The impact of immediate breast reconstruction on the time to delivery of adjuvant therapy: the iBRA-2 study

Postoperative outcomes of minimally invasive versus conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy with prosthesis breast reconstruction in breast cancer: a meta-analysis

Breast cancer is the most common malignant tumor worldwide, and mastectomy remains the primary strategy for treating early stage breast cancer. However, the complication rates, surgical variables, and oncologic safety of minimally invasive nipple-sparing mastectomy (MINSM) have not been fully addressed. We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs that compared MINSM with conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy (CNSM), both followed by Prosthesis Breast Reconstruction (PBR). The main outcomes observed included overall complications, (Grade III) complications, skin and nipple necrosis, wound dehiscence, infection, seroma, hematoma, implant loss, and oncologic safety (positive margins and recurrence). Secondary outcomes included operation time, blood loss, hospital stay, cost-effectiveness, and patient satisfaction. Binary and continuous variables were compared using odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). A total of 10 studies involving 2,166 patients were included. There were no statistically significant differences between MINSM and CNSM in terms of skin necrosis, wound dehiscence, infection, seroma, hematoma, implant loss, or oncologic safety. However, MINSM significantly reduced overall complications (OR = 0. 74, 95% CI [0. 58, 0. 94], p = 0. 01) and (Grade III) complications (OR = 0. 47, 95% CI [0. 31, 0. 71], p = 0. 0003). Nipple necrosis events were also significantly reduced in the MINSM group (OR = 0. 49, 95% CI [0. 30, 0. 80], p = 0. 005). Patient satisfaction improved notably in the MINSM group. Additionally, compared with the CNSM group, the MINSM group had longer operating times (MD = 46. 88, 95% CI [19. 55, 74. 21], p = 0. 0008) and hospital stays (MD = 1. 39, 95% CI [0. 65, 2. 12], p < 0. 001), while intraoperative blood loss was significantly reduced (MD = -29. 05, 95% CI [-36. 20, -21. 90], p < 0. 001). Compared with CNSM, MINSM offers advantages in reducing complications and intraoperative blood loss, as well as improving aesthetic outcomes and patient satisfaction. Therefore, MINSM may become a viable option for breast surgery. Nevertheless, a long-term evaluation of the oncologic safety of this approach is necessary to ensure its efficacy and safety for patients.

Breast surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with lobular carcinoma: surgical and oncologic outcome

INTRODUCTION

Breast cancer patients with invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) have an increased risk of positive margins after surgery and often show little response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). We aimed to investigate surgical outcomes in patients with ILC treated with NAC.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, all breast cancer patients with ILC treated with NAC who underwent surgery at the Netherlands Cancer Institute from 2010 to 2019 were selected. Patients with mixed type ILC in pre-NAC biopsies were excluded if the lobular component was not confirmed in the surgical specimen. Main outcomes were tumor-positive margins and re-excision rate. Associations between baseline characteristics and tumor-positive margins were assessed, as were complications, locoregional recurrence rate (LRR), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

We included 191 patients. After NAC, 107 (56%) patients had breast conserving surgery (BCS) and 84 (44%) patients underwent mastectomy. Tumor-positive margins were observed in 67 (35%) patients. Fifty five (51%) had BCS and 12 (14%) underwent mastectomy (p value < 0.001). Re-excision was performed in 35 (33%) patients with BCS and in 4 (5%) patients with mastectomy. Definitive surgery was mastectomy in 107 (56%) patients and BCS in 84 (44%) patients. Tumor-positive margins were associated with cT ≥ 3 status (OR 4.62, 95% CI 1.26-16.98, p value 0.021) in the BCS group. Five-year LRR (4.7%), RFS (81%), and OS (93%) were not affected by type of surgery after NAC.

CONCLUSION

Although 33% of ILC breast cancer patients undergoing BCS after NAC required re-excision for positive resection margins, it is considered safe given that five-year RFS remained excellent and LRR and OS did not differ by extent of surgery.

Outcomes of Women Undergoing Mastectomy for Unilateral Breast Cancer Who Elect to Undergo Contralateral Mastectomy for Symmetry: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Breast reconstruction (BR) is routinely offered to restore symmetry after mastectomy for breast cancer. Not all women, however, may want reconstructive surgery. A contralateral mastectomy (CM) to achieve "flat symmetry" can be an excellent alternative, but surgeons are often reluctant to offer this procedure. This systematic review aimed to summarize the available evidence regarding the outcomes of CM as the first step to developing guidelines in this area.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched to identify primary research studies, published in English between 1 January 2000 and 30 August 2022, evaluating clinical or patient-reported outcomes for women who underwent a CM without reconstruction after a mastectomy for unilateral breast cancer. Simple descriptive statistics summarized quantitative data, and content analysis was used for qualitative data.

RESULTS

The study included 15 studies (13 quantitative, 1 qualitative, and 1 mixed-methods) evaluating outcomes for at least 1954 women who underwent a bilateral mastectomy without reconstruction (BM) after unilateral breast cancer. The risk of surgical complications after BM was higher than after unilateral mastectomy without reconstruction (UM) but significantly less than after BR. Satisfaction with the decision for BM was high in all the studies. Key themes relating to flat denial, stigma, and gender-based assumptions were identified.

CONCLUSION

Women electing to undergo BM reported high levels of satisfaction with their decision and complication rates similar to those for UM. Further study is needed to comprehensively explore the outcomes for women seeking BM, but these data should give surgeons confidence to offer the procedure as an alternative option for symmetry after unilateral mastectomy for breast cancer.

REGISTRATION

This systematic review was prospectively registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42022353689).

Current use of drains and management of seroma following mastectomy and axillary surgery: results of a United Kingdom national practice survey

PURPOSE

Up to 40% of the 56,000 women diagnosed with breast cancer each year in the UK undergo mastectomy. Seroma formation following surgery is common, may delay wound healing, and be uncomfortable or delay the start of adjuvant treatment. Multiple strategies to reduce seroma formation include surgical drains, flap fixation and external compression exist but evidence to support best practice is lacking. We aimed to survey UK breast surgeons to determine current practice to inform the feasibility of undertaking a future trial.

METHODS

An online survey was developed and circulated to UK breast surgeons via professional and trainee associations and social media to explore current attitudes to drain use and management of post-operative seroma. Simple descriptive statistics were used to summarise the results.

RESULTS

The majority of surgeons (82/97, 85%) reported using drains either routinely (38, 39%) or in certain circumstances (44, 45%). Other methods for reducing seroma such as flap fixation were less commonly used. Wide variation was reported in the assessment and management of post-operative seromas. Over half (47/91, 52%) of respondents felt there was some uncertainty about drain use after mastectomy and axillary surgery and two-thirds (59/91, 65%) felt that a trial evaluating the use of drains vs no drains after simple breast cancer surgery was needed.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need for a large-scale UK-based RCT to determine if, when and in whom drains are necessary following mastectomy and axillary surgery. This work will inform the design and conduct of a future trial.

Anatomic Location of Tissue Expander Placement Is Not Associated With Delay in Adjuvant Therapy in Women With Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Tissue expanders in breast reconstruction are traditionally placed retropectoral. Increasingly, patients are undergoing prepectoral placement. The impact of this placement on the initiation of adjuvant treatment is unknown.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted to identify women diagnosed with breast cancer who underwent mastectomy followed by radiation and/or chemotherapy. Women were divided into 3 groups: prepectoral tissue expander placement, retropectoral tissue expander placement, and no immediate reconstruction. A treatment delay was defined as greater than 8 weeks between tissue expander placement and adjuvant therapy.

RESULTS

Of 634 women, 205 (32%) underwent tissue expander placement, and 429 (68%) did not have immediate reconstruction. Of those with tissue expanders placed, 84 (41%) had prepectoral placement, and 121 (59%) had retropectoral placement. The median time to adjuvant therapy was 49 days for the entire cohort: no reconstruction, 47 days; prepectoral, 57 days; and retropectoral, 55 days. Treatment delays were observed in 34% of women: no reconstruction, 28%; prepectoral, 51%; and retropectoral, 46% ( P < 0.001). Tissue expander placement was associated with a delay to adjuvant therapy when compared with no reconstruction ( P < 0.001). The location of the tissue expander did not impact the odds of having a delay. On multivariable analysis, having reconstruction, having postoperative infection, not undergoing chemotherapy treatment, and being a current smoker were associated with a delay to adjuvant therapy. A delay to treatment was not associated with worse survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Placement of a tissue expander delayed adjuvant therapy. The location of tissue expander placement, retropectoral versus prepectoral, did not impact the time to adjuvant treatment.

Explaining risks and benefits of loco-regional treatments to patients

Treatment for early-stage breast cancer is complex, requiring multidisciplinary care with a multitude of treatment options available for each patient. Coupled with the rising importance of shared decision-making, patient-physician conversations are progressively more complicated. These conversations require frank disclosure of risks and benefits of the different treatment modalities in a way that is individualized for each patient and simple to understand. In most patients, breast conserving therapy with radiation should be presented as the gold-standard local treatment given similar long-term and improved quality of life outcomes. De-escalation is currently at the forefront of research in loco-regional treatments, and further investigations are required to best determine the optimal patient populations for reduced sentinel lymph node sampling, omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy altogether and omission of radiation treatment. For future trials, better endpoints need to be established considering patient-centered outcomes as well as recurrence.

A clinical perspective on oncoplastic breast conserving surgery

Breast conserving surgery (BCS) plus radiation treatment is the favored alternative for mastectomy in patients with breast cancer. To allow for breast conservation in patients with large invasive tumors and poor response to neoadjuvant systemic treatment (NST) or patients with extensive ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (OPBCS) techniques are introduced. OPBCS allows for breast conservation in a selective group of breast cancer patients who initially would have been treated with mastectomy due to the unfavorable tumor-to-breast ratio. With OPBCS, the oncological tumor excision is combined with plastic surgical breast conservation techniques without compromising oncological safety and maintaining aesthetic outcomes by preserving the shape of the breast. OPBCS should however not be applied to all breast cancer patients and the selection of patients who benefit from OPBCS and the timing of OPBCS are best discussed in a multidisciplinary team (MDT). Caution is required in patients with higher risk of positive margins [e.g., multifocal breast cancer, invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC), larger tumors and DCIS]. In these patients, delayed OPBCS is recommended to facilitate re-excision and maintain excellent breast conserving rates. Despite proven benefits in selected patients, the increase in the adoption of OPBCS is relatively low. This article provides a clinical perspective on OPBCS.

The Timing of Acute and Late Complications Following Mastectomy and Implant-based Reconstruction

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Implant-based breast reconstruction is a common plastic surgery procedure with well-documented clinical outcomes. Despite this, the natural history and timing of key complication endpoints are not well described. The goal of this study is to determine when patients are most likely to experience specific adverse events after implant-based reconstruction.

METHODS

Retrospective consecutive series of patients who received mastectomy and implant-based reconstruction over a 6-year period were included. Complications and unfavorable outcomes including hematoma, seroma, wound infection, skin flap necrosis, capsular contracture, implant rippling, and implant loss were identified. A time-to-event analysis was performed and Cox regression models identified patient and treatment characteristics associated with each outcome.

RESULTS

Of 1473 patients and 2434 total reconstructed breasts, 785 complications/unfavorable outcomes were identified. The 12-month cumulative incidence of hematoma was 1.4%, seroma: 4.3%, infection: 3.2%, skin flap necrosis: 3.9%, capsular contracture: 5.7%, implant rippling: 7.1%, and implant loss: 3.9%. In the analysis, 332/785 (42.3%) complications occurred within 60 days of surgery; 94% of hematomas, 85% of skin necrosis events, and 75% of seromas occurred during this period. Half of all infections and implant losses also occurred within 60 days. Of the remaining complications, 94% of capsular contractures and 93% of implant rippling occurred >60 days from surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Complications following mastectomy and implant-based reconstruction exhibit a discrete temporal distribution. These data represent the first comprehensive study of the timing of adverse events following implant-based reconstruction. These findings are immediately useful to guide postoperative care, follow-up, and clinical trial design.

Current practice and provision of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery in the UK: results of the ANTHEM national practice questionnaire

PURPOSE

Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OPBCS) may be a better option than mastectomy ± immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) for women with breast cancer but studies directly comparing the techniques are lacking. We surveyed UK breast units to determine the current practice of OPBCS to inform the design of a future comparative study.

METHODS

An electronic survey was developed to explore the current practice of OPBCS. This included the local availability of volume displacement and/or replacement techniques; number of cases performed; contraindications and approach to contralateral symmetrisation. Summary data for each survey item were calculated and overall provision of care examined.

RESULTS

58 UK centres completed the survey, including 43 (74%) stand-alone breast and 15 (26%) combined breast/plastics units. Over 40% of units (n = 24) treated more than 500 cancers/year. Most units offered volume displacement techniques (TMs) (97%). Over two-thirds (n = 39. 67%) of units offered local perforator flaps (LPF). Approximately a half of units (10/19) not performing LPF were planning to introduce them in the next 12-24 months. A third (n = 19, 33%) of units routinely performed simultaneous contralateral symmetrisation mostly with two-surgeon operating. There were limited oncological restrictions to OPBCS with no contraindications for multifocal cancers in most centres; 65% of units (36/55) offered OPBCS for multicentric disease. Extensive DCIS was a contraindication in a minority of units.

CONCLUSIONS

OPBCS is widely available in the UK but contraindications and approaches to contralateral symmetrisation were variable. Work is now needed to prospectively evaluate the outcomes of OPBCS vs mastectomy ± IBR to support informed decision-making.

Immediate or delayed oncoplastic surgery after breast conserving surgery at the Netherlands Cancer Institute: a cohort study of 251 cases

PURPOSE

Oncoplastic surgery (OPS) after breast conserving surgery is preferably performed during the same operation. Offering delayed OPS instead of mastectomy to patients with a high risk of tumor-positive margins allows breast conservation with the option of margin re-excision during OPS, without having to dismantle the reconstruction. We aimed to evaluate surgical outcomes after immediate and delayed OPS.

METHODS

We included early-stage breast cancer patients who underwent OPS at the Netherlands Cancer Institute between 2016 and 2019. Patients were selected for delayed OPS after multidisciplinary consultation if the risk of tumor-positive margins with immediate OPS was considered significant (> 30%). Groups were compared on baseline characteristics and short-term surgical outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 242 patients with 251 OPS, 130 (52%) OPS had neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Immediate OPS was performed in 176 (70%) cases and delayed OPS in 76 (30%). Selection for delayed OPS was associated with tumor size (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.04), ILC (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.10-6.20), DCIS (OR 3.45, 95% CI 1.42-8.34) and bra size (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.62-0.94). Delayed and immediate OPS differed in tissue weight (54 vs. 67 g, p = 0.034), tissue replacement (51% vs. 26%, p < .001) and tumor-positive margins (66% vs. 18%, p < .001). Re-excision was performed in 48 (63%) delayed OPS and in 11 (6%) immediate OPS. Groups did not differ in complications (21% vs. 18%, p = 0.333). Breast conservation after immediate and delayed OPS was 98% and 93%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Performing delayed OPS in selected cases facilitated simultaneous margin re-excision without increasing complications, and resulted in an excellent breast conservation rate.

Does Immediate Breast Reconstruction Lead to a Delay in Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer? A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Timely delivery of adjuvant chemotherapy is crucial. With an increasing frequency of immediate breast reconstructions (IBR) following mastectomy (MAS), concerns have arisen regarding its complication rates and effects on time to chemotherapy. The aim was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine if there is a prolonged time to chemotherapy (TTC) after IBR and MAS. Electronic databases, reference lists and relevant articles were searched systematically. Eligibility criteria included women receiving adjuvant chemotherapy who underwent either MAS only or MAS and IBR. Random-effects models were used in the analysis. A total of 29 studies were included in qualitative analysis, comprising of 156,000 patients (IBR: 57,159; MAS: 98,841). But 23 studies had sufficient data to be included in the meta-analysis. Sixteen papers concluded there was no difference in TTC compared to MAS. There was a difference of 3.50 days between TTC in IBR versus MAS (95% CI [0.42, 6.57], P value = .0256; IBR = 43.56 days, MAS = 40.38 days). The rate of patients being delayed past 90 days was not significantly higher in IBR (OR = 1.34, 95% CI [0.76, 2.38], P = .310). IBR patients were more likely to have complications compared to the MAS group (OR = 2.04, 95% CI [1.04-4.01], P < .01). We concluded that there is a statistically significant longer time to chemotherapy following IBR of 3.50 days, yet there is no difference in delays past 90 days. Therefore, the longer TTC in IBR is unlikely to be of any clinical significance.

Short-term safety outcomes of mastectomy and immediate prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: Pre-BRA prospective multicentre cohort study

BACKGROUND

Prepectoral breast reconstruction (PPBR) has recently been introduced to reduce postoperative pain and improve cosmetic outcomes in women having implant-based procedures. High-quality evidence to support the practice of PPBR, however, is lacking. Pre-BRA is an IDEAL stage 2a/2b study that aimed to establish the safety, effectiveness, and stability of PPBR before definitive evaluation in an RCT. The short-term safety endpoints at 3 months after surgery are reported here.

METHODS

Consecutive patients electing to undergo immediate PPBR at participating UK centres between July 2019 and December 2020 were invited to participate. Demographic, operative, oncology, and complication data were collected. The primary outcome was implant loss at 3 months. Other outcomes of interest included readmission, reoperation, and infection.

RESULTS

Some 347 women underwent 424 immediate implant-based reconstructions at 40 centres. Most were single-stage direct-to-implant (357, 84.2 per cent) biological mesh-assisted (341, 80.4 per cent) procedures. Conversion to subpectoral reconstruction was necessary in four patients (0.9 per cent) owing to poor skin-flap quality. Of the 343 women who underwent PPBR, 144 (42.0 per cent) experienced at least one postoperative complication. Implant loss occurred in 28 women (8.2 per cent), 67 (19.5 per cent) experienced an infection, 60 (17.5 per cent) were readmitted for a complication, and 55 (16.0 per cent) required reoperation within 3 months of reconstruction.

CONCLUSION

Complication rates following PPBR are high and implant loss is comparable to that associated with subpectoral mesh-assisted implant-based techniques. These findings support the need for a well-designed RCT comparing prepectoral and subpectoral reconstruction to establish best practice for implant-based breast reconstruction.

The Effect of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy on Safety Outcomes Following Immediate Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction (MIBR) are becoming an increasingly popular option for women with breast cancer. However, MIBR is associated with a higher risk of postoperative complications compared to mastectomy alone, which may delay adjuvant cancer therapy. The main objective of this retrospective cohort study was to investigate oncologic outcomes in MIBR patients with and without neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT).

METHODS

A 6-year retrospective study of breast cancer patients treated with MIBR was conducted from January 2013 to May 2019. The primary outcome was a delay in adjuvant radiochemotherapy. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications and locoregional recurrences.

RESULTS

Of 1832 patients reviewed, 300 (7.1%) were included. The cohort consisted of 277 (92%) MIBR patients without NACT and 23 (7.7%) with NACT. There was significantly more N1 and N2 tumor node status in the non-NACT group compared to the NACT group (p<0.001). The overall complication rates were similar in the NACT group compared to non-NACT (37.5% versus 21.7%, p=0.148). The rates of major and minor complications were also similar between NACT and non-NACT groups (Major: 29.6% versus 21.7%, p=0.823) and (Minor: 26.7% versus 8.70%, p =0.0970). The rates of locoregional recurrence (p=1.00), time to adjuvant therapy (p=0.629), and rates of delay (p=0.305) was also similar between groups. Overall survival was significantly lower in the NACT group compared to non-NACT (98.2% versus 82.6%, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difference in complication rates, or timing to adjuvant therapy, among MIBR patients with and without NACT. However, MIBR patients who received NACT had worse overall survival than MIBR patients without NACT.

Safety and Feasibility of Minimally Invasive (Laparoscopic/Robotic-Assisted) Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy Combined with Prosthesis Breast Reconstruction in Breast Cancer: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive (robotic or laparoscopic-assisted) nipple-sparing mastectomy combined with prosthesis breast reconstruction (NSM-PBR) is associated with smaller scars and greater patient satisfaction. However, the oncological safety of minimally invasive NSM-PBR remains controversial.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective study of patients with breast cancer who underwent breast reconstruction between 1 January 2006 and 20 February 2021. Demographic and clinicopathological characteristics, operation information, postoperative complications, and survival outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

In all, 292 patients underwent minimally invasive NSM-PBR and 205 underwent open NSM-PBR for breast cancer. In the minimally invasive NSM-PBR group, 268 (91.8%) patients underwent laparoscopy and 24 (8.2%) patients underwent robot-assisted NSM-PBR. Mean operation time in the minimally invasive NSM-PBR group was significantly longer than that in the open NSM-PBR group (P = 0.023). Mean intraoperative blood loss was significantly less in the minimally invasive NSM-PBR group (P < 0.05). There was no significant between-group difference in total complications. Similarly, there were no significant between-group differences in overall survival, recurrence-free survival, and local recurrence rate (P = 0.450, P = 0.613, and P = 0.679, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The complication, recurrence, and mortality rates in minimally invasive NSM-PBR group were comparable to those in open NSM-PBR group. Our preliminary results are encouraging and suggest that minimally invasive NSM-PBR affords good cosmetic results and its oncological safety is comparable to that of open surgery.

Outcome reporting in therapeutic mammaplasty: a systematic review

Background

Therapeutic mammaplasty (TM) is an oncological procedure which combines tumour resection with breast reduction and mastopexy techniques. Previous systematic reviews have demonstrated the oncological safety of TM but reporting of critically important outcomes, such as quality of life, aesthetic and functional outcomes, are limited, piecemeal or inconsistent. This systematic review aimed to identify all outcomes reported in clinical studies of TM to facilitate development of a core outcome set.

Methods

Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science were searched from inception to 5 August 2020. Included studies reported clinical outcomes following TM for adult women. Two authors screened articles independently for eligibility. Data were extracted regarding the outcome definition and classification type (for example, oncological, quality of life, etc.), time of outcome reporting and measurement tools.

Results

Of 5709 de-duplicated records, 148 were included in the narrative synthesis. The majority of studies (n = 102, 68.9 per cent) reported measures of survival and/or recurrence; approximately three-quarters (n = 75, 73.5 per cent) had less than 5 years follow-up. Aesthetic outcome was reported in half of studies (n = 75, 50.7 per cent) using mainly subjective, non-validated measurement tools. The time point at which aesthetic assessment was conducted was highly variable, and only defined in 48 (64.0 per cent) studies and none included a preoperative baseline for comparison. Few studies reported quality of life (n = 30, 20.3 per cent), functional outcomes (n = 5, 3.4 per cent) or resource use (n = 28, 18.9 per cent).

Conclusion

Given the oncological equivalence of TM and mastectomy, treatment decisions are often driven by aesthetic and functional outcomes, which are infrequently and inconsistently reported with non-validated measurement tools.

The effect of immediate breast reconstruction on adjuvant therapy delay, locoregional recurrence, and disease-free survival

BACKGROUND

An important risk inherent to both alloplastic and autologous immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) is the higher incidence of postoperative complications and delays to adjuvant therapy. The main objective of this retrospective cohort study was to identify risk factors for locoregional recurrence after breast cancer mastectomy and IBR.

METHODS

A 6-year retrospective study of breast cancer patients treated with mastectomy only (MO) or mastectomy and IBR (MIBR) was conducted from January 2013 to May 2019. The outcomes of interest included delay in adjuvant chemoradiotherapy, postoperative complications, and locoregional recurrence. Cox regression survival was used to estimate the risk of locoregional recurrence and time to adjuvant therapy.

RESULTS

Of 1832 patients reviewed, 720 (38%) were included. The cohort consisted of 443 (62%) MO and 277 (38%) MIBR [140 (51%) direct-to-implant (MIBRi1), 96(35%) tissue expander to implant (MIBRi2), and 41(15%) autologous flap (MIBRf)]. MIBR had more delays to adjuvant therapy compared to MO [113 (70%) vs. 72 (80%) months, p = 0.022]. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that MIBRi2 had significantly shorter DFS compared to MO [MIBRi2: 39.2 (15.6) vs MO: 41.7 (19.6) months, log-rank p-value = 0.01]. Cox regression indicated that MIBRi2 was associated with a 3.26-higher risk of locoregional recurrence compared to MO [HR: 3.26; 95% CI: 1.56, 9.24].

CONCLUSIONS

Cox regression showed MIBRi2 was significantly associated with increased risk of locoregional recurrence compared to MO. Neither delays nor postoperative complications were identified as significant risk factors for locoregional recurrence risk.

Breast reconstruction is a viable option for older patients

PURPOSE

Breast cancer is diagnosed at a median age of 62 years in the USA. At the same time, mortality rates for breast cancer continue to decrease, falling by 40% from 1989 to 2016. In the coming decades, the number of elderly patients with breast cancer, potentially seeking reconstruction, is expected to increase.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of 309 patients, aged 60 years or older, undergoing immediate or delayed breast reconstruction, was conducted. Patient characteristics, clinical information and major complications requiring reoperation were evaluated. Multivariate analyses identified factors contributing to complications such as BMI, comorbidities, smoking status, history of previous breast conservation therapy (BCT), total expander volume, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy.

RESULTS

26.7% of patients had at least one complication requiring reoperation, and 6.9% of patients suffered reconstructive failure. Logistic regression analysis of all patients (n = 309) found a statistically significant relationship between major complication and history of ipsilateral BCT (p = 0.026) and adjuvant chemotherapy (p = 0.005). Logistic regression analysis in patients undergoing tissue expander (TE) reconstruction (n = 215) showed that major complications were related to BMI over 35 kg/m² (p = 0.04), history of ipsilateral BCT (p = 0.048), and adjuvant chemotherapy (p = 0.033).

CONCLUSION

Breast reconstruction in women over 60 years old was not independently associated with higher major complication rates in our series.

Outcomes and outcome measures reported in clinical studies of therapeutic mammaplasty: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Therapeutic mammaplasty (TM) is an oncological procedure which combines tumour resection with breast reduction and mastopexy techniques. Previous systematic reviews have demonstrated oncological safety of TM, but poor and inconsistent reporting of quality-of-life, aesthetic and functional outcomes, often with non-validated measurement tools. Moreover, there is a paucity of patient-reported outcome measures. Standardisation of outcome reporting is required to enable study results to be compared and combined, for example, through core outcome set (COS) development. This systematic review aims to comprehensively describe the outcomes reported in clinical studies of TM, their respective outcome measures and the time points at which they were evaluated. The overall objective is to facilitate the development of a COS for TM.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A systematic review of clinical studies evaluating outcomes following TM will be completed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The following electronic databases have been searched from inception to 5 August 2020: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science. Primary outcomes will include the number of reported outcomes of various types (clinical, aesthetic, functional, quality-of-life and cost-effectiveness), whether these are patient-reported or clinician-reported, how outcomes are defined and the outcome measurement tool(s) used. The time point(s) at which outcomes were measured will be a secondary outcome. No studies will be excluded on the basis of methodological quality in order to generate a comprehensive list of reported outcomes and outcome measures; hence, risk of bias assessment is not required. The data will be described narratively. This protocol has been reported in line with PRISMA-Protocols.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study does not involve human or animal participants, hence ethical approval is not required. The findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020200365.

Biological and synthetic mesh assisted breast reconstruction procedures: Joint guidelines from the Association of Breast Surgery and the British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons

These guidelines have been produced with the involvement of the Association of Breast Surgery and the British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Recommendations have been derived after a review of published data regarding the use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM), biological and synthetic mesh in breast reconstruction. The guidelines represent a consensus opinion on the optimal management of patients having biological or synthetic mesh assisted breast reconstruction informed by peer-review publications. The Guidelines should be used to inform clinical decision making. Ultimately, members of the MDT remain responsible for the treatment of patients under their care.

Oncoplastic breast surgery: A guide to good practice

Oncoplastic Breast Surgery has become standard of care in the management of Breast Cancer patients. These guidelines written by an Expert Advisory Group; convened by the Association of Breast Surgery (ABS) and the British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons (BAPRAS), are designed to provide all members of the breast cancer multidisciplinary team (MDT) with guidance on the best breast surgical oncoplastic and reconstructive practice at each stage of a patient's journey, based on current evidence. It is hoped they will also be of benefit to the wide range of professionals and service commissioners who are involved in this area of clinical practice.

Protocol for a mixed-method study to inform the feasibility of undertaking a large-scale multicentre study comparing the clinical and patient-reported outcomes of oncoplastic breast conservation as an alternative to mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction in women unsuitable for standard breast-conserving surgery (the ANTHEM Feasibility Study)

INTRODUCTION

Approximately 40% of the 55 000 women diagnosed with breast cancer each year in the UK undergo mastectomy because they are considered unsuitable for standard breast-conserving surgery (BCS) due to tumour size or multiple tumour foci. Mastectomy can significantly impact women's quality of life, and only one in four women currently undergo immediate breast reconstruction (IBR).Level 2 oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OPBCS) combines removing the cancer with a range of plastic surgical volume replacement (eg, local perforator flaps) and volume displacement techniques (eg, therapeutic mammaplasty) that can extend the role of BCS and may allow some women not suitable for standard BCS to avoid mastectomy. High-quality research to determine whether OPBCS offers a safe and effective alternative to mastectomy±IBR is currently lacking. Preliminary work is needed to ensure a future large-scale study is feasible and well designed and addresses questions important to patients and the National Health Service.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Mixed methods will be used to inform feasibility and design of a future large-scale study comparing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of OPBCS and mastectomy±IBR. It will have four parts: (1) a National Practice Questionnaire to determine current practice and provision of oncoplastic breast and reconstructive surgery in the UK; (2) a pilot multicentre prospective cohort study to explore the proportion of patients choosing OPBCS versus mastectomy, the proportion in OPBCS is successful and clinical and patient-reported outcomes of different techniques at 3 and 12 months postsurgery; (3) a qualitative interview study to explore patients' attitudes to different procedures, rationale for decision-making and perceptions of outcomes; and (4) design of the future study.All centres offering OPBCS and mastectomy in the UK will be invited to participate. Recruitment is planned to commence winter 2020 and continue for 12 months.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has ethical approval from the Wales Research Ethics Committee 6 National Research Ethics Service (REC Ref 20/WA/0225). Results will be presented at national and international meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. We will work with patients to develop lay summaries and share these through patient groups and breast cancer charities.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN18238549.

Cost-effectiveness of single-use negative-pressure therapy compared with standard care for prevention of reconstruction failure in prepectoral breast reconstruction

Background

Single-use negative-pressure wound therapy (sNPWT) has been reported to reduce the incidence of reconstruction failure in prepectoral breast reconstruction compared with standard surgical dressings. The aim of this economic evaluation was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of sNPWT compared with standard care for the prevention of reconstruction failure in prepectoral breast reconstruction in the UK.

Method

A decision tree model was used to estimate the expected cost and effectiveness per patient. Effectiveness was measured both by the number of reconstruction failures avoided and the gain in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The baseline incidence of reconstruction failure (8.6 per cent) was taken from a recently published study of 2655 mastectomies in the UK. The effectiveness of sNPWT used results from a clinical study comparing sNPWT with standard dressings. Previously published utility weights were applied. The cost of reconstruction failure was estimated from detailed resource data from patients with reconstruction failure, applying National Health Service reference costs. One-way, probabilistic, scenario and threshold analyses were conducted.

Results

The undiscounted cost per patient associated with reconstruction failure was estimated to be £23 628 (£22 431 discounted). The use of sNPWT was associated with an expected cost saving of £1706 per patient, an expected increase in QALYs of 0.0187 and an expected 0.0834 reconstruction failures avoided. Cost-effectiveness acceptability analysis demonstrated that, at a threshold of £20 000 per QALY, 99.94 per cent of the simulations showed sNPWT to be more cost-effective than standard care.

Conclusion

Among patients undergoing immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction, the use of sNPWT is more cost-effective than standard dressings.

Breast Reconstruction in Inflammatory Breast Cancer: An Analysis of Predictors, Trends, and Survival from the National Cancer Database

INTRODUCTION

Survival for women diagnosed with inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) has improved with advances in multimodal therapy. This study was performed to evaluate trends, predictors, and survival for reconstruction in IBC patients in the United States.

METHODS

Women who underwent mastectomy with or without reconstruction for IBC between 2004 and 2016 were included from the National Cancer Database. Predictors for undergoing reconstruction and association with overall survival were determined.

RESULTS

Of 12,544 patients with IBC who underwent mastectomy, 1307 underwent reconstruction. Predictors of reconstruction included younger age, private insurance, higher income, performance of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy, and location within a metropolitan area (P < 0.001). The proportion of women having reconstruction for IBC increased from 7.3% to 12.3% from 2004 to 2016. Median unadjusted overall survival was higher in the reconstructive group l [93.7 months, 95% confidence interval (CI) 75.2-117.5] than the nonreconstructive group (68.1 months, 95% CI 65.5-71.7, hazard ratio = 0.79 95% CI 0.72-0.88, P < 0.001). With adjustment for covariates, differences in overall mortality were not significant, with hazard ratio of 0.95 (95% CI 0.85-1.06, P = 0.37).

CONCLUSIONS

Reconstruction rates for IBC are increasing. Women with IBC who undergo reconstruction tend to be younger and are not at the increased risk of all-cause mortality compared to those not having reconstruction. The National Cancer Database does not differentiate immediate from delayed reconstruction. However, the outcomes of immediate reconstruction in carefully selected patients with IBC should be further studied to evaluate its safety. This could impact current guidelines, which are based largely on an expert opinion.

Prophylactic antibiotic use in acellular dermal matrix-assisted implant-based breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic antibiotics are used in acellular dermal matrix-assisted implant-based breast reconstructions. However, there are no universally accepted guidelines regarding the best regimen. This retrospective, multicentre study was designed to compare the different prophylactic antibiotic regimens in these patients in three hospitals across two NHS trusts over a five-year period.

METHODS

Case notes and electronic records were reviewed for all patients undergoing acellular dermal matrix-assisted implant-based breast reconstructions between January 2010 and December 2014. Prophylactic antibiotic regimens, duration of use, wound infection, implant loss, seroma and therapeutic antibiotic use was recorded. Patients were divided into groups based on prophylactic antibiotic regimen and actual duration of use. Intergroup analysis was performed using Stata 13.0. Implant loss due to infection was the primary outcome measure.

RESULTS

A total of 105 patients had 122 breast reconstructions performed over the study period. Four prophylactic antibiotic regimens were identified: single dose (n = 20), three doses (n = 17), antibiotics for five-seven days (n = 51) and antibiotics until drains removed (n = 32). There was no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05) between the various regimens in implant loss, wound infection, therapeutic antibiotic prescription or seroma rates. Based on the actual duration of prophylactic antibiotics usage, three groups were identified: prophylactic antibiotics given for one day (n = 26), antibiotics for up to one week (n = 76) and for more than one week (n = 13). Again, no statistically significant difference was observed in the groups for any outcome measure.

CONCLUSION

The study demonstrated no difference in outcomes between different prophylactic antibiotic regimens in acellular dermal matrix-assisted implant-based breast reconstructions.

Protocol for Prevention and Monitoring of Surgical Site Infections in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Preliminary Results

Surgical site infection in implant-based breast reconstruction is a complication with variable incidence reported in the literature. Due to potential loss of implant and reconstruction, it can have a strong psychological impact on patients. Background and objectives: This study aimed primarily at analyzing the current status of the surgical site infection (SSI), (type, time of onset, clinical presentation, pathogens and management) in patients who underwent implant-based breast reconstruction at our Breast Unit. Secondarily, we wanted to establish whether introduction of a new, updated evidence-based protocol for infection prevention can reduce SSI in implant-based breast reconstruction. Materials and Methods: A single-center retrospective study was performed primarily to evaluate the incidence and features of SSI after implant-based breast reconstruction from 2007 to 2020. In June 2020, a protocol for prevention of SSI in implant-based breast reconstruction was introduced in clinical practice. Secondarily, a data analysis of all patients who underwent implant-based breast reconstruction in compliance with this protocol was performed after preliminarily assessing its efficacy. Results: 756 women were evaluated after mastectomy and implant-based breast reconstruction for breast cancer. A total of 26 surgical site infections were detected. The annual incidence of SSI decreased over time (range 0-11.76%). Data relating to infections' features, involved pathogens and implemented treatments were obtained. Since the introduction of the protocol, 22 patients have been evaluated, for a total of 29 implants. No early infections occurred. Conclusions: Surgical site infection rates at our Breast Unit are comparable to those reported in the literature. The SSI rates have shown a decreasing trend over the years. No SSI has occurred since the introduction of the prevention protocol for surgical site infection in June 2020.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Surgical Management of Breast Cancer: Global Trends and Future Perspectives

INTRODUCTION

The rapid spread of COVID-19 across the globe is forcing surgical oncologists to change their daily practice. We sought to evaluate how breast surgeons are adapting their surgical activity to limit viral spread and spare hospital resources.

METHODS

A panel of 12 breast surgeons from the most affected regions of the world convened a virtual meeting on April 7, 2020, to discuss the changes in their local surgical practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Similarly, a Web-based poll based was created to evaluate changes in surgical practice among breast surgeons from several countries.

RESULTS

The virtual meeting showed that distinct countries and regions were experiencing different phases of the pandemic. Surgical priority was given to patients with aggressive disease not candidate for primary systemic therapy, those with progressive disease under neoadjuvant systemic therapy, and patients who have finished neoadjuvant therapy. One hundred breast surgeons filled out the poll. The trend showed reductions in operating room schedules, indications for surgery, and consultations, with an increasingly restrictive approach to elective surgery with worsening of the pandemic.

CONCLUSION

The COVID-19 emergency should not compromise treatment of a potentially lethal disease such as breast cancer. Our results reveal that physicians are instinctively reluctant to abandon conventional standards of care when possible. However, as the situation deteriorates, alternative strategies of de-escalation are being adopted.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This study aimed to characterize how the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting breast cancer surgery and which strategies are being adopted to cope with the situation.

Clinical outcomes of patients after nipple-sparing mastectomy and reconstruction based on the expander/implant technique

Advances in multi-modality treatments incorporating systemic chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, and radiotherapy for the management of breast cancer have resulted in a surgical-management paradigm change toward less-aggressive surgery that combines the use of breast-conserving or -reconstruction therapy as a new standard of care with a higher emphasis on cosmesis. The implementation of skin-sparing and nipple-sparing mastectomies (SSM, NSM) has been shown to be oncologically safe, and breast reconstructive surgery is being performed increasingly for patients with breast cancer. NSM and breast reconstruction can also be performed as prophylactic or risk-reduction surgery for women with BRCA gene mutations. Compared with conventional breast construction followed by total mastectomy (TM), NSM preserving the nipple-areolar complex (NAC) with breast reconstruction provides psychosocial and aesthetic benefits, thereby improving patients' cosmetic appearance and body image. Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) has been used worldwide following mastectomy as a safe and cost-effective method of breast reconstruction. We review the clinical evidence about immediate (one-stage) and delayed (two-stage) IBBR after NSM. Our results suggest that the postoperative complication rate may be higher after NSM followed by IBBR than after TM or SSM followed by IBBR.

Oncological safety and complication risks of mastectomy with or without breast reconstruction: A Bayesian analysis

BACKGROUND

Currently, breast cancer patients undergoing mastectomy (MA) have three surgical options: MA only and reconstruction at the time of MA ("immediate," IBR) or at a later time ("delayed," DBR). To assess the oncological safety and complication risks associated with different surgical choices, a systematic review with Bayesian network analysis was conducted.

METHODS

Cochrane library, PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure were systematically searched in November 2019. The odds ratios [OR] were estimated for oncological safety (including disease-free survival, overall survival, local recurrence, and distant metastases) and complication risks (including overall complications, surgical site infection, and lymphedema) among MA, IBR, and DBR groups.

RESULTS

In the included 51 studies (265,522 patients), reconstruction after MA for IBR or DBR was associated with increased overall survival compared to simple MA (DBR vs. MA: OR 4.12, 95% credible interval [CrI] 1.80-10.01; IBR vs. MA: OR 1.75, 95% CrI 1.32-2.32). Additionally, IBR was associated with a decreased distant metastasis rate compared to MA (IBR vs. MA: OR 0.67, 95% CrI 0.51-0.90). However, the risk of overall complications and surgical site infection was higher in the IBR group than in the other two groups (complications, IBR vs. DBR: OR 1.40, 95% CrI 1.01-1.93; surgical site infection, IBR vs. MA: OR 1.77, 95% CrI 1.03-3.13).

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggested that breast reconstruction, whether IBR or DBR, does not adversely affect oncological safety in the setting of breast cancer. IBR is associated with an increased risk of overall complications and surgical site infection, but technical advances in this surgical procedure have cumulated over time.

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

INTRODUCTION

Breast cancer in women with cosmetic breast implants is increasingly common. Over the past decade, there has been a push for mastectomy and reconstruction in these patients, based on a fear of poor aesthetic results from small breast volume, and radiation-induced capsular contracture. At the Paris Breast Centre, augmented women routinely undergo lumpectomy with whole-breast irradiation (BCT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A consecutive cohort of 50 augmented women, who had attempted BCT for early breast cancer at our institution between 2003 and 2018, were retrospectively identified. Post-treatment complications, oncologic outcomes, capsular contracture rates, long-term cosmetic outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 51 months. Margins were involved in 7 women (14%); 4 of whom underwent successful re-excision, and 3 had a mastectomy, for an early mastectomy rate of 6%. There were no early complications, nor cases of early implant loss. Long-term aesthetic results were evaluated using our 5-point scale: An excellent (5), or good (4) result was obtained in 68%. Significant capsular contracture (Baker grade 3 or 4) developed in 34%, of which, 5 women underwent capsulotomy and fat grafting; 4 of 5 downstaging their Baker grade. The estimated 5-year local recurrence rate was 2.3%. Ninety-five percent of participants would recommend BCT to augmented women.

CONCLUSION

BCT is feasible and safe in augmented women with good long-term aesthetic results, and should be considered to avoid unnecessary mastectomy.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

The Pre-BRA (pre-pectoral Breast Reconstruction EvAluation) feasibility study: protocol for a mixed-methods IDEAL 2a/2b prospective cohort study to determine the safety and effectiveness of prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction

INTRODUCTION

Implant-based breast reconstruction is the most commonly performed reconstructive technique worldwide. Subpectoral reconstruction with mesh is the current standard of care but new prepectoral techniques have recently been introduced. Prepectoral breast reconstruction (PPBR) may improve outcomes for patients but robust evaluation is required. Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) are ideally needed but the short-term safety of PPBR is yet to be established; the technique and its indications are evolving and it has yet to be adopted by a sufficient number of surgeons for an RCT to be feasible.The Pre-BRA study aims to determine the feasibility of using mixed-methods within an IDEAL 2a/2b (IDEAL, Idea-Development-Exploration-Assessment-Long-term) study to explore the short-term safety of PPBR and determine when the technique is sufficiently stable for evaluation in a pragmatic RCT.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Pre-BRA is an IDEAL stage 2a/2b prospective multicentre cohort study with embedded qualitative research.Consecutive patients electing to undergo immediate PPBR at participating centres will be invited to participate. Demographic, operative, oncology and complication data will be collected and patient-reported outcomes will be assessed at baseline, 3 and 18 months postoperatively. The primary safety endpoint will be implant loss at 3 months.Surgeons performing PPBR will be asked to complete questionnaires regarding their practice and report any modifications made to the procedure or learning arising from complications via free-text response fields on electronic case-report forms. Semistructured will explore surgeons' experiences in detail to identify emerging best practice. This will be fed back to participating surgeons to promote shared learning.The Pre-BRA study will aim to recruit 341 patients from 30 to 40 UK centres over a 12-month period. Recruitment will commence Spring 2019.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has full ethical approval from OXFORD-B South Central Committee Ref:19/SC/0129. Results will be presented at national and international meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN11898000; Pre-results.

The Bell Pattern: A Novel Breast Incision Approach to Skin-Reducing Mastectomies

Background

As immediate direct to permanent implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) continues to gain in popularity, surgeons seek to apply these techniques to patients with large or ptotic breasts. A new bell pattern skin excision is described and limits major complications in this high-risk population.

Objective

The authors describe a novel skin excision pattern for patients with large or ptotic breasts who desire IBBR and assess its safety. The authors also evaluated the ability of the pattern to account for intraoperative developments.

Methods

This retrospective analysis of a single surgeon’s experience included 17 consecutive patients (31 breasts) with large or ptotic breasts undergoing skin-reducing mastectomy with attempted utilization of the bell pattern approach and IBBR with acellular dermal matrix.

Results

Mean age was 50 years, mean body mass index was 27.4 kg/m², and mean breast specimen weight was 683 g. A bell pattern excision was planned for all breasts preoperatively. Three breasts (10%) required an alternative closure pattern due to intraoperative ischemia (n = 1), or additional oncologic resection (n = 2). The pattern successfully accommodated flap ischemia in 8 (26%) other breasts. After a median follow-up of 5.1 months, the number of bell pattern breasts with major and minor complications was 0 (0%) and 9 (32%), respectively. The most common minor complication was seroma (n = 5, 18%), and minor incision wound (n = 3, 11%). There were no reconstruction failures utilizing the bell pattern.

Conclusion

The bell pattern approach is a safe and adaptable alternative to traditional skin-reducing mastectomy in patients with large or ptotic breasts.

Level of Evidence: 4