1
|
Belkacemi Y, Moran MS, Ozden BC, Masannat Y, Geara F, Albashir M, To NH, Debbi K, El Tamer M. Post-mastectomy radiation therapy after breast reconstruction: from historic dogmas to practical expert agreements based on a large literature review of surgical and radiation therapy considerations. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2024; 200:104421. [PMID: 38876160 DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2024.104421] [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: 12/10/2023] [Revised: 06/08/2024] [Accepted: 06/10/2024] [Indexed: 06/16/2024] Open
Abstract
Breast reconstruction (BR) after mastectomy is important to consider for a woman's body image enhancement and psychological well-being. Although post-mastectomy radiation (PMRT) significantly improves the outcome of patients with high-risk breast cancer (BC), PMRT after BR may affect cosmetic outcomes and may compromise the original goal of improving quality of life (QoL). With the lack of practical guidelines, it seems essential to work on a consensus and provide some "expert agreements" to offer patients the best option for PMRT after BR. We report a global "expert agreement" that results from a critical review of the literature on BR and PMRT during the 6th international multidisciplinary breast conference in March 2023.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yazid Belkacemi
- AP-HP, Department of Radiation Oncology and Henri Mondor Breast Center, Henri Mondor University Hospital. University of Paris Est Creteil (UPEC), France; Institut Mondor de Recherche Biomédicale (IMRB), INSERM U955, i-Biot, UPEC, Créteil, France.
| | - Meena S Moran
- Smilow Cancer Center, Yale University School of Medicine. Department of Therapeutic Radiology, New Haven, CT, USA
| | | | - Yazan Masannat
- Broomfield Hospital, Mid and South Essex NHS Trust, England, UK
| | - Fady Geara
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Oncology Institute, Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
| | - Mohamed Albashir
- Levantine Medical Center, Ain Alkhaleej Hospital and Burjeel Royal Hospital, Alain, United Arab Emirates
| | - Nhu Hanh To
- AP-HP, Department of Radiation Oncology and Henri Mondor Breast Center, Henri Mondor University Hospital. University of Paris Est Creteil (UPEC), France; Institut Mondor de Recherche Biomédicale (IMRB), INSERM U955, i-Biot, UPEC, Créteil, France
| | - Kamel Debbi
- AP-HP, Department of Radiation Oncology and Henri Mondor Breast Center, Henri Mondor University Hospital. University of Paris Est Creteil (UPEC), France; Institut Mondor de Recherche Biomédicale (IMRB), INSERM U955, i-Biot, UPEC, Créteil, France
| | - Mahmoud El Tamer
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Medical College at Cornell University, New York, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Kaidar-Person O, Meattini I, Boersma LJ, Becherini C, Cortes J, Curigliano G, de Azambuja E, Harbeck N, Rugo HS, Del Mastro L, Gennari A, Isacke CM, Vestmø Maraldo M, Marangoni E, Nader Marta G, Mjaaland I, Salvestrini V, Spanic T, Visani L, Morandi A, Lambertini M, Livi L, Coles CE, Poortmans P, Offersen BV. Essential requirements for reporting radiation therapy in breast cancer clinical trials: An international multi-disciplinary consensus endorsed by the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO). Radiother Oncol 2024; 195:110060. [PMID: 38122852 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.110060] [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: 10/07/2023] [Revised: 12/12/2023] [Accepted: 12/14/2023] [Indexed: 12/23/2023]
Abstract
The European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) has advocated the establishment of guidelines to optimise precision radiotherapy (RT) in conjunction with contemporary therapeutics for cancer care. Quality assurance in RT (QART) plays a pivotal role in influencing treatment outcomes. Clinical trials incorporating QART protocols have demonstrated improved survival rates with minimal associated toxicity. Nonetheless, in routine clinical practice, there can be variability in the indications for RT, dosage, fractionation, and treatment planning, leading to uncertainty. In pivotal trials reporting outcomes of systemic therapy for breast cancer, there is limited information available regarding RT, and the potential interaction between modern systemic therapy and RT remains largely uncharted. This article is grounded in a consensus recommendation endorsed by ESTRO, formulated by international breast cancer experts. The consensus was reached through a modified Delphi process and was presented at an international meeting convened in Florence, Italy, in June 2023. These recommendations are regarded as both optimal and essential standards, with the latter aiming to define the minimum requirements. A template for a case report form (CRF) has been devised, which can be utilised by all clinical breast cancer trials involving RT. Optimal requirements include adherence to predefined RT planning protocols and centralised QART. Essential requirements aim to reduce variations and deviations from the guidelines in RT, even when RT is not the primary focus of the trial. These recommendations underscore the significance of implementing these practices in both clinical trials and daily clinical routines to generate high-quality data.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Orit Kaidar-Person
- Breast Cancer Radiation Therapy Unit, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel; The School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel; GROW-School for Oncology and Reproduction (Maastro), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Icro Meattini
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences "M. Serio", University of Florence, Florence, Italy; Radiation Oncology Unit, Oncology Department, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy.
| | - Liesbeth J Boersma
- GROW-School for Oncology and Reproduction (Maastro), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Carlotta Becherini
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Oncology Department, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy
| | - Javier Cortes
- International Breast Cancer Center (IBCC), Pangaea Oncology, Quironsalud Group & Medical Scientia Innovation Research (MedSIR), Barcelona, Spain; Faculty of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Department of Medicine, Universidad Europea de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
| | - Giuseppe Curigliano
- Division of New Drugs and Early Drug Development for Innovative Therapies, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy; Department of Oncology and Hemato - Oncology (DIPO), University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Evandro de Azambuja
- Institut Jules Bordet and l'Université Libre de Bruxelles (U.L.B), Brussels, Belgium
| | - Nadia Harbeck
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics and CCCMunich, Breast Center, LMU University Hospital, Munich, Germany
| | - Hope S Rugo
- Medicine and Winterhof Family Professor of Breast Oncology, University of California San Francisco Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Lucia Del Mastro
- Department of Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties (DiMI), School of Medicine, University of Genova, Genova, Italy; Department of Medical Oncology, UOC Clinica di Oncologia Medica, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genova, Italy
| | - Alessandra Gennari
- Department of Translational Medicine, University Piemonte Orientale, Novara, Italy
| | - Clare M Isacke
- Breast Cancer Now Research Centre, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Maja Vestmø Maraldo
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Center of Cancer and Organ Diseases, Copenhagen University Hospital - Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Elisabetta Marangoni
- Laboratory of Preclinical Investigation, Translational Research Department, Institut Curie, Paris, France
| | - Gustavo Nader Marta
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Sírio-Libanês, Sao Paulo, Brazil; Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group, Porto Alegre, Brazil
| | - Ingvil Mjaaland
- Department of Oncology and Hematology, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway
| | - Viola Salvestrini
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Oncology Department, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy
| | - Tanja Spanic
- Europa Donna - The European Breast Cancer Coalition, Milan, Italy; Europa Donna Slovenia, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - Luca Visani
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Oncology Department, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy
| | - Andrea Morandi
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences "M. Serio", University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Matteo Lambertini
- Department of Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties (DiMI), School of Medicine, University of Genova, Genova, Italy; Department of Medical Oncology, UOC Clinica di Oncologia Medica, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genova, Italy
| | - Lorenzo Livi
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences "M. Serio", University of Florence, Florence, Italy; Radiation Oncology Unit, Oncology Department, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy
| | | | - Philip Poortmans
- Department of radiation oncology, Iridium Netwerk, Wilrijk-Antwerp, Belgium; Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Wilrijk-Antwerp, Belgium
| | - Birgitte V Offersen
- Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Zhang H, Song D, Xie L, Zhan N, Xie W, Zhang J. Postmastectomy radiotherapy in breast reconstruction: Current controversies and trends. CANCER INNOVATION 2024; 3:e104. [PMID: 38948530 PMCID: PMC11212305 DOI: 10.1002/cai2.104] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/21/2023] [Revised: 09/11/2023] [Accepted: 09/13/2023] [Indexed: 07/02/2024]
Abstract
Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women worldwide. Postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) is an essential component of combined therapy for early-stage, high-risk breast cancer. Breast reconstruction (BR) is often considered for patients with breast cancer who have undergone mastectomy. There has been a considerable amount of discussion about the optimal approach to combining PMRT with BR in the treatment of breast cancer. PMRT may increase the risk of complications and prevent good aesthetic results after BR, while BR may increase the complexity of PMRT and the radiation dose to surrounding normal tissues. The purpose of this review is to give a broad overview and summary of the current controversies and trends in PMRT and BR in the context of the most recent literature available.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Honghong Zhang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Xiang'an Hospital of Xiamen University, Cancer Research Center, School of MedicineXiamen University, Xiang'anXiamenFujianChina
| | - Dandan Song
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Xiang'an Hospital of Xiamen University, Cancer Research Center, School of MedicineXiamen University, Xiang'anXiamenFujianChina
| | - Liangxi Xie
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Xiang'an Hospital of Xiamen University, Cancer Research Center, School of MedicineXiamen University, Xiang'anXiamenFujianChina
| | - Ning Zhan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Xiang'an Hospital of Xiamen University, Cancer Research Center, School of MedicineXiamen University, Xiang'anXiamenFujianChina
| | - Wenjia Xie
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Xiang'an Hospital of Xiamen University, Cancer Research Center, School of MedicineXiamen University, Xiang'anXiamenFujianChina
| | - Jianming Zhang
- Fujian Provincial Key Laboratory of Intelligent Identification and Control of Complex Dynamic System, Quanzhou Institute of Equipment Manufacturing, Haixi InstitutesChinese Academy of SciencesQuanzhouFujianChina
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Levitin R, Salari K, Squires BS, Hazy AJ, Maywood MJ, Thrasher P, Delise AP, Almahariq MF, Dekhne N, Oliver L, Chen PY, Walters KJ, Dudley D, Dilworth JT. Near-Surface Dose Correlates With Moist Desquamation and Unplanned Reconstructive Surgery in Patients With Implant-Based Reconstruction Receiving Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy. Adv Radiat Oncol 2023; 8:101283. [PMID: 37492779 PMCID: PMC10363637 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2023.101283] [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: 04/06/2023] [Accepted: 05/12/2023] [Indexed: 07/27/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose Postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) reduces disease recurrence in appropriately selected patients but may compromise implant-based reconstruction. We investigated whether near-surface dose correlates with radiation-related toxic effects in these patients. Methods and Materials Patients receiving PMRT at a single institution from 2016 to 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Patient demographics and treatment information were collected. Three near-surface structures were retrospectively generated, bound by the chest wall tangent beam as well as the skin surface and the skin-3 mm contour (SR3), skin surface and skin-5 mm contour (SR5), or skin-5 and skin-10 mm contours. Dosimetric analysis of these near-surface contours was performed in 2 Gy intervals. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify predictors of moist desquamation, grade 2+ chest wall pain, use of opiate pain medication, unplanned reconstructive surgery, and implant failure. Logistic regression for each outcome and near-surface contour was performed for receiver-operator area under the curve (AUC) analysis and the Youden J Statistic was used to determine the optimal threshold for each dosimetric parameter. Results Of 126 patients reviewed, 109 met the study's eligibility criteria. Median follow-up was 2.3 years. Twenty-five patients (23%) underwent unplanned reconstructive surgery, and 10 (9.2%) experienced implant failure. Among clinical variables, low body mass index and history of smoking predicted unplanned surgery on univariate and multivariate analyses, and moist desquamation predicted grade 2+ chest wall pain. The top dosimetric parameters by AUC for moist desquamation, grade 2+ chest wall pain, use of opiates, unplanned reconstructive surgery, and implant failure were SR5 D10 cc (AUC = 0.701, optimal threshold 57.8 Gy, P < .001), SR3 D10 cc (AUC = 0.600, optimal threshold 56.8 Gy, P = .079), SR5 D10 cc (AUC = 0.642, optimal threshold 57.3 Gy, P = .041), SR3 V44 Gy (AUC = 0.711, optimal threshold 81%, P = .001), and SR3 V44 Gy (AUC = 0.688, optimal threshold 82%, P = .052), respectively. Conclusions Near-surface dose correlates with moist desquamation and unplanned reconstructive surgery after PMRT. Further evaluation of prospective optimization of dosimetric parameters related to SR3 and SR5 should be considered.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ronald Levitin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Corewell Health William Beaumont University Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan
| | - Kamran Salari
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Corewell Health William Beaumont University Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan
| | - Bryan S. Squires
- Radiation oncology, Huron River Radiation Oncology Specialists, Ypsilanti, Michigan
| | - Allison J. Hazy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Corewell Health William Beaumont University Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan
| | - Michael J. Maywood
- Department of Ophthalmology, Corewell Health William Beaumont University Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan
| | - Patrick Thrasher
- Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Rochester, Michigan
| | - Anthony P. Delise
- Department of Family Medicine, Corewell Health William Beaumont University Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan
| | - Muayad F. Almahariq
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Corewell Health Dearborn Hospital, Dearborn, Michigan
| | - Nayana Dekhne
- Department of Breast Surgery, Corewell Health William Beaumont University Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan
| | - Lauren Oliver
- Department of Plastic Surgery, Corewell Health William Beaumont University Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan
| | - Peter Y. Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Corewell Health William Beaumont University Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan
| | - Kailee J. Walters
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Corewell Health William Beaumont University Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan
| | - Diane Dudley
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Corewell Health William Beaumont University Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan
| | - Joshua T. Dilworth
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Corewell Health William Beaumont University Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Miéville FA, Pitteloud N, Achard V, Lamanna G, Pisaturo O, Tercier PA, Allal AS. Post-mastectomy radiotherapy: Impact of bolus thickness and irradiation technique on skin dose. Z Med Phys 2023:S0939-3889(23)00041-7. [PMID: 37150728 DOI: 10.1016/j.zemedi.2023.03.004] [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: 01/02/2023] [Revised: 02/27/2023] [Accepted: 03/08/2023] [Indexed: 05/09/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE To determine 10 MV IMRT and VMAT based protocols with a daily bolus targeting a skin dose of 45 Gy in order to replace the 6 MV tangential fields with a 5 mm thick bolus on alternate days method for post-mastectomy radiotherapy. METHOD We measured the mean surface dose along the chest wall PTV as a function of different bolus thicknesses for sliding window IMRT and VMAT plans. We analyzed surface dose profiles and dose homogeneities and compared them to our standard 6 MV strategy. All measurements were performed on a thorax phantom with Gafchromic films while dosimetric plans were computed using the Acuros XB algorithm (Varian). RESULTS We obtained the best compromise between measured surface dose (mean dose and homogeneity) and skin toxicity threshold obtained from the literature using a daily 3 mm thick bolus. Mean surface doses were 91.4 ± 2.8% [85.7% - 95.4%] and 92.2 ± 2.3% [85.6% - 95.2%] of the prescribed dose with IMRT and VMAT techniques, respectively. Our standard 6 MV alternate days 5 mm thick bolus leads to 89.0 ± 3.7% [83.6% - 95.5%]. Mean dose differences between measured and TPS results were < 3.2% for depths as low as 2 mm depth. CONCLUSION 10 MV IMRT-based protocols with a daily 3 mm thick bolus produce a surface dose comparable to the standard 6 MV 5 mm thick bolus on alternate days method but with an improved surface dose homogeneity. This allows for a better control of skin toxicity and target volume coverage.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Frédéric A Miéville
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hôpital Fribourgeois, 2-6 Chemin des Pensionnats, 1752 Villars-sur-Glâne, Fribourg, Switzerland.
| | - Nicolas Pitteloud
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hôpital Fribourgeois, 2-6 Chemin des Pensionnats, 1752 Villars-sur-Glâne, Fribourg, Switzerland
| | - Vérane Achard
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hôpital Fribourgeois, 2-6 Chemin des Pensionnats, 1752 Villars-sur-Glâne, Fribourg, Switzerland
| | - Giorgio Lamanna
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hôpital Fribourgeois, 2-6 Chemin des Pensionnats, 1752 Villars-sur-Glâne, Fribourg, Switzerland
| | - Olivier Pisaturo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hôpital Fribourgeois, 2-6 Chemin des Pensionnats, 1752 Villars-sur-Glâne, Fribourg, Switzerland
| | - Pierre-Alain Tercier
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hôpital Fribourgeois, 2-6 Chemin des Pensionnats, 1752 Villars-sur-Glâne, Fribourg, Switzerland
| | - Abdelkarim S Allal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hôpital Fribourgeois, 2-6 Chemin des Pensionnats, 1752 Villars-sur-Glâne, Fribourg, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Wang L, Liu Z, He Z, Zhang C. Autologous myocutaneous flap implantation for chronic refractory chest wall sinus with infection: a case report. J Cardiothorac Surg 2023; 18:121. [PMID: 37038229 PMCID: PMC10084654 DOI: 10.1186/s13019-023-02205-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/21/2022] [Accepted: 03/31/2023] [Indexed: 04/12/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Chest wall sinus with infection is a refractory disease caused by a variety of susceptible factors, and the treatment is still challenging. For clinically complex cases, although there are various surgical methods to choose from, it is still very difficult to achieve clinical cure, especially for patients with older age and many underlying diseases. Complete resection of chest wall sinus and application of repair and reconstruction technology may bring hope to refractory cases. CASE PRESENTATION Herein, we report a case of a 67 year-old woman who had undergone breast cancer surgery and a history of multiple cycles of radiotherapy and chemotherapy. One year ago, she had a fistula in the left chest wall with yellow purulent fluid. After admission to our hospital, chest computed tomography (CT) showed the formation of the left chest wall sinus, accompanied by high-density images of the left clavicle, part of the ribs and part of the sternu. According to the patient's symptoms, signs and imaging examination, we preliminarily diagnosed the patient as chest wall sinus with infection and chronic osteomyelitis. Therefore, in the first-stage operation, the patient underwent left chest wall sinus resection, left partial rib resection, left partial clavicular resection and left partial sternal resection, After surgery, the wound surface was changed with gauze dressing with sensitive antibiotic solution every day until the wound surface was clean and new granulation was formed. In the second-stage operation, the wound surface was appropriately expanded, and the pedicled latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flap was transferred to the chest wall defect. Finally, the skin paddle was sutured without tension to the normal skin around the chest, and two drainage tubes were placed. Anti-infection, anti-spasm, anti-coagulation and other treatments were given after operation, and the survival of myocutaneous flap, wound healing and sinus disappearance were observed. CONCLUSION The application of pedicled latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flap in the treatment of intractable chronic chest wall sinus is an effective method. It does not change the shape of the thorax. The clinical effect is satisfactory in the near and medium term, which is worthy of clinical promotion.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lei Wang
- Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Tongde Hospital of Zhejiang Province, 234 Gucui Rd., Hangzhou, 310012, Zhejiang, China
| | - Zhijun Liu
- Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Tongde Hospital of Zhejiang Province, 234 Gucui Rd., Hangzhou, 310012, Zhejiang, China.
| | - Zhongliang He
- Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Tongde Hospital of Zhejiang Province, 234 Gucui Rd., Hangzhou, 310012, Zhejiang, China
| | - Chun Zhang
- Department of Traumatology and Orthopedic Surgery, Tongde Hospital of Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou, 310012, Zhejiang, China
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Tramm T, Kaidar-Person O. Optimising post-operative radiation therapy after oncoplastic and reconstructive procedures. Breast 2023; 69:366-374. [PMID: 37023565 PMCID: PMC10119683 DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2023.03.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/05/2022] [Revised: 02/16/2023] [Accepted: 03/25/2023] [Indexed: 03/30/2023] Open
Abstract
Surgical techniques for breast cancer have been refined over the past decades to deliver an aesthetic outcome as close as possible to the contralateral intact breast. Current surgery further allows excellent aesthetic outcome even in case of mastectomy, by performing skin sparing or nipple sparing mastectomy in combination with breast reconstruction. In this review we discuss how to optimise post-operative radiation therapy after oncoplastic and breast reconstructive procedures, including dose, fractionation, volumes, surgical margins, and boost application.
Collapse
|
8
|
Naoum GE, Ioakeim MI, Shui AM, Salama L, Colwell A, Ho AY, Taghian AG. Radiation Modality (Proton/Photon), Timing, and Complication Rates in Patients With Breast Cancer Receiving 2-Stages Expander/Implant Reconstruction. Pract Radiat Oncol 2022; 12:475-486. [PMID: 35989216 PMCID: PMC9637758 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2022.05.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/24/2022] [Revised: 05/26/2022] [Accepted: 05/31/2022] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Our purpose is to explore the effect of postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) modality and timing on complication rates in breast cancer patients receiving immediate 2-stages expander/implant. METHODS AND MATERIALS We reviewed the charts of 661 patients who underwent immediate 2-stages expander/implant with/without PMRT at our institution from 2000 to 2019. Patients were divided into 3 cohorts: no radiation, PMRT to expanders (RTE), and PMRT to implants after expander exchange (RTI). PMRT was delivered either with 3-dimensional conformal photon with or without chest wall boost (CWB) or proton therapy. Reconstruction complications were defined as infection/necrosis requiring debridement, capsular-contracture requiring capsulotomy, and reconstruction failure requiring prothesis removal. Logistic regression and Cox models were used to assess the effect of different radiation therapy modalities on complication rates and local control. RESULTS Among 661 patients, 309 (46.7%) received PMRT, 220 of the 309 (71.2%) received RTE before exchange, and 89 (28.8%) received RTI after exchange. Seventeen out of 309 (5.5%) patients received proton therapy. The complications among RTE versus RTI cohorts were 22.7% versus 15.7% for infection/necrosis, 13.6% versus 19.1% for capsular-contracture, and 39.5% versus 31.5% for overall reconstruction failure, respectively. Among proton patients, 8/17 (47%) developed capsular contracture compared with 16.4% (24/146) and 10.3% (15/146) in CWB and non-CWB groups, respectively. Adjusted multivariable analysis showed no significant difference between RTI and RTE in terms of infection/necrosis and capsular contracture. Yet, RTE significantly increased overall reconstruction failure compared with RTI (39.5% vs 31.5%; odds ratio [OR], 2.11; P = .02). Protons significantly increased capsular contracture compared with both CWB and non-CWB groups (OR, 5.4; P = .01 and OR, 10.9; P < .001, respectively). Moreover, proton significantly increased overall reconstruction failure. The 5-year local control rates were 95.3% and 97.7% for RTE and RTI, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.2; P = .7). CONCLUSIONS Early radiation to the expander before the exchange to implant significantly increased overall reconstruction failure without improving local control. Protons significantly increased capsular contracture rates and overall reconstruction failure leading to more revision surgeries.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- George E Naoum
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachussetts; Current Affiliation: Department of Radiation Oncology, Northwestern University Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois.
| | - Myrsini Ioannidou Ioakeim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachussetts
| | - Amy M Shui
- Biostatistics Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachussetts
| | - Laura Salama
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachussetts; Current Affiliation: Brown University Medical Center, Providence, Rhode Island
| | - Amy Colwell
- Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachussetts
| | - Alice Y Ho
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachussetts
| | - Alphonse G Taghian
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachussetts.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Kim N, Park W, Cho WK, Kim HY, Choi DH, Nam SJ, Kim SW, Lee JE, Yu J, Chae BJ, Lee SK, Ryu JM, Mun GH, Pyon JK, Jeon BJ. Suggestion for the omission of post-mastectomy chest wall radiation therapy in patients who underwent skin-sparing/nipple-sparing mastectomy. Breast 2022; 66:54-61. [PMID: 36179501 PMCID: PMC9526229 DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2022.09.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/20/2022] [Revised: 08/24/2022] [Accepted: 09/19/2022] [Indexed: 12/27/2022] Open
Abstract
AIM Both skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) and nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) have been widely adopted. Although postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) can improve clinical outcomes, it can worsen cosmesis following reconstruction. Therefore, identifying risk factors of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) could help de-escalate PMRT after NSM/SSM in patients with pT1-2 disease. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed patients treated with SSM (N = 400) and NSM (N = 156) in patients with pT1-2N0-1 disease between 2009 and 2016. Seventy-four patients received PMRT with 50-50.4 Gy in 25-28 fractions. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to analyze the prognostic factors of IBTR. RESULTS With a median follow-up of 66.2 months, 17 IBTR events were observed, with 5-year IBTR-free rate of 97.2%. Although only one IBTR was observed after PMRT, there was no statistical difference in the 5-year IBTR-free rate (PMRT vs. no PMRT, 98.6% vs. 97.0%, p = 0.360). Multivariable analyses demonstrated that age ≤45 years and lymphovascular invasion (LVI) were adverse features of IBTR. The low-risk group (0 risk factor) showed a better 5-year IBTR-free rate than the high-risk group (≥1 risk factor) (100.0% vs. 95.8%, p = 0.003). In the high-risk group, PMRT slightly improved 5-year IBTR-free rate compared with no PMRT (98.6% vs. 95.2%, p = 0.166). In addition, PMRT increased 5-year cumulative incidence of reconstruction failure (10.0% vs. 2.8%, p = 0.001). CONCLUSION We identified risk factors (age and LVI) related to IBTR following upfront SSM/NSM with pT1-2 disease. As a hypothesis-generating study, de-escalation of PMRT by omitting chest wall irradiation in selective patients could improve reconstruction-related complications without compromising oncologic outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nalee Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Won Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea,Corresponding author. Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 06351, Republic of Korea.
| | - Won Kyung Cho
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Hae Young Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Doo Ho Choi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Seok Jin Nam
- Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Seok Won Kim
- Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Jeong Eon Lee
- Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Jonghan Yu
- Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Byung Joo Chae
- Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Se Kyung Lee
- Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Jai Min Ryu
- Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Goo-Hyun Mun
- Department of Plastic Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Jai-Kyong Pyon
- Department of Plastic Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Byung-Joon Jeon
- Department of Plastic Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Yehia ZA, Punglia RS, Wong J. Integration of Radiation and Reconstruction After Mastectomy. Semin Radiat Oncol 2022; 32:237-244. [DOI: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2022.01.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
|
11
|
Weber WP, Shaw J, Pusic A, Wyld L, Morrow M, King T, Mátrai Z, Heil J, Fitzal F, Potter S, Rubio IT, Cardoso MJ, Gentilini OD, Galimberti V, Sacchini V, Rutgers EJT, Benson J, Allweis TM, Haug M, Paulinelli RR, Kovacs T, Harder Y, Gulluoglu BM, Gonzalez E, Faridi A, Elder E, Dubsky P, Blohmer JU, Bjelic-Radisic V, Barry M, Hay SD, Bowles K, French J, Reitsamer R, Koller R, Schrenk P, Kauer-Dorner D, Biazus J, Brenelli F, Letzkus J, Saccilotto R, Joukainen S, Kauhanen S, Karhunen-Enckell U, Hoffmann J, Kneser U, Kühn T, Kontos M, Tampaki EC, Carmon M, Hadar T, Catanuto G, Garcia-Etienne CA, Koppert L, Gouveia PF, Lagergren J, Svensjö T, Maggi N, Kappos EA, Schwab FD, Castrezana L, Steffens D, Krol J, Tausch C, Günthert A, Knauer M, Katapodi MC, Bucher S, Hauser N, Kurzeder C, Mucklow R, Tsoutsou PG, Sezer A, Çakmak GK, Karanlik H, Fairbrother P, Romics L, Montagna G, Urban C, Walker M, Formenti SC, Gruber G, Zimmermann F, Zwahlen DR, Kuemmel S, El-Tamer M, Vrancken Peeters MJ, Kaidar-Person O, Gnant M, Poortmans P, de Boniface J. Oncoplastic breast consortium recommendations for mastectomy and whole breast reconstruction in the setting of post-mastectomy radiation therapy. Breast 2022; 63:123-139. [PMID: 35366506 PMCID: PMC8976143 DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2022.03.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/01/2021] [Revised: 03/03/2022] [Accepted: 03/14/2022] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
Aim Demand for nipple- and skin- sparing mastectomy (NSM/SSM) with immediate breast reconstruction (BR) has increased at the same time as indications for post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) have broadened. The aim of the Oncoplastic Breast Consortium initiative was to address relevant questions arising with this clinically challenging scenario. Methods A large global panel of oncologic, oncoplastic and reconstructive breast surgeons, patient advocates and radiation oncologists developed recommendations for clinical practice in an iterative process based on the principles of Delphi methodology. Results The panel agreed that surgical technique for NSM/SSM should not be formally modified when PMRT is planned with preference for autologous over implant-based BR due to lower risk of long-term complications and support for immediate and delayed-immediate reconstructive approaches. Nevertheless, it was strongly believed that PMRT is not an absolute contraindication for implant-based or other types of BR, but no specific recommendations regarding implant positioning, use of mesh or timing were made due to absence of high-quality evidence. The panel endorsed use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice. It was acknowledged that the shape and size of reconstructed breasts can hinder radiotherapy planning and attention to details of PMRT techniques is important in determining aesthetic outcomes after immediate BR. Conclusions The panel endorsed the need for prospective, ideally randomised phase III studies and for surgical and radiation oncology teams to work together for determination of optimal sequencing and techniques for PMRT for each patient in the context of BR Autologous breast reconstruction is increasingly preferred over implants in the setting of radiation therapy. Use of patient-reported outcomes is endorsed. Shape and size of reconstructed breasts can hinder radiotherapy planning. There is a need for randomised phase III trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Walter Paul Weber
- Breast Center, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland; University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
| | - Jane Shaw
- Patient Advocacy Group, Oncoplastic Breast Consortium, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Andrea Pusic
- Brigham and Women's/Dana Farber Cancer Center, USA
| | - Lynda Wyld
- Department of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Monica Morrow
- Breast Surgery Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Tari King
- Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital / Dana Farber Cancer Institute, USA
| | - Zoltán Mátrai
- Department of Breast and Sarcoma Surgery, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary
| | - Jörg Heil
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Heidelberg, Medical School, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Florian Fitzal
- Department of Surgery and Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Shelley Potter
- Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Clifton, Bristol, UK
| | - Isabel T Rubio
- Breast Surgical Oncology, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain
| | - Maria-Joao Cardoso
- Breast Unit, Champalimaud Clinical Centre, Champalimaud Foundation, And Nova Medical School, Lisbon, Portugal
| | | | | | - Virgilio Sacchini
- Breast Surgery Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Emiel J T Rutgers
- Department of Surgery, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - John Benson
- Cambridge Breast Unit, Addenbrooke's Hospital Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; Cambridge Breast Unit, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation TRUST, School of Medicine, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK
| | - Tanir M Allweis
- Hadassah Medical Center & Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel
| | - Martin Haug
- Breast Center and Department of Plastic, Reconstructive, Aesthetic and Handsurgery University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Regis R Paulinelli
- Federal University of Goiás, Araújo Jorge Hospital, Goiás Anti-Cancer Association, Goiás, Brazil
| | - Tibor Kovacs
- Jiahui Internatioonal Hospital Shanghai, China; Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust London, UK
| | - Yves Harder
- Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Ospedale Regionale di Lugano, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale (EOC), Lugano, Switzerland; Faculty of Biomedical Sciences, Università Della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano, Switzerland
| | | | - Eduardo Gonzalez
- Departament of Mastology, Breast Unit- Instituto de Oncología Angel H Roffo, Buenos Aires Univesity. Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Andree Faridi
- Department of Senology/Breast Center, University Hospital Bonn, Germany
| | - Elisabeth Elder
- Westmead Breast Cancer Institute, Westmead Hospital, University of Sydney, Australia
| | - Peter Dubsky
- Department of Surgery and Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Breast Center, Hirslanden Clinic St. Anna, Lucerne, Switzerland
| | - Jens-Uwe Blohmer
- Department of Gynecology and Breast Center, Charité University Hospital, Berlin, Germany
| | - Vesna Bjelic-Radisic
- Breast Unit, Helios University Hospital, University Witten/Herdecke, Wuppertal, Germany
| | - Mitchel Barry
- Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Susanne Dieroff Hay
- Patient Advocacy Group, Oncoplastic Breast Consortium, President, the Swedish Breast Cancer Association, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Kimberly Bowles
- Patient Advocacy Group, Oncoplastic Breast Consortium, Not Putting on A Shirt, Pittsburgh, USA
| | - James French
- Westmead Breast Cancer Institute, Westmead Hospital, University of Sydney, Australia
| | - Roland Reitsamer
- Breast Center Salzburg, University Clinic Salzburg, Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria
| | - Rupert Koller
- Department of Plastic, Aesthetic and Reconstructive Surgery, Vienna Health Services, Clinic Landstrasse and Clinic Ottakring, Vienna, Austria
| | - Peter Schrenk
- Breast Cancer Center, Kepler University Hospital, Linz, Austria
| | | | - Jorge Biazus
- Division of Breast Surgery, Universidade Federal Do Rio Grande Do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, Brazil
| | - Fabricio Brenelli
- Breast Oncology Division, University of Campinas, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil
| | - Jaime Letzkus
- San Borja Arriaran Clinical Hospital, University of Chile, Chile
| | | | | | - Susanna Kauhanen
- Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Ulla Karhunen-Enckell
- Tampere University Hospital, Department of Surgery and Tays Cancer Center, Tampere, Finland
| | - Juergen Hoffmann
- Breast Center, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
| | - Ulrich Kneser
- Department of Hand, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Burn Center, BG Trauma Center Ludwigshafen/Rhine, Hand and Plastic Surgery, University Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Thorsten Kühn
- Interdisciplinary Breast Center, Klinikum Esslingen, Germany
| | | | - Ekaterini Christina Tampaki
- Department of Plastic, Reconstructive Surgeryand Burn Unit, KAT Athens Hospital and Trauma Center, Athens, Greece
| | | | - Tal Hadar
- Hadassah Medical Center & Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel
| | - Giuseppe Catanuto
- Multidisciplinary Breast Unit, Azienda Ospedaliera Cannizzaro, Catania, Italy
| | | | - Linetta Koppert
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Pedro F Gouveia
- Breast Unit, Champalimaud Clinical Centre, Champalimaud Foundation, And Nova Medical School, Lisbon, Portugal
| | - Jakob Lagergren
- Department of Surgery, Capio St Goran's Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Tor Svensjö
- Department of Surgery, Central Hospital, Kristianstad, Sweden
| | - Nadia Maggi
- Breast Center, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Elisabeth A Kappos
- Breast Center and Department of Plastic, Reconstructive, Aesthetic and Handsurgery University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | | | | | - Daniel Steffens
- Breast Center, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Janna Krol
- Breast Center, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | | | | | - Michael Knauer
- Breast Center Eastern Switzerland, St. Gallen, Switzerland
| | - Maria C Katapodi
- University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland; Patient Advocacy Group, Oncoplastic Breast Consortium, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Susanne Bucher
- Breast Center, Lucerne Cantonal Hospital, Lucerne, Switzerland
| | - Nik Hauser
- Breast Center, Hirslanden Clinic Aarau, Aarau, Frauenarztzentrum Aargau AG, Baden, Switzerland
| | - Christian Kurzeder
- Breast Center, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland; University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Rosine Mucklow
- Patient Advocacy Group, Oncoplastic Breast Consortium, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Pelagia G Tsoutsou
- University Hospital Geneva, University of Geneva, Faculty of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Atakan Sezer
- Department of Surgery, Trakya University Medical School Hospital, Turkey
| | - Güldeniz Karadeniz Çakmak
- Department of Surgery, The School of Medicine, Zonguldak Bulent Ecevit University, Zonguldak, Turkey
| | | | - Patricia Fairbrother
- Patient Advocacy Group, Oncoplastic Breast Consortium, Breakthrough Breast Cancer, Association Breast Surgery UKBCC, Kedleston, UK
| | - Laszlo Romics
- Department of Surgery, New Victoria Hospital, Glasgow, UK
| | - Giacomo Montagna
- Breast Surgery Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Cicero Urban
- Breast Unit, Hospital Nossa Senhora Das Graças, Curitiba, Brazil
| | - Melanie Walker
- Breast Endocrine and General Surgery Unit, The Alfred, Melbourne, Australia; Breast Surgeons of Australia and New Zealand (BreastSurgANZ), Australia
| | - Silvia C Formenti
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Meyer Cancer Center, Weill Cornell Medicine, USA
| | - Guenther Gruber
- Institute for Radiotherapy, Klinik Hirslanden, 8032, Zurich, Switzerland; University of Berne, 3000, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Frank Zimmermann
- Clinic of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Daniel Rudolf Zwahlen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cantonal Hospital of Winterthur, Winterthur, Switzerland
| | - Sherko Kuemmel
- Department of Gynecology and Breast Center, Charité University Hospital, Berlin, Germany; Breast Unit, Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Germany
| | - Mahmoud El-Tamer
- Breast Surgery Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Marie Jeanne Vrancken Peeters
- Department of Surgical Oncology Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek & Amsterdam University Medical Center, Netherlands
| | - Orit Kaidar-Person
- Breast Radiation Therapy Unit, Sheba Tel Hashomer, Ramat Gan, Israel; Sackler School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel
| | - Michael Gnant
- Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Philip Poortmans
- Iridium Netwerk and University of Antwerp, Wilrijk-Antwerpen, Belgium
| | - Jana de Boniface
- Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Surgery, Capio St Göran's Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Citgez B, Yigit B, Bas S. Oncoplastic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery: A Comprehensive Review. Cureus 2022; 14:e21763. [PMID: 35251834 PMCID: PMC8890601 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.21763] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 01/31/2022] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
|
13
|
Immediate breast reconstruction has no impact on the oncologic outcomes of patients treated with post-mastectomy radiation therapy: a comparative analysis based on propensity score matching. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2022; 192:101-112. [PMID: 35034242 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-021-06483-2] [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: 06/21/2021] [Accepted: 12/03/2021] [Indexed: 11/02/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To investigate the impact of immediate breast reconstruction (iBR) on patients treated with post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) using propensity score matching (PSM). METHODS After a retrospective review of patients treated with PMRT between 2008 and 2017, we included 153 patients who underwent iBR and 872 patients who did not undergo iBR. Among the 153 patients who underwent iBR, 34 received one-stage iBR with autologous tissue and 119 received two-stage iBR. Conventional fractionated PMRT with a total dose of 50-50.4 Gy in 25-28 fractions was performed in all patients. Propensity scores were calculated via logistic regression. RESULTS Patients who underwent iBR were younger, had early stage disease, and had more frequent hormone receptor-positive tumor than those who did not undergo iBR. After PSM, 127 patients from each group with well-balanced characteristics were selected. With a median follow-up of 67.5 months, iBR led to better 6-year disease-free survival rates compared to no iBR before PSM (84.8% vs. 71.4%, p = 0.003); after PSM, there was no significant difference (84.8% vs. 75.5%, p = 0.130). On multivariable analysis in the matched cohort, iBR was not associated with inferior disease-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.67; p = 0.175). In the sensitivity analysis, iBR was not associated with a lower disease-free survival across all prognostic groups. The 5-year cumulative incidence of iBR failure was 15.0%. CONCLUSION In patients with adverse pathologic factors planning to receive PMRT, iBR did not compromise oncologic outcomes. In addition, iBR can be considered in patients treated with PMRT with several clinicopathologic risk factors.
Collapse
|
14
|
Naoum GE, Ho AY, Shui A, Salama L, Goldberg S, Arafat W, Winograd J, Colwell A, Smith BL, Taghian AG. Risk of Developing Breast Reconstruction Complications: A Machine-Learning Nomogram for Individualized Risk Estimation with and without Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2022; 149:1e-12e. [PMID: 34758003 DOI: 10.1097/prs.0000000000008635] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/29/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The purpose of this study was to create a nomogram using machine learning models predicting risk of breast reconstruction complications with or without postmastectomy radiation therapy. METHODS Between 1997 and 2017, 1617 breast cancer patients undergoing mastectomy and breast reconstruction were analyzed. Those with autologous, tissue expander/implant, and single-stage direct-to-implant reconstruction were included. Postmastectomy radiation therapy was delivered either with three-dimensional conformal photon or proton therapy. Complication endpoints were defined based on surgical reintervention operative notes as infection/necrosis requiring débridement. For implant-based patients, complications were defined as capsular contracture requiring capsulotomy and implant failure. For each complication endpoint, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator-penalized regression was used to select the subset of predictors associated with the smallest prediction error from 10-fold cross-validation. Nomograms were built using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator-selected predictors, and internal validation using cross-validation was performed. RESULTS Median follow-up was 6.6 years. Among 1617 patients, 23 percent underwent autologous reconstruction, 39 percent underwent direct-to-implant reconstruction, and 37 percent underwent tissue expander/implant reconstruction. Among 759 patients who received postmastectomy radiation therapy, 8.3 percent received proton-therapy to the chest wall and nodes and 43 percent received chest wall boost. Internal validation for each model showed an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 73 percent for infection, 75 percent for capsular contracture, 76 percent for absolute implant failure, and 68 percent for overall implant failure. Periareolar incisions and complete implant muscle coverage were found to be important predictors for infection and capsular contracture, respectively. In a multivariable analysis, we found that protons compared to no postmastectomy radiation therapy significantly increased capsular contracture risk (OR, 15.3; p < 0.001). This was higher than the effect of photons with electron boost versus no postmastectomy radiation therapy (OR, 2.5; p = 0.01). CONCLUSION Using machine learning, these nomograms provided prediction of postmastectomy breast reconstruction complications with and without radiation therapy. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Risk, III.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- George E Naoum
- From the Departments of Radiation Oncology, Plastic Surgery, and Surgery and the Biostatistics Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School; and Department of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria University
| | - Alice Y Ho
- From the Departments of Radiation Oncology, Plastic Surgery, and Surgery and the Biostatistics Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School; and Department of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria University
| | - Amy Shui
- From the Departments of Radiation Oncology, Plastic Surgery, and Surgery and the Biostatistics Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School; and Department of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria University
| | - Laura Salama
- From the Departments of Radiation Oncology, Plastic Surgery, and Surgery and the Biostatistics Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School; and Department of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria University
| | - Saveli Goldberg
- From the Departments of Radiation Oncology, Plastic Surgery, and Surgery and the Biostatistics Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School; and Department of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria University
| | - Waleed Arafat
- From the Departments of Radiation Oncology, Plastic Surgery, and Surgery and the Biostatistics Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School; and Department of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria University
| | - Jonathan Winograd
- From the Departments of Radiation Oncology, Plastic Surgery, and Surgery and the Biostatistics Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School; and Department of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria University
| | - Amy Colwell
- From the Departments of Radiation Oncology, Plastic Surgery, and Surgery and the Biostatistics Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School; and Department of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria University
| | - Barbara L Smith
- From the Departments of Radiation Oncology, Plastic Surgery, and Surgery and the Biostatistics Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School; and Department of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria University
| | - Alphonse G Taghian
- From the Departments of Radiation Oncology, Plastic Surgery, and Surgery and the Biostatistics Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School; and Department of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria University
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Hall J, Fried D, Marks LB, Gupta GP, Jones E, Elmore S, Pearlstein K, Downs-Canner S, Gallagher K, Spanheimer PM, Carr J, Ogunleye AA, Casey DL. Dosimetric and Clinical Factors Associated with Breast Reconstruction Complications in Patients Receiving Post-Mastectomy Radiation. Pract Radiat Oncol 2021; 12:e169-e176. [PMID: 34920164 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2021.11.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/23/2021] [Revised: 11/01/2021] [Accepted: 11/12/2021] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S) Approximately 30% of women who receive post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) in the setting of breast reconstruction suffer from reconstruction complications. This study aims to assess clinical and dosimetric factors associated with the risk of reconstruction complications after PMRT, with the ultimate goal of identifying a dosimetric constraint that can be utilized clinically to limit this risk. MATERIALS/METHODS We retrospectively identified 41 patients who underwent modified radical (MRM) or total mastectomy followed by immediate or delayed reconstruction (autologous or implant-based) and radiation at a single institution from 2014-2020. Reconstruction complications were defined as flap or implant failure, necrosis, capsular contracture, cellulitis/infection, implant rupture, implant malposition, leakage/rupture, unplanned operation, and hematoma/seroma. Clinical and dosimetric variables associated with complications were assessed with univariate analyses. RESULTS 12 patients (29%) suffered reconstruction complications which led to flap or implant failure in 5 patients. Median time to complication following reconstruction was 8 months. 32% of patients with immediate and 20% with delayed reconstruction suffered a complication, respectively. There were no local failures. Smoking (p=0.02), use of bolus (p=0.03), and V107 > 11% (p=0.03) were associated with increased complication rates. The complication rates were 42% when V107 > 11% versus 12% when V107 < 11%; 58% in smokers versus 17% in nonsmokers; and 42% with bolus versus 7% without. CONCLUSION Plan heterogeneity appears to be associated with the risk of reconstruction complications. Pending further validation, V107 < 11% may serve as a reasonable guide to limit this risk. Further consideration should be given to the selective use of bolus in this setting and optimization of clinical factors such as smoking cessation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jacob Hall
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - David Fried
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - Lawrence B Marks
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - Gaorav P Gupta
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - Ellen Jones
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - Shekinah Elmore
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - Kevin Pearlstein
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - Stephanie Downs-Canner
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - Kristalyn Gallagher
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - Philip M Spanheimer
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - Jennifer Carr
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - Adeyemi A Ogunleye
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - Dana L Casey
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
The Impact of Adjuvant Radiotherapy on Immediate Implant-based Breast Reconstruction Surgical and Satisfaction Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY-GLOBAL OPEN 2021; 9:e3910. [PMID: 34765389 PMCID: PMC8575424 DOI: 10.1097/gox.0000000000003910] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/10/2021] [Accepted: 09/10/2021] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
Adjuvant radiotherapy could be a necessary step in the oncological treatment for breast cancer. However, radiotherapy may have negative effects on implant-based immediate breast reconstruction. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of adjuvant radiation therapy on surgical results and patient-reported satisfaction outcomes in women undergoing immediate implant-based breast reconstruction. Methods A systematic search in PubMed was conducted on September 2019 and updated on April 2021. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Form for Observational Studies. RevMan 5 was used for statistical analysis. We obtained relative risks to determine the complication incidence and mean differences for 2-year BREAST-Q scores. Results Fourteen studies were included. A total of 11,958 implant-based immediate reconstructions were performed, 2311 received postmastectomy radiation therapy, and 9647 were considered as control group. Surgical complications, reoperation rates, and reconstruction failure were significantly higher among irradiated breasts. Significantly lower BREAST-Q scores were reported by irradiated women receiving radiotherapy. Conclusions This systematic review and meta-analysis combines reconstruction complication rates with aesthetic and patient-reported satisfaction outcomes. Adjuvant radiotherapy is consistently associated with greater complication rates and poorer aesthetic and satisfaction outcomes. The magnitude of association is significantly lower when the reconstruction is based on autologous tissues.
Collapse
|
17
|
Kaidar-Person O, Dahn HM, Nichol AM, Boersma LJ, de Ruysscher D, Meattini I, Pignol JP, Aristei C, Belkacemi Y, Benjamin D, Bese N, Coles CE, Franco P, Ho AY, Hol S, Jagsi R, Kirby AM, Marrazzo L, Marta GN, Moran MS, Nissen HD, Strnad V, Zissiadis Y, Poortmans PM, Offersen BV. A Delphi study and International Consensus Recommendations: The use of bolus in the setting of postmastectomy radiation therapy for early breast cancer. Radiother Oncol 2021; 164:115-121. [PMID: 34563607 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.09.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/04/2021] [Revised: 09/14/2021] [Accepted: 09/15/2021] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
Abstract
Bolus serves as a tissue equivalent material that shifts the 95-100% isodose line towards the skin and subcutaneous tissue. The need for bolus for all breast cancer patients planned for postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) has been questioned. The work was initiated by the faculty of the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) breast cancer courses and represents a multidisciplinary international breast cancer expert collaboration to optimize PMRT. Due to the lack of randomised trials evaluating the benefits of bolus, we designed a stepwise project to evaluate the existing evidence about the use of bolus in the setting of PMRT to achieve an international consensus for the indications of bolus in PMRT, based on the Delphi method.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Orit Kaidar-Person
- Breast Cancer Radiation Therapy Unit, at Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel; Sackler School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel; GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology (Maastro), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
| | - Hannah M Dahn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada
| | - Alan M Nichol
- Department of Radiation Oncology, BC Cancer - Vancouver, Vancouver, Canada
| | - Liesbeth J Boersma
- Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Dirk de Ruysscher
- Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Icro Meattini
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences "M. Serio", University of Florence; Radiation Oncology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi; Florence, Italy
| | | | - Cynthia Aristei
- Radiation Oncology Section, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Perugia and Perugia General Hospital, Perugia, Italy
| | - Yazid Belkacemi
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Henri Mondor Breast Center, University of Paris-Est (UPEC), Creteil, France, INSERM Unit 955, Creteil, France
| | - Dori Benjamin
- Department of Physics, Radiation Oncology, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel
| | - Nuran Bese
- Acibadem Mehmet Ali Aydinlar University, Research Institute of Senology Istanbul, Turkey
| | | | - Pierfrancesco Franco
- Department of Translational Medicine, University of Eastern Piedmont and Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital "Maggiore della Carità,", Novara, Italy
| | - Alice Y Ho
- Harvard Medical School, Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, USA
| | - Sandra Hol
- Instituut Verbeeten, Tilburg, The Netherlands
| | - Reshma Jagsi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA
| | - Anna M Kirby
- Department of Radiotherapy, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK
| | - Livia Marrazzo
- Medical Physics Unit, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy
| | - Gustavo N Marta
- Department of Radiation Oncology - Hospital Sírio-Libanês, São Paulo, Brazil
| | | | | | - Vratislav Strnad
- Dept. of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Erlangen, Germany
| | | | | | - Birgitte V Offersen
- Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
O'Donnell JPM, Murphy D, Ryan ÉJ, Gasior SA, Sugrue R, O'Neill BL, Boland MR, Lowery AJ, Kerin MJ, McInerney NM. Optimal reconstructive strategies in the setting of post-mastectomy radiotherapy - A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol 2021; 47:2797-2806. [PMID: 34301444 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2021.07.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/18/2021] [Revised: 05/17/2021] [Accepted: 07/05/2021] [Indexed: 12/29/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND A third of breast cancer patients require mastectomy. In some high-risk cases postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) is indicated, threatening reconstructive complications. Several PMRT and reconstruction combinations are used. Autologous flap (AF) reconstruction may be immediate (AF→PMRT), delayed-immediate with tissue expander (TE [TE→PMRT→AF]) or delayed (PMRT→AF). Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) includes immediate TE followed by PMRT and conversion to permanent implant (PI [TE→PMRT→PI]), delayed TE insertion (PMRT→TE→PI), and prosthetic implant conversion prior to PMRT (TE→PI→PMRT). AIM Perform a network metanalysis (NMA) assessing optimal sequencing of PMRT and reconstructive type. METHODS A systematic review and NMA was performed according to PRISMA-NMA guidelines. NMA was conducted using R packages netmeta and Shiny. RESULTS 16 studies from 4182 identified, involving 2322 reconstructions over three decades, met predefined inclusion criteria. Studies demonstrated moderate heterogeneity. Multiple comparisons combining direct and indirect evidence established AF-PMRT as the optimal approach to avoid reconstructive failure, compared with IBBR strategies (versus PMRT→TE→PI; OR [odds ratio] 0.10, CrI [95% credible interval] 0.02 to 0.55; versus TE→PMRT→PI; OR 0.13, CrI 0.02 to 0.75; versus TE→PI→PMRT OR 0.24, CrI 0.05 to 1.05). PMRT→AF best avoided infection, demonstrating significant improvement versus PMRT→TE→PI alone (OR 0.12, CrI 0.02 to 0.88). Subgroup analysis of IBBR found TE→PI→PMRT reduced failure rates (OR 0.35, CrI 0.15-0.81) compared to other IBBR strategies but increased capsular contracture. CONCLUSION Immediate AF reconstruction is associated with reduced failure in the setting of PMRT. However, optimal reconstructive strategy depends on patient, surgeon and institutional factors. If IBBR is chosen, complication rates decrease if performed prior to PMRT. PROSPERO REGISTRATION CRD 42020157077.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J P M O'Donnell
- Department of Plastics and Reconstructive Surgery, Galway University Hospitals, Galway, Ireland; Department of Surgery, Galway University Hospitals, Galway, Ireland.
| | - D Murphy
- Department of Plastics and Reconstructive Surgery, Galway University Hospitals, Galway, Ireland; Department of Surgery, Galway University Hospitals, Galway, Ireland
| | - É J Ryan
- Department of Surgery, Galway University Hospitals, Galway, Ireland
| | - S A Gasior
- University of Limerick School of Medicine, University of Limerick, Ireland
| | - R Sugrue
- Department of Plastics and Reconstructive Surgery, Galway University Hospitals, Galway, Ireland; Department of Surgery, Galway University Hospitals, Galway, Ireland
| | - B Lane O'Neill
- Department of Plastics and Reconstructive Surgery, Galway University Hospitals, Galway, Ireland; Department of Surgery, Galway University Hospitals, Galway, Ireland
| | - M R Boland
- Department of Surgery, The Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, 123 St Stephen's Green, Dublin, Ireland
| | - A J Lowery
- Department of Surgery, Galway University Hospitals, Galway, Ireland; The Lambe Institute for Translational Research, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland
| | - M J Kerin
- Department of Surgery, Galway University Hospitals, Galway, Ireland; The Lambe Institute for Translational Research, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland
| | - N M McInerney
- Department of Plastics and Reconstructive Surgery, Galway University Hospitals, Galway, Ireland; Department of Surgery, Galway University Hospitals, Galway, Ireland
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Kaidar-Person O, Hermann N, Poortmans P, Offersen BV, Boersma LJ, de Ruysscher D, Tramm T, Kühn T, Engberg Damsgaard T, Gentilini O, Maarse W, Sklair-Levi M, Mátrai Z. A multidisciplinary approach for autologous breast reconstruction: A narrative (re)view for better management. Radiother Oncol 2021; 157:263-271. [PMID: 33582192 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.01.036] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/10/2020] [Revised: 01/27/2021] [Accepted: 01/28/2021] [Indexed: 01/16/2023]
Abstract
Breast reconstruction and oncoplastic surgery have become an important part of breast cancer care. The use of autologous breast reconstruction (ABR) has evolved significantly with advances in microsurgery, aiming to reduce donor site complications and improve cosmesis. For years, immediate-ABR was considered a contraindication if postmastectomy irradiation (PMRT) was planned. As a result of de-escalation of axillary surgery the indication of PMRT are increasing along-side with observations that PMRT in the setting of ABR is not contraindicated. Surgical techniques may result in different amount and areas of breast residual glandular tissue and patient selection is important to reduce potential residual disease. Meticulus radiation planning is important to potentially reduce complications without compromising oncologic outcomes. Surgical techniques change constantly in aim to improve aesthetic results but should most importantly maintain priority to the oncological indications. By multidisciplinary team work with a comprehensive understanding of each discipline, we can preserve the accomplishments of breast surgery in the setting of PMRT, without compromising disease control.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Orit Kaidar-Person
- Breast Cancer Radiation Therapy Unit, at Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel; GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology (Maastro), Maastricht University, The Netherlands; Sackler School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Israel.
| | - Naama Hermann
- Sackler School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Israel; General Surgery B and The Meirav Breast Center, Sheba Medical Center
| | - Philip Poortmans
- Iridium Kankernetwerk, 2610 Wilrijk-Antwerp, Belgium; University of Antwerp, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, 2610 Wilrijk-Antwerp, Belgium
| | - Birgitte V Offersen
- Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
| | - Liesbeth J Boersma
- Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Dirk de Ruysscher
- Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Trine Tramm
- Department of Pathology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
| | - Thorsten Kühn
- Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Interdisciplinary Breast Center, Klinikum Esslingen, Germany
| | - Tine Engberg Damsgaard
- Department of Plastic Surgery and Burns Treatment, Copenhagen University Hospital and University of Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Oreste Gentilini
- Breast Surgery Unit, San Raffaele University and Research Hospital, Milano, Italy
| | - Wies Maarse
- Departmentof Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University Medical Centre Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Miri Sklair-Levi
- Sackler School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Israel; Radiology Department, Mercaz Mierav Breast Clinic, Sheba Tel Hashomer, Ramat Gan, Israel
| | - Zoltán Mátrai
- Department of Breast and Sarcoma Surgery, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary, Budapest, Hungary
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Kaidar-Person O, Offersen BV, Boersma LJ, de Ruysscher D, Tramm T, Kühn T, Gentilini O, Mátrai Z, Poortmans P. A multidisciplinary view of mastectomy and breast reconstruction: Understanding the challenges. Breast 2021; 56:42-52. [PMID: 33610903 PMCID: PMC7905468 DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2021.02.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/23/2020] [Revised: 01/25/2021] [Accepted: 02/05/2021] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
The current review paper was written in collaboration with breast cancer surgeons from the European Breast Cancer Research Association of Surgical Trialists (EUBREAST), a breast pathologist from the Danish Breast Cancer Group (DBCG), and representatives from the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) breast cancer course. Herein we summarize the different mastectomies and reconstruction procedures and define high-risk anatomical areas for breast cancer recurrences, to further specify the challenges in the surgical procedure, histopathological evaluation, and target volumes in case of postmastectomy irradiation, as recommended by the ESTRO guidelines according to the surgical procedure. The paper has original figures and illustrations for all disciplines for in-depth understanding of the differences between the procedures. Mastectomy techniques and reconstruction evolved to improve cosmetic outcomes. Different techniques maybe associated with different amount of residual breast tissue. More data is needed to estimate who are the patients at risk for residual disease or recurrence. Multidisciplinary work needed to individualise treatment for optimal oncological outcomes while maintaining the significant improvements in achieving better cosmesis for these patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Orit Kaidar-Person
- Breast Cancer Radiation Therapy Unit, At Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel; Sackler School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel; GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology (Maastro), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
| | - Birgitte V Offersen
- Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
| | - Liesbeth J Boersma
- GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology (Maastro), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Dirk de Ruysscher
- GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology (Maastro), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Trine Tramm
- Department of Pathology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
| | - Thorsten Kühn
- Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Interdisciplinary Breast Center, Klinikum Esslingen, Germany
| | - Oreste Gentilini
- Breast Surgery Unit, San Raffaele University Hospital, Milan, Italy
| | - Zoltán Mátrai
- Department of Breast and Sarcoma Surgery, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, 1122, Budapest, Ráth György U 7, Hungary
| | - Philip Poortmans
- Iridium Kankernetwerk, 2610, Wilrijk-Antwerp, Belgium; University of Antwerp, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, 2610, Wilrijk-Antwerp, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Chung SY, Chang JS, Shin KH, Kim JH, Park W, Kim H, Kim K, Lee IJ, Yoon WS, Cha J, Lee KC, Kim JH, Choi JH, Ahn SJ, Ha B, Lee SY, Lee DS, Lee J, Shin SO, Lee SW, Choi J, Kim MY, Kim YJ, Im JH, Suh CO, Kim YB. Impact of radiation dose on complications among women with breast cancer who underwent breast reconstruction and post-mastectomy radiotherapy: A multi-institutional validation study. Breast 2021; 56:7-13. [PMID: 33517043 PMCID: PMC7848800 DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2021.01.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/27/2020] [Revised: 01/11/2021] [Accepted: 01/15/2021] [Indexed: 12/01/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose Emerging data suggest that higher radiation doses in post-mastectomy radiotherapy may be associated with an increased risk of reconstruction complications. This study aimed to validate previous findings regarding the impact of radiation dose on complications among women with breast cancer using a multi-center dataset. Methods Fifteen institutions participated, and women with breast cancer who received radiotherapy after either autologous or prosthetic breast reconstruction were included. The primary endpoint was major post-radiation therapy complications requiring re-operation for explantation, flap failure, or bleeding control. Results In total, 314 patients were included. Radiotherapy was performed using both conventional fractionation and hypofractionation in various schedules. The range of the radiation therapy dose in Equivalent Dose in 2 Gy fractions (EQD2; α/β = 3.5) varied from 43.4 to 71.0 Gy (median dose: 48.6 Gy). Boost radiation therapy was administered to 49 patients. Major post-radiation therapy complications were observed in 24 (7.6%) patients. In multivariate analysis, an increasing EQD2 per Gy (odds ratio [OR]: 1.58, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.26–1.98; p < 0.001), current smoking status (OR: 25.48, 95% CI: 1.56–415.65; p = 0.023), and prosthetic breast reconstruction (OR: 9.28, 95% CI: 1.84–46.70; p = 0.007) were independently associated with an increased risk of major complications. Conclusion A dose-response relationship between radiation dose and the risk of complications was validated in this multi-center dataset. In this context, we hypothesize that the use of hypofractionated radiotherapy (40 Gy in 15 fractions) may improve breast reconstruction outcomes. Our multi-center prospective observational study (NCT03523078) is underway to further validate this hypothesis. Radiation dose is associated with the risk of breast reconstruction complications. We conducted a retrospective multi-center observational study of 314 women in Korea. Complication-related risk factors were identified using multivariate analysis. Use of hypofractionated radiation therapy may improve breast reconstruction outcomes. A prospective multi-center study is under way to further validate our findings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Seung Yeun Chung
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea; Department of Radiation Oncology, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Republic of Korea
| | - Jee Suk Chang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Kyung Hwan Shin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
| | - Jin Ho Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Won Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Haeyoung Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Kyubo Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ewha Womans University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Ik Jae Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Won Sup Yoon
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Korea University Ansan Hospital, Korea University Medical College, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Jihye Cha
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Wonju Severance Christian Hospital, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Republic of Korea
| | - Kyu-Chan Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gachon University Gil Medical Center, Incheon, Republic of Korea
| | - Jin Hee Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Keimyung University Dongsan Medical Center, Keimyung University School of Medicine, Daegu, Republic of Korea
| | - Jin Hwa Choi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Chung-Ang University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Sung-Ja Ahn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, Chonnam National University Medical School, Hwasun, Republic of Korea
| | - Boram Ha
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hallym University Dongtan Sacred Heart Hospital, Hwasung, Republic of Korea
| | - Sun Young Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Chonbuk National University Hospital, Jeonju, Republic of Korea
| | - Dong Soo Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Uijeongbu St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, Uijeongbu, Republic of Korea
| | - Jeongshim Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Inha University Hospital, Inha University of Medicine, Incheon, Republic of Korea
| | - Sei One Shin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Andong Medical Group Andong Hospital, Andong, Republic of Korea
| | - Sea-Won Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Eunpyeong St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Jinhyun Choi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Jeju National University Hospital, Jeju, Republic of Korea
| | - Mi Young Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kyungpook National University Chilgok Hospital, Daegu, Republic of Korea
| | - Yeon Joo Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Jung Ho Im
- Department of Radiation Oncology, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University, Seongnam, Republic of Korea
| | - Chang-Ok Suh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University, Seongnam, Republic of Korea
| | - Yong Bae Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Yang G, Chang JS, Shin KH, Kim JH, Park W, Kim H, Kim K, Lee IJ, Yoon WS, Cha J, Lee KC, Kim JH, Choi JH, Ahn SJ, Ha B, Lee SY, Lee DS, Lee J, Shin SO, Kim YB. Post-mastectomy radiation therapy in breast reconstruction: a patterns of care study of the Korean Radiation Oncology Group. Radiat Oncol J 2020; 38:236-243. [PMID: 33389980 PMCID: PMC7785842 DOI: 10.3857/roj.2020.00738] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/27/2020] [Revised: 11/15/2020] [Accepted: 11/25/2020] [Indexed: 01/04/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The details of breast reconstruction and radiation therapy (RT) vary between institutions; therefore, we sought to investigate the practice patterns of radiation oncologists who specialize in breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS We identified the practice patterns and inter-hospital variations from a multi-center cohort of women with breast cancer who underwent post-mastectomy RT (PMRT) to the reconstructed breast at 16 institutions between 2015 and 2016. The institutions were requested to contour the target volume and produce RT plans for one representative case with five different clinical scenarios and answer questionnaires which elicited infrastructural information. We assessed the inter-institutional variations in RT in terms of the target, normal organ delineation, and dose-volume histograms. RESULTS Three hundred fourteen patients were included; 99% of them underwent immediate reconstruction. The most irradiated material was tissue expander (36.9%) followed by transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap (23.9%) and silicone implant (12.1%). In prosthetic-based reconstruction with tissue expander, most patients received PMRT following partial deflation. Conventional fractionation and hypofractionation RT were used in 66.6% and 33.4% patients, respectively (commonest: 40.05 Gy in 15 fractions [17.5%]). Furthermore, 15.6% of the patients received boost RT and 53.5% were treated with bolus. Overall, 15 physicians responded to the questionnaires and six submitted their contours and RT plans. There was a significant variability in target delineations and RT plans between physicians, and between clinical scenarios. CONCLUSION Adjuvant RT following post-mastectomy reconstruction has become a common practice in Korea. The details vary significantly between institutions, which highlights an urgent need for standard protocol in this clinical setting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gowoon Yang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Jee Suk Chang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Kyung Hwan Shin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Jin Ho Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Won Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Haeyoung Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Kyubo Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ewha Womans University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Ik Jae Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Won Sup Yoon
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Korea University Ansan Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Jihye Cha
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Wonju Severance Christian Hospital, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Korea
| | - Kyu-Chan Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gachon University Gil Medical Center, Incheon, Korea
| | - Jin Hee Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Keimyung University Dongsan Medical Center, Keimyung University School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea
| | - Jin Hwa Choi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Chung-Ang University Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | - Sung-Ja Ahn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, Chonnam National University Medical School, Hwasun, Korea
| | - Boram Ha
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hallym University Dongtan Sacred Heart Hospital, Hwasung, Korea
| | - Sun Young Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Chonbuk National University Hospital, Jeonju, Korea
| | - Dong Soo Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Uijeongbu St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Uijeongbu, Korea
| | - Jeongshim Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Inha University Hospital, Inha University School of Medicine, Incheon, Korea
| | - Sei One Shin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Andong Medical Group Andong Hospital, Andong, Korea
| | - Yong Bae Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Elghazawy H, Bakkach J, Zaghloul MS, Abusanad A, Hussein MM, Alorabi M, eldin NB, Helal T, Zaghloul TM, Venkatesulu BP, Elghazaly H, Al-Sukhun S. Implementation of breast cancer continuum of care in low- and middle-income countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. Future Oncol 2020; 16:2551-2567. [PMID: 32715776 PMCID: PMC7386379 DOI: 10.2217/fon-2020-0574] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/02/2020] [Accepted: 07/03/2020] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Breast cancer is the most common malignancy among women worldwide. The current COVID-19 pandemic represents an unprecedented challenge leading to care disruption, which is more severe in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) due to existing economic obstacles. This review presents the global perspective and preparedness plans for breast cancer continuum of care amid the COVID-19 outbreak and discusses challenges faced by LMIC in implementing these strategies. Prioritization and triage of breast cancer patients in a multidisciplinary team setting are of paramount importance. Deescalation of systemic and radiation therapy can be utilized safely in selected clinical scenarios. The presence of a framework and resource-adapted recommendations exploiting available evidence-based data with judicious personalized use of current resources is essential for breast cancer care in LMIC during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hagar Elghazawy
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Faculty of medicine, Ain Shams University Hospitals, Cairo 11566, Egypt
| | - Joaira Bakkach
- Biomedical Genomics & Oncogenetics Research Laboratory. Faculty of Sciences and Techniques of Tangier. Abdel Malek Essaadi University, Tangier 90000, Morocco
| | - Mohamed S Zaghloul
- Department of Radiotherapy, National Cancer Institute, Cairo University, Cairo 12622, Egypt
| | - Atlal Abusanad
- Department of Medicine, Oncology Division, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 23221, Saudi Arabia
| | - Mariam Mohamed Hussein
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Faculty of medicine, Ain Shams University Hospitals, Cairo 11566, Egypt
| | - Mohamed Alorabi
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Faculty of medicine, Ain Shams University Hospitals, Cairo 11566, Egypt
| | - Nermean Bahie eldin
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Faculty of medicine, Ain Shams University Hospitals, Cairo 11566, Egypt
| | - Thanaa Helal
- Department of Pathology, Ain Shams University Hospitals, Cairo 11566, Egypt
| | - Tarek M Zaghloul
- Department of Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Institute, Cairo University, Cairo 12622, Egypt
| | | | - Hesham Elghazaly
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Faculty of medicine, Ain Shams University Hospitals, Cairo 11566, Egypt
| | - Sana Al-Sukhun
- Al-Hyatt Oncology Center, Faculty of medicine, Jordan University, Amman 11183, Jordan
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Naoum GE, Roberts S, Brunelle CL, Shui AM, Salama L, Daniell K, Gillespie T, Bucci L, Smith BL, Ho AY, Taghian AG. Quantifying the Impact of Axillary Surgery and Nodal Irradiation on Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema and Local Tumor Control: Long-Term Results From a Prospective Screening Trial. J Clin Oncol 2020; 38:3430-3438. [PMID: 32730184 DOI: 10.1200/jco.20.00459] [Citation(s) in RCA: 59] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/29/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To independently evaluate the impact of axillary surgery type and regional lymph node radiation (RLNR) on breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) rates in patients with breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS From 2005 to 2018, 1,815 patients with invasive breast cancer were enrolled in a lymphedema screening trial. Patients were divided into the following 4 groups according to axillary surgery approach: sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) alone, SLNB+RLNR, axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) alone, and ALND+RLNR. A perometer was used to objectively assess limb volume. All patients received baseline preoperative and follow-up measurements after treatment. Lymphedema was defined as a ≥ 10% relative increase in arm volume arising > 3 months postoperatively. The primary end point was the BCRL rate across the groups. Secondary end points were 5-year locoregional control and disease-free-survival. RESULTS The cohort included 1,340 patients with SLNB alone, 121 with SLNB+RLNR, 91 with ALND alone, and 263 with ALND+RLNR. The overall median follow-up time after diagnosis was 52.7 months for the entire cohort. The 5-year cumulative incidence rates of BCRL were 30.1%, 24.9%, 10.7%, and 8.0% for ALND+RLNR, ALND alone, SLNB+RLNR, and SLNB alone, respectively. Multivariable Cox models adjusted for age, body mass index, surgery, and reconstruction type showed that the ALND-alone group had a significantly higher BCRL risk (hazard ratio [HR], 2.66; P = .02) compared with the SLNB+RLNR group. There was no significant difference in BCRL risk between the ALND+RLNR and ALND-alone groups (HR, 1.20; P = .49) and between the SLNB-alone and SLNB+RLNR groups (HR, 1.33; P = .44). The 5-year locoregional control rates were similar for the ALND+RLNR, ALND-alone, SLNB+RLNR, and SLNB-alone groups (2.8%, 3.8%, 0%, and 2.3%, respectively). CONCLUSION Although RLNR adds to the risk of lymphedema, the main risk factor is the type of axillary surgery used.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- George E Naoum
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.,Lymphedema Research Program, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
| | - Sacha Roberts
- Lymphedema Research Program, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
| | - Cheryl L Brunelle
- Lymphedema Research Program, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
| | - Amy M Shui
- Lymphedema Research Program, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA.,Biostatistics Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
| | - Laura Salama
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.,Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine, Boca Raton, FL
| | - Kayla Daniell
- Lymphedema Research Program, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
| | - Tessa Gillespie
- Lymphedema Research Program, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
| | - Loryn Bucci
- Lymphedema Research Program, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
| | - Barbara L Smith
- Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
| | - Alice Y Ho
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
| | - Alphonse G Taghian
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.,Lymphedema Research Program, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Optimal breast reconstruction type for patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, mastectomy followed by radiation therapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2020; 183:127-136. [PMID: 32607638 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-020-05747-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/05/2020] [Accepted: 06/13/2020] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To explore the optimal type of breast reconstruction and the time interval to postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) associated with lower complications in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS We reviewed the medical records of 300 patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, mastectomy with breast reconstruction and PMRT at our institution from 2000 to 2017. Reconstruction types included autologous flaps (AR), single-stage-direct-to-implant and two-stages expander/implant (TE/I). The primary endpoint was the rate of reconstruction complications including infection, skin and fat necrosis. Subgroup analysis compared rates of capsular contracture, implant rupture, implant exposure and overall implant failure in single-stage-direct-to-implant to TE/I. The secondary endpoint was identifying the time interval between surgery with immediate implant-based reconstruction and PMRT associated with lower probability of implant failure. Logistic regression models, Kaplan-Meier estimates and Polynomial regression were used to assess endpoints. RESULTS The median follow-up was 43.5 months. 29.3%, 28.3% and 42.4% of the cohort had AR, TE/I and single-stage-direct-to-implant D, respectively. The 5-year cumulative incidence rate of complications was 14.0%, 29.7% and 19.4% for AR, TE/I and single-stage-direct-to-implant, respectively (Log rank p = 0.02). Multivariate analysis showed significant association between TE/I and higher risk of infection (OR 8.1, p = 0.009) compared to AR, while single-stage-direct-to-implant and AR were comparable (OR 3.2, p = 0.2). On subgroup analysis, TE/I was significantly associated with higher rates of implant failure. The mean wait time to deliver PMRT after immediate reconstruction with no adjuvant chemotherapy was 8.4 and 10.7 weeks in single-stage-direct-to-implant and TE/I, respectively (p < 0.005). Delivering PMRT after 8 weeks of surgery yielded 10% probability of reconstruction failure in single-stage-direct-to-implant versus 40% in TE/I. CONCLUSION In comparison to two stages reconstruction, single-stage-direct-to-implant following neoadjuvant chemotherapy has lower complications and offers timely delivery of PMRT.
Collapse
|
26
|
Shumway DA, Momoh AO, Sabel MS, Jagsi R. Integration of Breast Reconstruction and Postmastectomy Radiotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2020; 38:2329-2340. [PMID: 32442071 DOI: 10.1200/jco.19.02850] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Dean A Shumway
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Adeyiza O Momoh
- Section of Plastic Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Michael S Sabel
- Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Reshma Jagsi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Simcock R, Thomas TV, Estes C, Filippi AR, Katz MA, Pereira IJ, Saeed H. COVID-19: Global radiation oncology's targeted response for pandemic preparedness. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2020; 22:55-68. [PMID: 32274425 PMCID: PMC7102593 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2020.03.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 126] [Impact Index Per Article: 31.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/20/2020] [Revised: 03/22/2020] [Accepted: 03/22/2020] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
As the global COVID-19 pandemic escalates there is a need within radiation oncology to work to support our patients in the best way possible. Measures are required to reduce infection spread between patients and within the workforce. Departments need contingency planning to create capacity and continue essential treatments despite a reduced workforce. The #radonc community held an urgent online journal club on Twitter in March 2020 to discuss these issues and create some consensus on crucial next steps. There were 121 global contributors. This document summarises these discussions around themes of infection prevention, rationalisation of workload and working practice in the presence of infection.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Andrea R Filippi
- Radiation Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo and University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
28
|
Naoum GE, Salama L, Niemierko A, Vieira BL, Belkacemi Y, Colwell AS, Winograd J, Smith B, Ho A, Taghian AG. Single Stage Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction Has Lower Complication Rates Than Tissue Expander and Implant and Comparable Rates to Autologous Reconstruction in Patients Receiving Postmastectomy Radiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020; 106:514-524. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.11.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 37] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/28/2019] [Revised: 10/31/2019] [Accepted: 11/03/2019] [Indexed: 01/03/2023]
|
29
|
Agafonoff S, Kundu N, Schwarz G, Shah C. Immediate Implant Reconstruction in Patients Undergoing Radiation Therapy: Opportunities and Challenges. Ann Surg Oncol 2020; 27:963-965. [DOI: 10.1245/s10434-019-08172-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/30/2019] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
|
30
|
|