Postmastectomy breast reconstruction in women aged 70 and older: An analysis of the National Cancer Database (NCDB)

Disaggregating the Asian-American Breast Cancer Population: Disparities in Reconstruction Rates

INTRODUCTION

Breast cancer (BC) incidence has been increasing among Asian-Americans (AsAms); recent data suggest these patients are less likely to undergo postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR) compared to non-Asian women. Historically, AsAm BC patients are reported in aggregate, masking heterogeneity within this population. We aim to identify patterns of postmastectomy reconstruction among disaggregated AsAm BC patients at our institution.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed for BC patients who underwent mastectomy between 2017 and 2021. Patient demographic and clinical information was collected including self-reported race/ethnicity and reconstruction at time of mastectomy. Self-identified Asian patients were disaggregated into East Asian, Southeast Asian, South Asian, and 'Asian Other.' We examined rates of reconstruction between the different races and the disaggregated Asian subgroups. Univariable and multivariable analysis was performed to examine patient factors associated with PMBR.

RESULTS

Six hundred and five patients met inclusion criteria. Forty seven percent of patients identified as Asian, 36% of which as East Asian. Forty four percent of all patients underwent PMBR. Southeast Asian and South Asian women were least likely to undergo reconstruction, while Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black women were most likely to pursue PMBR (P = 0.020). On multivariable analysis, Hispanic, non-Hispanic White, and non-Hispanic Black women were more likely to undergo reconstruction compared to Asian women. Other factors associated with reconstruction were coverage with private insurance and diagnosis of noninvasive disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of PMBR are lower among AsAms than non-Asian patients and vary between Asian ethnic subgroups. Further investigation is needed to identify patterns of reconstruction among the disaggregated AsAm population to address disparities.

Are There Disparities in Breast Reconstruction After Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy?

INTRODUCTION

Despite national guidelines against contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) in low- to moderate-risk breast cancer, CPM use continues to rise. Breast reconstruction improves health-related quality of life and satisfaction among women undergoing mastectomy. Given the lack of data regarding factors associated with reconstruction after CPM and the known benefits of reconstruction, we sought to investigate whether disparities exist in receipt of reconstruction after CPM.

METHODS

The 2004-2017 National Cancer Database was queried to identify women diagnosed with breast cancer who underwent unilateral mastectomy with CPM. Patients were divided into two groups: those who underwent planned reconstruction at any timepoint and those who did not. A secondary analysis comparing types of reconstruction (tissue, implant, combined) was conducted. Patient, tumor, and demographic characteristics were analyzed using chi-square test and odds ratios were calculated using generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

The cohort included 1,73,249 women: 95,818 (55.3%) underwent reconstruction and 77,431 (45.7%) did not. Both the rate CPM and the proportion of women undergoing reconstruction after CPM increased between 2004 and 2017. Of the women who had reconstruction, 40,840 (51.7%) received implants, 29,807 (37.7%) had tissue, and 8352 (10.6%) had combined reconstruction. After adjusted analysis, factors associated with reconstruction were young age, Hispanic ethnicity, private insurance, and living in an area with the highest education and median income (P < 0.01). Patients who underwent reconstruction were less likely to have radiation (P < 0.01) and chemotherapy (P < 0.01), more likely to have stage I disease (P < 0.01), and to be treated at an integrated cancer center (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Reconstruction after CPM is disproportionately received by younger women, Hispanics, those with private insurance, and higher socioeconomic status and education. While the rate of reconstruction after CPM is increasing, there remain significant disparities. Conscious efforts must be made to eliminate these disparities, especially given the known benefits of reconstruction after mastectomy.

Risk Factors for Skin Flap and Nipple-Areolar Necrosis in Patients Undergoing Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy With Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap Reconstruction

INTRODUCTION

Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) with deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap reconstruction is a surgical option for select patients with or at risk of breast cancer. However, post-operative skin flap and nipple-areolar complex (NAC) necrosis remain common complications. This study aimed to identify factors associated with necrosis in patients undergoing NSM with DIEP reconstruction.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed from 2015 to 2023. 74 variables were analyzed in patients undergoing NSM with DIEP. Patients were stratified into 3 groups based on post-operative skin/NAC necrosis: none, partial thickness, and full thickness. Comparative and descriptive statistics were performed via t-tests, ANOVA, and chi-squared tests.

RESULTS

34 women with 31 breast cancers met inclusion. 44% experienced necrosis: 15% partial thickness and 29% full thickness. The majority were white (85.3%) with mean age of 50 years (SD = 9.11). In patients with immediate DIEP reconstruction, hypoperfused areas identified by SPY angiography increased risk of necrosis (P = .012). Approximately 50% of both partial thickness and full thickness necrosis patients had concerns on SPY angiography. Former smokers in the full thickness necrosis group had more pack years than those without necrosis (9 vs .65 pack years, P = .035).

CONCLUSION

In patients receiving NSM with DIEP flap reconstruction, those with hypoperfusion on SPY angiography and longer smoking history had higher necrosis rates. This supports the continued used of SPY angiography and the role of pre-operative counseling in former smokers with increased pack years on their risk of necrosis and the role of preventative measures in the perioperative setting.

National trends in neoadjuvant chemotherapy utilization in patients with early-stage node-negative triple-negative breast cancer: the impact of the CREATE-X trial

PURPOSE

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) allows for assessment of tumor pathological response and has survival implications. In 2017, the CREATE-X trial demonstrated survival benefit with adjuvant capecitabine in patients TNBC and residual disease after NAC. We aimed to assess national rates of NAC for cT1-2N0M0 TNBC before and after CREATE-X and examine factors associated with receiving NAC vs adjuvant chemotherapy (AC).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of women with cT1-2N0M0 TNBC diagnosed from 2014 to 2019 in the National Cancer Database (NCDB) was performed. Variables were analyzed via ANOVA, Chi-squared, Fisher Exact tests, and a multivariate linear regression model was created.

RESULTS

55,633 women were included: 26.9% received NAC, 52.4% AC, and 20.7% received no chemotherapy (median ages 53, 59, and 71 years, p < 0.01). NAC utilization significantly increased over time: 19.5% in 2014-15 (n = 3,465 of 17,777), 27.1% in 2016-17 (n = 5,140 of 18,985), and 33.6% in 2018-19 (n = 6,337 of 18,871, p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, increased NAC was associated with younger age (< 50), non-Hispanic white race/ethnicity, lack of comorbidities, cT2 tumors, care at an academic or integrated-network cancer program, and diagnosis post-2017 (p < 0.05 for all). Patients with government-provided insurance were less likely to receive NAC (p < 0.01). Women who traveled > 60 miles for treatment were more likely to receive NAC (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

From 2014 to 2019, NAC utilization increased for patients with cT1-2N0M0 TNBC. Racial, socioeconomic, and access disparities were observed in who received NAC vs AC and warrants interventions to ensure equitable care.

National Trends in "Going Flat" After Mastectomy

INTRODUCTION

The "Going Flat" movement became widely publicized in 2016 and provides information and support to women who choose to forego post-mastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR). The objectives of this study were to evaluate temporal trends in PMBR to ascertain the potential impact of this movement and assess which factors are associated with going flat.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort analysis was performed using the NCDB of women with non-metastatic breast cancer who underwent mastectomy between 2004 and 2019. Trends in going flat after mastectomy were examined and stratified by age (< 50, 50-69, ≥ 70). A multivariate logistic regression model was used to identify factors associated with going flat.

RESULTS

650,983 patients met the inclusion criteria: 244,201 (37.5%) underwent PMBR and 406,782 (62.5%) went flat. Among women < 70, rates of going flat steadily decreased from 2004 to 2015 and then stabilized after 2015, coinciding with the rise of the "Going Flat" movement. In multivariate analysis, non-White race, older age, increasing comorbidities, government provided insurance, treatment at a community program, radiotherapy, and adjuvant chemotherapy were associated with a higher likelihood of going flat (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In the first 2 years after the "Going Flat" movement, the number of women going flat after mastectomy has stabilized in women < 70 for the first time in over a decade. These trends suggest that the social and cultural impact of this movement may have contributed to the stabilization of PMBR rates.

Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction Patterns at an Urban Academic Hospital and the Impact of Surgeon Gender

Background

Postmastectomy breast reconstruction is an essential element of multidisciplinary breast cancer care but may be underutilized.

Methods

This retrospective study analyzed mastectomy patients (2018–2021) at an urban hospital. Multivariable logistic regression was performed, and a mixed-effects logistic regression model was constructed to determine patient-level factors (age, race, body mass index, comorbidities, smoking status, insurance, type of surgery) and provider-level factors (breast surgeon gender, participation in multidisciplinary breast clinic) that influence reconstruction.

Results

Overall, 167 patients underwent mastectomy. The reconstruction rate was 35%. In multivariable analysis, increasing age (odds ratio [OR] 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91–0.99) and Medicaid insurance (OR 0.18; 95% CI 0.06–0.53) relative to private insurance were negative predictors, whereas bilateral mastectomy was a positive predictor (OR 7.07; 95% CI 2.95–17.9) of reconstruction. After adjustment for patent age, race, insurance, and type of surgery, female breast surgeons had 3.7 times greater odds of operating on patients who had reconstruction than males (95% CI 1.20–11.42).

Conclusion

Both patient- and provider-level factors have an impact on postmastectomy reconstruction. Female breast surgeons had nearly four times the odds of caring for patients who underwent reconstruction, suggesting that a more standardized process for plastic surgery referral is needed.

Immediate breast reconstruction in locally advanced breast cancer: is it safe?

PURPOSE

Immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) following mastectomy remains controversial for locally advanced breast cancer over concerns regarding recurrence and complications which may delay adjuvant therapies. This study aimed to compare the oncologic outcomes and surgical safety of IBR following mastectomy with mastectomy alone (MA) for locally advanced breast cancer.

METHODS

All patients treated at the Providence Breast Center between 2012 and 2017 for biopsy-proven locally advanced breast cancer, AJCC (8th edition) clinical stages (IIB-IIIC), were included. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival (DSS), and disease-free survival (DFS). Secondary outcomes included recurrence rate, adjuvant therapy use, and reoperation.

RESULTS

267 patients (112 IBR, 155 MA) were included. On average, IBR patients were younger (48.82 years vs 61.42 years, P < 0.001). Median study follow-up was 50.7 months. OS was higher among IBR patients (86.6% vs 73.5%, P < 0.05). However, no significant differences were found in DSS (87.5% vs 84.5%, P = 0.34), DFS (79.5% vs 78.7%, P = 0.55), local recurrence (0% vs 1.9%, P = 0.194), adjuvant therapy use (95.5% vs 91.6%, P = 0.155), or reoperation (1.8% vs 1.3%, P = 0.559).

CONCLUSION

IBR is a safe option for patients with locally advanced breast cancer and does not negatively impact survival, cancer recurrence rates, and use of adjuvant therapy.