation of the PMM. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of SM vs. PP IPBR after conservative mastectomy in patients with histologically proven breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Methods: In this retrospective observational study, we analyzed two cohorts of patients that underwent mastectomy with IPBR after NAC in our institution from January 2018 to December 2021. Conservative mastectomy was performed in 146 of the 400 patients that underwent NAC during the study period. Patients were divided into two groups based on the positioning of implants: 56 SM versus 90 PP. Results: The two cohorts were similar for age (mean age 42 and 44 years in the SM and PP group respectively) and follow-up (33 and 20 months, respectively). Mean operative time was 56 min shorter in the PP group (300 and 244 min in the SM and PP group). No significant differences were observed in overall major complication rates. Implant loss was observed in 1.78% of patients (1/56) in the SM group and 1.11% of patients (1/90) in PP group. No differences were observed between the two groups in local or regional recurrence. Conclusions: Our preliminary experience, which represents one of the largest series of patients undergoing PP-IPBR after NAC at a single institution documented in the literature, seems to confirm that PP-IPBR after NAC is a safe, reliable and effective alternative to traditional SM-IPBR with excellent esthetic and oncological outcomes; it is easy to perform, reduces operative time and minimizes complications related to manipulation of PPM. However, this promising results need to be confirmed in prospective trials with longer follow-up.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lorenzo Scardina
- Breast Unit, Department of Women, Children and Public Health Sciences, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy
- Multidisciplinary Breast Center, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Largo Agostino Gemelli 8, 00168 Rome, Italy
- Correspondence: or
| | - Alba Di Leone
- Breast Unit, Department of Women, Children and Public Health Sciences, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy
| | - Ersilia Biondi
- Breast Unit, Department of Women, Children and Public Health Sciences, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy
| | - Beatrice Carnassale
- Breast Unit, Department of Women, Children and Public Health Sciences, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy
| | - Alejandro Martin Sanchez
- Breast Unit, Department of Women, Children and Public Health Sciences, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy
| | - Sabatino D’Archi
- Breast Unit, Department of Women, Children and Public Health Sciences, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy
| | - Antonio Franco
- Breast Unit, Department of Women, Children and Public Health Sciences, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy
| | - Francesca Moschella
- Breast Unit, Department of Women, Children and Public Health Sciences, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy
| | - Stefano Magno
- Breast Unit, Department of Women, Children and Public Health Sciences, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy
| | - Daniela Terribile
- Breast Unit, Department of Women, Children and Public Health Sciences, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy
| | - Damiano Gentile
- Breast Unit, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Milan, Italy
| | - Alessandra Fabi
- Precision Medicine Breast Unit, Scientific Directorate, Department of Women, Children and Public Health Sciences, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy
| | - Anna D’Angelo
- Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Oncological Radiotherapy and Hematology, Division of Breast Surgery, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy
| | - Liliana Barone Adesi
- Breast Unit, Department of Women, Children and Public Health Sciences, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Visconti
- Breast Unit, Department of Women, Children and Public Health Sciences, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy
| | - Marzia Salgarello
- Breast Unit, Department of Women, Children and Public Health Sciences, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy
| | - Riccardo Masetti
- Breast Unit, Department of Women, Children and Public Health Sciences, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy
| | - Gianluca Franceschini
- Breast Unit, Department of Women, Children and Public Health Sciences, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Nakhlis F, Portnow L, Gombos E, Daylan AEC, Leone JP, Kantor O, Richardson ET, Ho A, Dunn SA, Ohri N. Multidisciplinary Considerations in the Management of Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy. Curr Probl Surg 2022; 59:101191. [DOI: 10.1016/j.cpsurg.2022.101191] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
|
5
|
A national analysis of outpatient mastectomy and breast reconstruction trends from 2013 through 2019. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2022; 75:2920-2929. [PMID: 35753925 DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2022.04.071] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/18/2022] [Accepted: 04/12/2022] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Traditionally, patients with breast reconstruction (BR) were hospitalized at least one day postoperatively. However, new trends suggest that outpatient surgery is a viable and safe alternative. This study aims to assess trends among patients with breast cancer who underwent outpatient mastectomy alone, with immediate BR (IBR) or delayed BR (DBR). METHODS A retrospective analysis of the 2013-2019 ACS NSQIP® database was conducted. All women who underwent outpatient mastectomy were included in this study. The cohort was divided as follows: (1) mastectomy without BR, (2) IBR, and (3) DBR. A Cochran-Armitage test and adjusted multivariable logistic regression models were performed to evaluate linear trends over time within groups, and overall and pairwise comparisons between groups across the years, respectively. RESULTS A total of 84,954 women were included in this study. Overall, 54.9%, 16.2%, and 28.9% underwent mastectomy without BR, IBR, and DBR, respectively. From the BR groups, the majority had implant placement. A significant difference in incidence trends between the three groups was evidenced over time (p<0.001). The greatest increase was evidenced in the IBR group and the lowest in the mastectomy without BR group. CONCLUSION In this cohort of patients, a significant difference in linear trends was evidenced over time within and between the three groups. Our results suggest that outpatient IBR procedures are increasing in a greater proportion compared to other surgical approaches. Further studies are required to better characterize this population and comprehend the decision-making process toward a surgical procedure within each of the three groups.
Collapse
|
6
|
Impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on surgical complications in breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol 2021; 48:44-52. [PMID: 34548216 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2021.09.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/13/2021] [Revised: 09/06/2021] [Accepted: 09/08/2021] [Indexed: 12/17/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The increased use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) facilitates an increase in breast-conserving surgery and immediate breast reconstruction. While NACT is considered to have the same oncological safety as adjuvant chemotherapy, evidence on the impact of NACT on surgical outcomes following breast surgery is unclear and varies across studies. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the impact of NACT on surgical complications in breast cancer patients undergoing any kind of breast surgery. METHODS Database searches were conducted (March 26, 2021) to identify studies assessing the impact of NACT on postoperative complications. Studies were included if they compared a group of patients treated with NACT to a control group that was not, and if they reported at least one of our defined outcomes. Primary effect measures were odds ratios (ORs) and mean difference with a 95% confidence interval. Study quality was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS Twenty-six studies comprising 134,191 patients were included. NACT was not associated with an increased complication rate for overall complications (OR: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.47, p = 0.38), individual postoperative complications, nor surgery duration. There was a non-significant trend towards NACT increasing the risk of seroma, wound complications, skin or nipple necrosis, flap ischemia or loss, and implant loss. A significant difference in blood loss was found, favouring NACT (MD = -75.85, 95% CI: -107.47 to -44.23, p < 0.00001). Heterogeneity was significant between the studies (I2>50%). CONCLUSION Compared to a control group, NACT was not found to affect the surgical complications adversely.
Collapse
|
7
|
Ishiba T, Aruga T, Miyamoto H, Ishihara S, Nara M, Adachi M, Kumaki Y, Saita C, Onishi M, Goto R, Iwamoto N, Yonekura R, Honda Y, Fujii M, Tomita S, Horiguchi S, Oda G, Nakagawa T, Fujioka T, Terao Y. Short- and long-term outcomes of immediate breast reconstruction surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Surg Today 2021; 52:129-136. [PMID: 34089365 DOI: 10.1007/s00595-021-02316-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/11/2020] [Accepted: 04/22/2021] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) is a standard option for breast cancer patients, although its utility in patients with advanced breast cancer requiring neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is debatable. We assessed the short-term complications and long-term prognosis of IBR after NAC. METHODS We retrospectively analyzed 1135 patients with IBR and/or NAC between 2010 and 2018, 43 of whom underwent IBR after NAC. RESULTS Twenty-five patients underwent reconstruction with a tissue expander (TE) followed by silicon breast implantation, 5 with a latissimus dorsi muscle transfer flap, and 13 with a deep inferior epigastric perforator flap. Complete surgical resection with a free margin confirmed by a pathological assessment was achieved in all patients. The evaluation of the short-term complications indicated no cases of total flap necrosis, two cases of partial flap necrosis, and one case of wound infection. Only one case required postponement of subsequent therapy due to partial flap necrosis. A long-term evaluation indicated no local recurrence, although distant metastasis was observed in 4 cases, 3 patients died, and TE removal after post-mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) was performed in 2 of 11 TE cases. CONCLUSION IBR may be a viable option in patients with advanced breast cancer who achieve complete surgical resection after NAC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Toshiyuki Ishiba
- Department of Breast Surgery, Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Diseases Center, Komagome Hospital, 18-22-3 Honkomagome, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8677, Japan.
| | - Tomoyuki Aruga
- Department of Breast Surgery, Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Diseases Center, Komagome Hospital, 18-22-3 Honkomagome, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8677, Japan
| | - Hiromi Miyamoto
- Department of Breast Surgery, Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Diseases Center, Komagome Hospital, 18-22-3 Honkomagome, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8677, Japan
| | - Sakiko Ishihara
- Department of Breast Surgery, Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Diseases Center, Komagome Hospital, 18-22-3 Honkomagome, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8677, Japan
| | - Miyako Nara
- Department of Breast Surgery, Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Diseases Center, Komagome Hospital, 18-22-3 Honkomagome, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8677, Japan
| | - Mio Adachi
- Department of Breast Surgery, Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Diseases Center, Komagome Hospital, 18-22-3 Honkomagome, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8677, Japan
| | - Yuichi Kumaki
- Department of Breast Surgery, Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Diseases Center, Komagome Hospital, 18-22-3 Honkomagome, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8677, Japan
| | - Chiaki Saita
- Department of Breast Surgery, Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Diseases Center, Komagome Hospital, 18-22-3 Honkomagome, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8677, Japan
| | - Mai Onishi
- Department of Breast Surgery, Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Diseases Center, Komagome Hospital, 18-22-3 Honkomagome, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8677, Japan
| | - Risa Goto
- Department of Breast Surgery, Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Diseases Center, Komagome Hospital, 18-22-3 Honkomagome, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8677, Japan
| | - Naoko Iwamoto
- Department of Breast Surgery, Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Diseases Center, Komagome Hospital, 18-22-3 Honkomagome, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8677, Japan
| | - Rika Yonekura
- Department of Breast Surgery, Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Diseases Center, Komagome Hospital, 18-22-3 Honkomagome, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8677, Japan
| | - Yayoi Honda
- Department of Breast Surgery, Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Diseases Center, Komagome Hospital, 18-22-3 Honkomagome, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8677, Japan
| | - Miwako Fujii
- Department of Plastic Surgery, Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Diseases Center, Komagome Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Shoichi Tomita
- Department of Plastic Surgery, Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Diseases Center, Komagome Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Shinichiro Horiguchi
- Department of Pathology, Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Diseases Center Komagome Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Goshi Oda
- Department of Breast Surgery, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Tsuyoshi Nakagawa
- Department of Breast Surgery, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Tomoyuki Fujioka
- Department of Radiology, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Yasunobu Terao
- Department of Plastic Surgery, Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Diseases Center, Komagome Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Jung SM, Jeon BJ, Woo J, Ryu JM, Lee SK, Chae BJ, Yu J, Kim SW, Nam SJ, Pyon JK, Mun GH, Bang SI, Lee JE. Does chemotherapy or radiotherapy affect the postoperative complication in breast cancer patients who underwent immediate breast reconstruction with tissue expander? BMC Cancer 2021; 21:88. [PMID: 33482758 PMCID: PMC7825213 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-020-07729-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/27/2020] [Accepted: 12/13/2020] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Immediate breast reconstruction with tissue expander in breast cancer patients who were expected to receive adjuvant therapy, such as chemotherapy or radiotherapy, has been a topic of debate. Postoperative complications from tissue expander procedures can delay the timing of adjuvant treatment and subsequently increase the probability of recurrence. The purpose of this study was to identify the impact of chemotherapy and radiotherapy on postoperative complications in patients who underwent immediate reconstruction (IR) using tissue expander. METHODS We conducted a retrospective study of 1081 breast cancer patients who underwent mastectomy and IR using tissue expander insertion between 2012 and 2017 in Samsung Medical Center. The patients were divided into two groups based on complications (complication group vs. no complication group). Complication group was regarded to have surgical removal or conservative treatment based on clinical findings such as infection, capsular contracture, seroma, hematoma, rupture, malposition, tissue viability, or cosmetic problem. The complication group had 59 patients (5.5%) and the no complication group had 1022 patients (94.5%). RESULTS In univariate analysis, adjuvant radiotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy were significantly associated with postoperative complications. In multivariate analysis, however, only higher pathologic N stage was significantly associated with postoperative complications (p < 0.001). Chemotherapy (p = 0.775) or radiotherapy (p = 0.825) were not risk factors for postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS IR with tissue expander after mastectomy may be a treatment option even when the patients are expected to receive adjuvant chemotherapy or radiotherapy. These results will aid patients who are concerned about the complications of IR caused by chemotherapy or radiotherapy determine whether or not to have IR. TRIAL REGISTRATION Patients were selected and registered retrospectively, and medical records were evaluated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sung Mi Jung
- Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Irwon-ro 81, Gangnam-gu, 06351, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Byung-Joon Jeon
- Department of Plastic Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Irwon-ro 81, Gangnam-gu, 06351, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Jinsun Woo
- Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Irwon-ro 81, Gangnam-gu, 06351, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Jai Min Ryu
- Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Irwon-ro 81, Gangnam-gu, 06351, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Se Kyung Lee
- Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Irwon-ro 81, Gangnam-gu, 06351, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Byung-Joo Chae
- Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Irwon-ro 81, Gangnam-gu, 06351, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Jonghan Yu
- Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Irwon-ro 81, Gangnam-gu, 06351, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Seok Won Kim
- Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Irwon-ro 81, Gangnam-gu, 06351, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Seok Jin Nam
- Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Irwon-ro 81, Gangnam-gu, 06351, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Jai-Kyong Pyon
- Department of Plastic Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Irwon-ro 81, Gangnam-gu, 06351, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Goo-Hyun Mun
- Department of Plastic Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Irwon-ro 81, Gangnam-gu, 06351, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Sa Ik Bang
- Department of Plastic Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Irwon-ro 81, Gangnam-gu, 06351, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Jeong Eon Lee
- Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Irwon-ro 81, Gangnam-gu, 06351, Seoul, South Korea.
| |
Collapse
|