Breast-conserving therapy can be offered to women with prior breast augmentation

Breast Conserving Therapy for Patients With Prior Cosmetic Implant-Based Breast Augmentation: Outcomes and Comparison Against a Matched Cohort

INTRODUCTION

Controversy exists regarding potential increased toxic effects in patients with cosmetic implant-based augmentation (CIBA) who receive radiation therapy. We evaluated acute and chronic toxic effects associated with radiation therapy in women with prior CIBA treated with whole-breast irradiation (WBI) as part of breast conserving therapy (BCT) and compared these results against a cohort of patients without prior breast augmentation who received similar therapy.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed to identify patients with a prior history of CIBA who subsequently underwent BCT with WBI. The control group consisted of consecutively treated patients without prior CIBA who also underwent BCT with WBI. Analyses included a comparison of baseline and treatment-associated factors between the augmentation and control groups, evaluation of toxic effects between both groups, and multivariable analysis of factors associated with the receipt of additional surgery following radiation.

RESULTS

Thirty-six patients with prior CIBA and 135 consecutively treated patients without CIBA were identified. Patients with prior CIBA were treated from 2006 through 2019, and patients without CIBA were treated from 2016 through 2019, though treatment characteristics and median follow-up time were similar between the two groups. Patients with prior CIBA were significantly less likely to experience acute moist desquamation (0% vs. 18%; P = .005). There were otherwise no statistically significant differences in acute (≤ 6 months) or chronic (> 6 months) toxic effects between the two groups. Rates of excellent/good chronic cosmetic outcome were 89% for the CIBA group and 97% in the control group (P = .094). On multivariable analysis, patients without prior CIBA (OR = 0.04; CI = 0.01-0.13; P < .001) and patients treated with moderately hypofractionated irradiation (OR = 0.08; CI = 0.02-0.23; P < .001) were significantly less likely to undergo additional surgery following receipt of WBI. Two patients experienced implant loss following radiation therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

WBI as part of BCT in patients with prior implant-based breast augmentation appears safe and is associated with favorable cosmetic outcomes. There was an increased need for additional surgery in patients with prior CIBA, but rates of acute and chronic toxic effects appeared similar to those in nonaugmented patients.

Partial Breast Irradiation for Patients With Early-Stage Invasive Breast Cancer or Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: An ASTRO Clinical Practice Guideline

PURPOSE

This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations on appropriate indications and techniques for partial breast irradiation (PBI) for patients with early-stage invasive breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ.

METHODS

ASTRO convened a task force to address 4 key questions focused on the appropriate indications and techniques for PBI as an alternative to whole breast irradiation (WBI) to result in similar rates of ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR) and toxicity outcomes. Also addressed were aspects related to the technical delivery of PBI, including dose-fractionation regimens, target volumes, and treatment parameters for different PBI techniques. The guideline is based on a systematic review provided by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Recommendations were created using a predefined consensus-building methodology and system for grading evidence quality and recommendation strength.

RESULTS

PBI delivered using 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy, intensity modulated radiation therapy, multicatheter brachytherapy, and single-entry brachytherapy results in similar IBR as WBI with long-term follow-up. Some patient characteristics and tumor features were underrepresented in the randomized controlled trials, making it difficult to fully define IBR risks for patients with these features. Appropriate dose-fractionation regimens, target volume delineation, and treatment planning parameters for delivery of PBI are outlined. Intraoperative radiation therapy alone is associated with a higher IBR rate compared with WBI. A daily or every-other-day external beam PBI regimen is preferred over twice-daily regimens due to late toxicity concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on published data, the ASTRO task force has proposed recommendations to inform best clinical practices on the use of PBI.

Oncoplastic Augmentation Mastopexy in Breast Conservation Therapy: Retrospective Study and Postoperative Complications

BACKGROUND

Oncoplastic techniques, in conjunction with lumpectomy and adjuvant radiotherapy, have been demonstrated to achieve good aesthetic results and cancer outcomes in the treatment of patients with macromastia or significant ptosis. This study evaluated a series of patients undergoing breast conservation with concomitant oncoplastic-augmentation-mastopexy and a contralateral augmentation-mastopexy.

METHODS

Patients undergoing lumpectomy for breast conservation were identified via a retrospective chart review. Inclusion criteria included patients with ptosis and preexisting breast implants or insufficient breast volume undergoing oncoplastic implant placement/exchange and mastopexy. Demographic characteristics, operative details, and complications were assessed.

RESULTS

Thirty-four consecutive patients (64 breasts, 4 unilateral procedures) were included in the study. Average age was 51.4 years, average body mass index was 27, and 38.2% were smokers/former smokers. The average operative time was 2.5 hours. Furthermore, 38.2% of patients received chemotherapy, and 82.4% of patients received breast adjuvant radiotherapy. The average length of follow-up was 11.7 months. In the sample that received radiation, the capsular contracture rate was 25%, with a 7.1% contracture revision rate. For the entire group, a total of 8 patients (23.5%) underwent revisions for either positive margins (8.8%), capsular contracture (8.8%), implant loss (2.9%), or cosmetic concerns (2.9%). One patient developed a pulmonary embolism.

CONCLUSIONS

Oncoplastic-augmentation-mastopexy is a safe technique with acceptable complication rates. This technique is best used for breast cancer patients with breast ptosis and a paucity of breast volume or preexisting implants who wish to pursue breast-conserving therapy. The revision rates are acceptable compared with single-stage cosmetic augmentation procedures as well as other oncoplastic techniques described in the literature, but patients must be clearly counseled on contracture risk.

Implant-Based Reconstruction following Mastectomy in Patients Who Have Had a Previous Breast Augmentation: Lessons from the National Multicenter Implant Breast Reconstruction Evaluation Study

BACKGROUND

Breast augmentation is the most commonly performed cosmetic procedure, and increasingly women in this group present with breast cancer or request risk-reducing surgery, but their optimal management is unclear. The authors explored the clinical and patient-reported outcomes of patients undergoing immediate implant-based breast reconstruction following previous augmentation and compared these with outcomes of patients who had not had cosmetic implants in the Implant Breast Reconstruction Evaluation (iBRA) Study.

METHODS

Patients undergoing immediate implant-based breast reconstruction were prospectively recruited from breast and plastic surgical units across the United Kingdom. Demographic, operative, and oncologic data, and information regarding complications within 3 postoperative months were collected. Patient-reported outcomes at 18 months were assessed using the BREAST-Q. The clinical and patient-reported outcomes of patients undergoing immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without previous breast augmentation were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 2108 women were included in the iBRA Study, of whom 49 had undergone a previous augmentation. Women in the augmentation group were younger (median age, 45 years versus 50 years; p = 0.01), had a lower body mass index (22.8 kg/m2 versus 24.9 kg/m2; p < 0.01), and had smaller tumors (15 mm versus 25 mm; p = 0.01) than patients without augmentation. No differences were seen in operative technique between the groups. Complications at 3 months were similar in both groups and there were no significant differences in patient-reported outcomes at 18 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical and patient-reported outcomes of patients undergoing immediate implant-based breast reconstruction following previous augmentation are consistent with those observed in the wider iBRA Study cohort, supporting the safety of this approach.