Oncoplastic breast conservation occupies a niche between standard breast conservation and mastectomy – A population-based prospective audit in Scotland

Immediate breast reconstruction uptake in older women with primary breast cancer: systematic review

BACKGROUND

Postmastectomy immediate breast reconstruction (PMIBR) may improve the quality of life of patients with breast cancer, of whom older women (aged 65 years or more) are a growing proportion. This study aimed to assess PMIBR in older women with regard to underlying impediments (if any).

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed were searched by two independent researchers up to June 2022. Eligible studies compared PMIBR rates between younger and older women with invasive primary breast cancer.

RESULTS

A total of 10 studies (2012-2020) including 466 134 women were appraised, of whom two-thirds (313 298) were younger and one-third (152 836) older. Only 10.0 per cent of older women underwent PMIBR in contrast to 45.0 per cent of younger women. Two studies explored factors affecting uptake of PMIBR in older women; surgeon-associated (usual practice), patient-associated (socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and co-morbidities), and system-associated (insurance status and hospital location) factors were identified.

CONCLUSION

Uptake of PMIBR in older women is low with definable (and some correctable) barriers.

Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery for women with primary breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (O-BCS) involves removing the tumour in the breast and using plastic surgery techniques to reconstruct the breast. The adequacy of published evidence on the safety and efficacy of O-BCS for the treatment of breast cancer compared to other surgical options for breast cancer is still debatable. It is estimated that the local recurrence rate is similar to standard breast-conserving surgery (S-BCS) and also mastectomy, but the aesthetic and patient-reported outcomes may be improved with oncoplastic techniques.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary objective was to assess oncological control outcomes following O-BCS compared with other surgical options for women with breast cancer. Our secondary objective was to assess surgical complications, recall rates, need for further surgery to achieve adequate oncological resection, patient satisfaction through patient-reported outcomes, and cosmetic outcomes through objective measures or clinician-reported outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (via OVID), Embase (via OVID), the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov on 7 August 2020. We did not apply any language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised comparative studies (cohort and case-control studies). Studies evaluated any O-BCS technique, including volume displacement techniques and partial breast volume replacement techniques compared to any other surgical treatment (partial resection or mastectomy) for the treatment of breast cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four review authors performed data extraction and resolved disagreements. We used ROBINS-I to assess the risk of bias by outcome. We performed descriptive data analysis and meta-analysis and evaluated the quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria. The outcomes included local recurrence, breast cancer-specific disease-free survival, re-excision rates, complications, recall rates, and patient-reported outcome measures.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 78 non-randomised cohort studies evaluating 178,813 women. Overall, we assessed the risk of bias per outcome as being at serious risk of bias due to confounding; where studies adjusted for confounding, we deemed these at moderate risk. Comparison 1: oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (O-BCS) versus standard-BCS (S-BCS) The evidence in the review found that O-BCS when compared to S-BCS, may make little or no difference to local recurrence; either when measured as local recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.34; 4 studies, 7600 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or local recurrence rate (HR 1.33, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.83; 4 studies, 2433 participants; low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain due to most studies not controlling for confounding clinicopathological factors. O-BCS compared to S-BCS may make little to no difference to disease-free survival (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.26; 7 studies, 5532 participants; low-certainty evidence). O-BCS may reduce the rate of re-excisions needed for oncological resection (risk ratio (RR) 0.76, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.85; 38 studies, 13,341 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. O-BCS may increase the number of women who have at least one complication (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.27; 20 studies, 118,005 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and increase the recall to biopsy rate (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.67 to 3.42; 6 studies, 715 participants; low-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis was not possible when assessing patient-reported outcomes or cosmetic evaluation; in general, O-BCS reported a similar or more favourable result, however, the evidence is very uncertain due to risk of bias in the measurement methods. Comparison 2: oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (O-BCS) versus mastectomy alone O-BCS may increase local recurrence-free survival compared to mastectomy but the evidence is very uncertain (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.91; 2 studies, 4713 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of O-BCS on disease-free survival as there were only data from one study. O-BCS may reduce complications compared to mastectomy, but the evidence is very uncertain due to high risk of bias mainly resulting from confounding (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.83; 4 studies, 4839 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Data on patient-reported outcome measures came from single studies; it was not possible to meta-analyse the data. Comparison 3: oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (O-BCS) versus mastectomy with reconstruction O-BCS may make little or no difference to local recurrence-free survival (HR 1.37, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.62; 1 study, 3785 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or disease-free survival (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.22; 1 study, 317 participants; very low-certainty evidence) when compared to mastectomy with reconstruction, but the evidence is very uncertain. O-BCS may reduce the complication rate compared to mastectomy with reconstruction (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.54; 5 studies, 4973 participants; very low-certainty evidence) but the evidence is very uncertain due to high risk of bias from confounding and inconsistency of results. The evidence is very uncertain for patient-reported outcome measures and cosmetic evaluation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence is very uncertain regarding oncological outcomes following O-BCS compared to S-BCS, though O-BCS has not been shown to be inferior. O-BCS may result in less need for a second re-excision surgery but may result in more complications and a greater recall rate than S-BCS. It seems that O-BCS may give better patient satisfaction and surgeon rating for the look of the breast, but the evidence for this is of poor quality, and due to lack of numerical data, it was not possible to pool the results of different studies. It seems O-BCS results in fewer complications compared with surgeries involving mastectomy. Based on this review, no certain conclusions can be made to help inform policymakers. The surgical decision for what operation to proceed with should be made jointly between clinician and patient after an appropriate discussion about the risks and benefits of O-BCS personalised to the patient, taking into account clinicopathological factors. This review highlighted the deficiency of well-conducted studies to evaluate efficacy, safety and patient-reported outcomes following O-BCS.

Extreme Oncoplasty: Breast Conservation in Patients with Large, Multifocal, and Multicentric Breast Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Extreme Oncoplastic Breast Conservation Surgery (EOBCS) is offered in selected patients with multifocal or multicentric breast cancer (MFMC). Recent evidence has suggested that EOBCS may be a valuable resource for patients with MFMC who may avoid the risk associated with mastectomy in favour of the benefits of breast conservation without risking their oncological outcomes. Our study examined the practice of EOBCS in two regional breast units in Glasgow, United Kingdom.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospectively collected database of 50 patients treated with EOBC in two breast units in Glasgow between 2007 and 2018 were evaluated, and clinical outcomes were observed.

RESULTS

Fifty patients (median age 55) underwent EOBCS, of which 43 (86%) had invasive disease. Median tumour size was 55mm (50-90) and multifocal disease was identified in 22 (44%) patients. Nine patients (18%) were found to have positive margins and underwent a second procedure, with 6 (12%) proceeding to mastectomy. Five-year disease free survival rate was 91.5%, while cancer-specific survival was 95.7%.

CONCLUSION

EOBCS is oncologically safe in short-term follow-up. Large scale studies are required to confirm these preliminary results, in order to offer EOBCS as a valid option to patients with advanced or multifocal breast cancer.

A prospective cohort study of the safety of breast cancer surgery during COVID-19 pandemic in the West of Scotland

INTRODUCTION

In order to minimise the risk of breast cancer patients for COVID-19 infection related morbidity and mortality prioritisation of care has utmost importance since the onset of the pandemic. However, COVID-19 related risk in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery has not been studied yet. We evaluated the safety of breast cancer surgery during COVID-19 pandemic in the West of Scotland region.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study of patients having breast cancer surgery was carried out in a geographical region during the first eight weeks of the hospital lockdown and outcomes were compared to the regional cancer registry data of pre-COVID-19 patients of the same units (n = 1415).

RESULTS

188 operations were carried out in 179 patients. Tumour size was significantly larger in patients undergoing surgery during hospital lockdown than before (cT3-4: 16.8% vs. 7.4%; p < 0.001; pT2 - pT4: 45.5% vs. 35.6%; p = 0.002). ER negative and HER-2 positive rate was significantly higher during lockdown (ER negative: 41.3% vs. 17%, p < 0.001; HER-2 positive: 23.4% vs. 14.8%; p = 0.004). While breast conservation rate was lower during lockdown (58.6% vs. 65%; p < 0.001), level II oncoplastic conservation was significantly higher in order to reduce mastectomy rate (22.8% vs. 5.6%; p < 0.001). No immediate reconstruction was offered during lockdown. 51.2% had co-morbidity, and 7.8% developed postoperative complications in lockdown. There was no peri-operative COVID-19 infection related morbidity or mortality.

CONCLUSION

breast cancer can be safely provided during COVID-19 pandemic in selected patients.

Rates of re-excision and conversion to mastectomy after breast-conserving surgery with or without oncoplastic surgery: a nationwide population-based study

Background

There is no consensus regarding the impact of oncoplastic surgery (OPS) on rates of re‐excision and conversion to mastectomy following breast‐conserving surgery (BCS). Here these two outcomes after BCS and OPS were compared in a nationwide population‐based setting.

Methods

In Denmark, all OPS is registered and categorized into volume displacement, volume reduction or volume replacement. Patients who underwent BCS or OPS between 2012 and 2018 were selected from the Danish Breast Cancer Group database. Multivariable analyses were performed to adjust for confounders, and propensity score matching to limit potential confounding by indication bias.

Results

A total of 13 185 patients (72·5 per cent) underwent BCS and 5003 (27·5 per cent) OPS. Volume displacement was used in 4171 patients (83·4 per cent), volume reduction in 679 (13·6 per cent) and volume replacement in 153 (3·1 per cent). Re‐excision rates were 15·6 and 14·1 per cent after BCS and OPS respectively. After adjusting for confounders, patients were less likely to have a re‐excision following OPS than BCS (odds ratio (OR) 0·80, 95 per cent c.i. 0·72 to 0·88), specifically after volume displacement and reduction. The rate of conversion to mastectomy was similar after OPS and BCS (3·2 versus 3·7 per cent; P = 0·105), but with a lower risk in adjusted analysis (OR 0·69, 0·58 to 0·84), specifically after volume displacement and reduction procedures. Findings were similar after propensity score matching.

Conclusion

A modest decrease in re‐excision rate and less frequent conversion to mastectomy were observed after OPS compared with BCS.

Oncoplastic Repair in Breast Conservation: Comprehensive Evaluation of Techniques and Oncologic Outcomes of 937 Patients

BACKGROUND

Breast-conserving surgery, especially with oncoplastic breast surgery (OBS), is becoming the standard of care in the surgical management of breast cancer. We investigated the applied technique of OBS and oncologic outcomes in a large series of patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study was conducted between January 2008 and June 2018 in two centers in Iran. Patients underwent OBS. Early and late postoperative complications, oncologic outcomes, and follow-up data were documented.

RESULTS

Nine hundred thirty-seven patients with a mean ± standard deviation age of 48.1 ± 11.3 underwent OBS. Most of the patients were diagnosed with early-stage disease, of which the most common pathology was invasive ductal carcinoma (83.3%). Lateral oncoplasty was the most commonly used OBS technique (324 cases, 34.6%). The most common complication was seroma formation. Reduction-type OBS technique had the highest rate of complications (13.1%). Thirty-four patients (5.4%) experienced local recurrence, with a median recurrence time of 26.4 months. Nine patients (1.3%) died from cancer recurrence.

CONCLUSION

OBS is a safe procedure with minor complications and good oncologic outcomes. These techniques can be applied to most patients who are candidates for breast-conserving surgery.

Therapeutic mammaplasty is a safe and effective alternative to mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic mammaplasty (TM) may be an alternative to mastectomy, but few well designed studies have evaluated the success of this approach or compared the short-term outcomes of TM with mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). Data from the national iBRA-2 and TeaM studies were combined to compare the safety and short-term outcomes of TM and mastectomy with or without IBR.

METHODS

The subgroup of patients in the TeaM study who underwent TM to avoid mastectomy were identified, and data on demographics, complications, oncology and adjuvant treatment were compared with those of patients undergoing mastectomy with or without IBR in the iBRA-2 study. The primary outcome was the percentage of successful breast-conserving procedures in the TM group. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications and time to adjuvant therapy.

RESULTS

A total of 2916 patients (TM 376; mastectomy 1532; mastectomy and IBR 1008) were included in the analysis. Patients undergoing TM were more likely to be obese and to have undergone bilateral surgery than those having IBR. However, patients undergoing mastectomy with or without IBR were more likely to experience complications than the TM group (TM: 79, 21·0 per cent; mastectomy: 570, 37·2 per cent; mastectomy and IBR: 359, 35·6 per cent; P < 0·001). Breast conservation was possible in 87·0 per cent of patients who had TM, and TM did not delay adjuvant treatment.

CONCLUSION

TM may allow high-risk patients who would not be candidates for IBR to avoid mastectomy safely. Further work is needed to explore the comparative patient-reported and cosmetic outcomes of the different approaches, and to establish long-term oncological safety.