1
|
Schaverien MV, Singh P, Smith BD, Qiao W, Akay CL, Bloom ES, Chavez-MacGregor M, Chu CK, Clemens MW, Colen JS, Ehlers RA, Hwang RF, Joyner MM, Largo RD, Mericli AF, Mitchell MP, Shuck JW, Tamirisa N, Tripathy D, Villa MT, Woodward WA, Zacharia R, Kuerer HM, Hoffman KE. Premastectomy Radiotherapy and Immediate Breast Reconstruction: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open 2024; 7:e245217. [PMID: 38578640 PMCID: PMC10998161 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.5217] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/26/2023] [Accepted: 02/08/2024] [Indexed: 04/06/2024] Open
Abstract
Importance Premastectomy radiotherapy (PreMRT) is a new treatment sequence to avoid the adverse effects of radiotherapy on the final breast reconstruction while achieving the benefits of immediate breast reconstruction (IMBR). Objective To evaluate outcomes among patients who received PreMRT and regional nodal irradiation (RNI) followed by mastectomy and IMBR. Design, Setting, and Participants This was a phase 2 single-center randomized clinical trial conducted between August 3, 2018, and August 2, 2022, evaluating the feasibility and safety of PreMRT and RNI (including internal mammary lymph nodes). Patients with cT0-T3, N0-N3b breast cancer and a recommendation for radiotherapy were eligible. Intervention This trial evaluated outcomes after PreMRT followed by mastectomy and IMBR. Patients were randomized to receive either hypofractionated (40.05 Gy/15 fractions) or conventionally fractionated (50 Gy/25 fractions) RNI. Main Outcome and Measures The primary outcome was reconstructive failure, defined as complete autologous flap loss. Demographic, treatment, and outcomes data were collected, and associations between multiple variables and outcomes were evaluated. Analysis was performed on an intent-to-treat basis. Results Fifty patients were enrolled. Among 49 evaluable patients, the median age was 48 years (range, 31-72 years), and 46 patients (94%) received neoadjuvant systemic therapy. Twenty-five patients received 50 Gy in 25 fractions to the breast and 45 Gy in 25 fractions to regional nodes, and 24 patients received 40.05 Gy in 15 fractions to the breast and 37.5 Gy in 15 fractions to regional nodes, including internal mammary lymph nodes. Forty-eight patients underwent mastectomy with IMBR, at a median of 23 days (IQR, 20-28.5 days) after radiotherapy. Forty-one patients had microvascular autologous flap reconstruction, 5 underwent latissimus dorsi pedicled flap reconstruction, and 2 had tissue expander placement. There were no complete autologous flap losses, and 1 patient underwent tissue expander explantation. Eight of 48 patients (17%) had mastectomy skin flap necrosis of the treated breast, of whom 1 underwent reoperation. During follow-up (median, 29.7 months [range, 10.1-65.2 months]), there were no locoregional recurrences or distant metastasis. Conclusions and Relevance This randomized clinical trial found PreMRT and RNI followed by mastectomy and microvascular autologous flap IMBR to be feasible and safe. Based on these results, a larger randomized clinical trial of hypofractionated vs conventionally fractionated PreMRT has been started (NCT05774678). Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02912312.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mark V. Schaverien
- Division of Surgery, Department of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Puneet Singh
- Division of Surgery, Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Benjamin D. Smith
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Breast Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Wei Qiao
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Catherine L. Akay
- Division of Surgery, Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Elizabeth S. Bloom
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Breast Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Mariana Chavez-MacGregor
- Division of Cancer Medicine, Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Carrie K. Chu
- Division of Surgery, Department of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Mark W. Clemens
- Division of Surgery, Department of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Jessica S. Colen
- Division of Surgery, Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Richard A. Ehlers
- Division of Surgery, Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Rosa F. Hwang
- Division of Surgery, Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Melissa M. Joyner
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Breast Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Rene D. Largo
- Division of Surgery, Department of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Alexander F. Mericli
- Division of Surgery, Department of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Melissa P. Mitchell
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Breast Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - John W. Shuck
- Division of Surgery, Department of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Nina Tamirisa
- Division of Surgery, Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Debasish Tripathy
- Division of Cancer Medicine, Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Mark T. Villa
- Division of Surgery, Department of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Wendy A. Woodward
- Division of Surgery, Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Rensi Zacharia
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Breast Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Henry M. Kuerer
- Division of Surgery, Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Karen E. Hoffman
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Breast Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Pfister P, Müller SLC, Eberhardt AL, Rodriguez M, Menzi N, Haug M, Schaefer DJ, Kappos EA, Ismail T. Impact of Adjuvant Radiotherapy on Free Flap Volume in Autologous Breast Reconstruction: A Scoping Review. J Clin Med 2023; 13:217. [PMID: 38202224 PMCID: PMC10779607 DOI: 10.3390/jcm13010217] [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: 11/09/2023] [Revised: 12/21/2023] [Accepted: 12/26/2023] [Indexed: 01/12/2024] Open
Abstract
In autologous breast reconstruction, a sufficient flap volume is fundamental to restore breast shape and ensure an aesthetic outcome. After mastectomy, postoperative irradiation is regularly indicated in the oncological treatment algorithm. When administering radiation therapy after autologous reconstruction, the tissue transferred is inherently irradiated. Although there is evidence that points to a reduction in flap volume after adjuvant radiotherapy, the data have been contradicting and inconclusive. To address this anecdotal evidence, we performed a scoping review of the current literature that addresses the effect of radiotherapy on breast flap volume. Six two-armed studies, comprising a total of 462 patients, reported on the effect of adjuvant radiotherapy on free flap volume changes. Of those, two studies found a significant negative impact of radiotherapy on free flap volume, while the other four studies did not. Reported flap volume changes ranged from no change to a reduction of 26.2%, measured up to two years postoperatively. The selected studies contain varying patient numbers, follow-up timepoints, types of flaps, and measuring methods, contributing to a relatively high heterogeneity. While we present some evidence suggesting a significant impact of adjuvant radiotherapy on breast flap volume, future studies are needed to further investigate this potential correlation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pablo Pfister
- Department of Plastic, Reconstructive, Aesthetic and Hand Surgery, University Hospital Basel, 4031 Basel, Switzerland (M.R.); (N.M.); (M.H.); (D.J.S.); (E.A.K.); (T.I.)
| | - Seraina L. C. Müller
- Department of Plastic, Reconstructive, Aesthetic and Hand Surgery, University Hospital Basel, 4031 Basel, Switzerland (M.R.); (N.M.); (M.H.); (D.J.S.); (E.A.K.); (T.I.)
| | - Anna-Lena Eberhardt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Basel, 4031 Basel, Switzerland
| | - Medea Rodriguez
- Department of Plastic, Reconstructive, Aesthetic and Hand Surgery, University Hospital Basel, 4031 Basel, Switzerland (M.R.); (N.M.); (M.H.); (D.J.S.); (E.A.K.); (T.I.)
| | - Nadia Menzi
- Department of Plastic, Reconstructive, Aesthetic and Hand Surgery, University Hospital Basel, 4031 Basel, Switzerland (M.R.); (N.M.); (M.H.); (D.J.S.); (E.A.K.); (T.I.)
| | - Martin Haug
- Department of Plastic, Reconstructive, Aesthetic and Hand Surgery, University Hospital Basel, 4031 Basel, Switzerland (M.R.); (N.M.); (M.H.); (D.J.S.); (E.A.K.); (T.I.)
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Basel, 4031 Basel, Switzerland
| | - Dirk J. Schaefer
- Department of Plastic, Reconstructive, Aesthetic and Hand Surgery, University Hospital Basel, 4031 Basel, Switzerland (M.R.); (N.M.); (M.H.); (D.J.S.); (E.A.K.); (T.I.)
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Basel, 4031 Basel, Switzerland
| | - Elisabeth A. Kappos
- Department of Plastic, Reconstructive, Aesthetic and Hand Surgery, University Hospital Basel, 4031 Basel, Switzerland (M.R.); (N.M.); (M.H.); (D.J.S.); (E.A.K.); (T.I.)
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Basel, 4031 Basel, Switzerland
| | - Tarek Ismail
- Department of Plastic, Reconstructive, Aesthetic and Hand Surgery, University Hospital Basel, 4031 Basel, Switzerland (M.R.); (N.M.); (M.H.); (D.J.S.); (E.A.K.); (T.I.)
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Basel, 4031 Basel, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Supper P, Semmler L, Placheta-Györi E, Teufelsbauer M, Harik-Chraim E, Radtke C. [Update and Trends in Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy]. HANDCHIR MIKROCHIR P 2023; 55:253-261. [PMID: 37487507 PMCID: PMC10415025 DOI: 10.1055/a-2082-1542] [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: 02/19/2022] [Accepted: 02/15/2023] [Indexed: 07/26/2023] Open
Abstract
Due to refinements in operating techniques, autologous breast reconstruction has become part of standard care. It has become more difficult to advise patients due to the expansion of oncologic options for mastectomy, radiation therapy and the variety of reconstructive techniques. The goal of reconstruction is to achieve oncologically clear margins and a long-term aesthetically satisfactory result with a high quality of life. Immediate reconstruction preserves the skin of the breast and its natural form and prevents the psychological trauma associated with mastectomy. However, secondary reconstructions often have a higher satisfaction, since here no restitutio ad integrum is assumed. Alloplastic, i. e., implant-based, breast reconstruction and autologous breast reconstruction are complementary techniques. This article provides an overview of current options for breast reconstruction including patients' satisfaction and quality of life following breast reconstruction. Although immediate reconstruction is still the preferred choice of most patients and surgeons, delayed reconstruction does not appear to compromise clinical or patient-reported outcomes. Recent refinements in surgical techniques and autologous breast reconstruction include stacked-flaps, as well as microsurgical nerve coaptation to restore sensitivity, which lead to improved outcomes and quality of life. Nowadays Skin-sparing and nipple-sparing mastectomy, accompanied by improved implant quality, allows immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction as well as reemergence of the prepectoral implantation. The choice of breast reconstruction depends on the type of mastectomy, necessary radiation, individual risk factors, as well as the patient's habitus and wishes. Overall, recent developments in breast reconstruction led to an increase in patient satisfaction, quality of life and aesthetic outcome with oncological safety.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul Supper
- Universitätsklinik für Plastische, Rekonstruktive und
Ästhetische Chirurgie, Medizinische Universität
Wien
| | - Lorenz Semmler
- Universitätsklinik für Plastische, Rekonstruktive und
Ästhetische Chirurgie, Medizinische Universität
Wien
| | - Eva Placheta-Györi
- Universitätsklinik für Plastische, Rekonstruktive und
Ästhetische Chirurgie, Medizinische Universität
Wien
| | - Maryana Teufelsbauer
- Universitätsklinik für Plastische, Rekonstruktive und
Ästhetische Chirurgie, Medizinische Universität
Wien
| | - Elissa Harik-Chraim
- Universitätsklinik für Plastische, Rekonstruktive und
Ästhetische Chirurgie, Medizinische Universität
Wien
| | - Christine Radtke
- Universitätsklinik für Plastische, Rekonstruktive und
Ästhetische Chirurgie, Medizinische Universität
Wien
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Bloom JA, Shah SA, Long EA, Chatterjee A, Lee BT. Post-Mastectomy Tissue Expander Placement Followed by Radiation Therapy: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Staged Autologous Versus Implant-Based Unilateral Reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol 2023; 30:1075-1083. [PMID: 36348205 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-022-12619-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/23/2022] [Accepted: 06/17/2022] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is no preferred approach to breast reconstruction for patients with locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) who require post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). Staged implant and autologous reconstruction both have unique risks and benefits. No previous study has compared their cost-effectiveness with utility scores. METHODS A literature review determined the probabilities and outcomes for mastectomy and staged implant or autologous reconstruction. Utility scores were used to calculate the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with successful surgery and postoperative complications. Medicare billing codes were used to assess costs. A decision analysis tree was constructed with rollback and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) analyses. Sensitivity analyses were performed to validate results and account for uncertainty. RESULTS Mastectomy with staged deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap reconstruction is costlier ($14,104.80 vs $3216.93), but more effective (QALYs, 29.96 vs 24.87). This resulted in an ICER of 2141.00, favoring autologous reconstruction. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that autologous reconstruction was more cost-effective if less than $257,444.13. Monte Carlo analysis showed a confidence of 99.99% that DIEP flap reconstruction is more cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS For patients with LABC who require PMRT, staged autologous reconstruction is significantly more cost-effective than reconstruction with implants. Despite the decreased morbidity, staged implant reconstruction has greater rates of complication.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joshua A Bloom
- Department of Surgery, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | | | - Emily A Long
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Abhishek Chatterjee
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Bernard T Lee
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Elver AA, Egan KG, Cullom ME, Nazir N, Johnson BM, Limpiado M, Holding J, Lai EC, Butterworth JA. A Paradigm Shift: Outcomes of Early Autologous Breast Reconstruction after Radiation Therapy. J Reconstr Microsurg 2023; 39:111-119. [PMID: 35764299 DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1750139] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Radiation creates significant challenges for breast reconstruction. There is no consensus regarding optimal timing for autologous reconstruction following radiation. This study explores clearly defined, shorter time intervals between completion of radiation and reconstruction than previously reported. METHODS A retrospective review was performed on patients who underwent autologous reconstruction by five microsurgeons at an academic institution from 2009 to 2020. Cohorts were selected by time elapsed between radiation and autologous reconstruction including <3 months, 3 to 6 months, 6 to 9 months, 9 to 12 months, 12 to 24 months, and >24 months. Analysis compared baseline characteristics, operative details, complications, revision rates, and BREAST-Q scores. Analysis of variance was used for continuous variables and chi-square for discrete variables. RESULTS In total, 462 radiated patients underwent 717 flaps. There were 69 patients at <3 months (14.9%), 97 at 3 to 6 months (21%), 64 at 6 to 9 months (13.9%), 36 at 9 to 12 months (7.8%), 73 at 12 to 24 months (15.8%), and 123 at >24 months (26.6%). Age, time from mastectomy, and failure of primary reconstruction were higher at >24 months (p < 0.001). There was no difference between cohorts in intraoperative complications in radiated or nonradiated breasts. There was no difference in acute and late postoperative complications between cohorts. Wound-healing complications in radiated sides were lowest at <3 months and 3 to 6 months (5/69 [7.3%] and 11/97 [11.3%], respectively) compared with other groups (18.8-22.2%) but did not reach significance (p = 0.11). More fat graft revisions occurred at <3 months (p = 0.003). CONCLUSION Reconstruction can be safely performed within 3 months after radiation without increases in intraoperative, acute, or late reconstructive complications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ashlie A Elver
- Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas
| | - Katie G Egan
- Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas
| | - Melissa E Cullom
- Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas
| | - Niaman Nazir
- Department of Population Health, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas
| | - Braden M Johnson
- Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas
| | - MarcArthur Limpiado
- Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas
| | - Julie Holding
- Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas
| | - Eric C Lai
- Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas
| | - James A Butterworth
- Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Thiruchelvam PTR, Leff DR, Godden AR, Cleator S, Wood SH, Kirby AM, Jallali N, Somaiah N, Hunter JE, Henry FP, Micha A, O'Connell RL, Mohammed K, Patani N, Tan MLH, Gujral D, Ross G, James SE, Khan AA, Rusby JE, Hadjiminas DJ, MacNeill FA. Primary radiotherapy and deep inferior epigastric perforator flap reconstruction for patients with breast cancer (PRADA): a multicentre, prospective, non-randomised, feasibility study. Lancet Oncol 2022; 23:682-690. [PMID: 35397804 PMCID: PMC9630150 DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(22)00145-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/06/2021] [Revised: 02/01/2022] [Accepted: 02/28/2022] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Radiotherapy before mastectomy and autologous free-flap breast reconstruction can avoid adverse radiation effects on healthy donor tissues and delays to adjuvant radiotherapy. However, evidence for this treatment sequence is sparse. We aimed to explore the feasibility of preoperative radiotherapy followed by skin-sparing mastectomy and deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap reconstruction in patients with breast cancer requiring mastectomy. METHODS We conducted a prospective, non-randomised, feasibility study at two National Health Service trusts in the UK. Eligible patients were women aged older than 18 years with a laboratory diagnosis of primary breast cancer requiring mastectomy and post-mastectomy radiotherapy, who were suitable for DIEP flap reconstruction. Preoperative radiotherapy started 3-4 weeks after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and was delivered to the breast, plus regional nodes as required, at 40 Gy in 15 fractions (over 3 weeks) or 42·72 Gy in 16 fractions (over 3·2 weeks). Adverse skin radiation toxicity was assessed preoperatively using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group toxicity grading system. Skin-sparing mastectomy and DIEP flap reconstruction were planned for 2-6 weeks after completion of preoperative radiotherapy. The primary endpoint was the proportion of open breast wounds greater than 1 cm width requiring a dressing at 4 weeks after surgery, assessed in all participants. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02771938, and is closed to recruitment. FINDINGS Between Jan 25, 2016, and Dec 11, 2017, 33 patients were enrolled. At 4 weeks after surgery, four (12·1%, 95% CI 3·4-28·2) of 33 patients had an open breast wound greater than 1 cm. One (3%) patient had confluent moist desquamation (grade 3). There were no serious treatment-related adverse events and no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION Preoperative radiotherapy followed by skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate DIEP flap reconstruction is feasible and technically safe, with rates of breast open wounds similar to those reported with post-mastectomy radiotherapy. A randomised trial comparing preoperative radiotherapy with post-mastectomy radiotherapy is required to precisely determine and compare surgical, oncological, and breast reconstruction outcomes, including quality of life. FUNDING Cancer Research UK, National Institute for Health Research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Daniel R Leff
- Department of Breast Surgery, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK; BioSurgery and Surgical Technology, Department of Surgery, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Amy R Godden
- Department of Breast Surgery, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Susan Cleator
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Simon H Wood
- Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | | | - Navid Jallali
- Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | | | - Judith E Hunter
- Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Francis P Henry
- Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Aikaterini Micha
- Department of Breast Surgery, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Rachel L O'Connell
- Department of Breast Surgery, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | | | - Neill Patani
- Department of Breast Surgery, University College London Hospitals NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Melissa L H Tan
- Department of Breast Surgery, Birmingham City Hospital, Birmingham, UK
| | - Dorothy Gujral
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | | | - Stuart E James
- Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Aadil A Khan
- Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Jennifer E Rusby
- Department of Breast Surgery, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | | | - Fiona A MacNeill
- Department of Breast Surgery, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Pittelkow E, DeBrock W, Christopher L, Mercho R, Suh LJY, Fisher CS, Hartman B, Lester M, Hassanein AH. Advantages of the Delayed-Immediate Microsurgical Breast Reconstruction: Extending the Choice. J Reconstr Microsurg 2022; 38:579-584. [PMID: 35135030 DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1742240] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) reconstruction can be performed in an immediate (at time of mastectomy), delayed-immediate (immediate tissue expander followed by staged DIEP), or delayed timing following mastectomy. Avoiding flap radiation is a known benefit of the delayed-immediate approach. The purpose of this study is to evaluate patients who chose DIEP flap as the reconstructive method during initial consultation and compared characteristics of surgery in relation to their final reconstructive choice. METHODS Consecutive patients having breast reconstruction from 2017 to 2019 were divided into three groups: immediate DIEP after mastectomy (Group I); delayed-immediate DIEP with tissue expander first followed by DIEP (Group II); and patients who initially chose delayed-immediate DIEP but later decided on implants for the second stage of reconstruction (Group III). Exclusion criteria were patients that had delayed DIEP (no immediate reconstruction) or had initially chose implant-based reconstruction. RESULTS The study included 59 patients. Unilateral free flaps in Group II had shorter operative times (318 minutes) compared with Group I unilateral free flaps (488 minutes) (p = 0.024). Eleven patients (30.6%) had prophylactic mastectomies in Group I compared with none in Group II (p = 0.004). Patients who had immediate tissue expansion frequently changed their mind from DIEP to implant for second stage reconstruction frequently (52.2%). CONCLUSION Delayed-immediate DIEP reconstruction has several advantages over immediate DIEP flap including shorter free flap operative times. Patients commonly alter their preference for second stage reconstruction. A patient-centered advantage of delayed-immediate reconstruction is prolonging the time for patients to make their choice for the final reconstruction.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eric Pittelkow
- Division of Plastic Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
| | - Will DeBrock
- Divison of Surgical Oncology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
| | - Laura Christopher
- Division of Plastic Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
| | - Raphael Mercho
- Division of Plastic Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
| | - Lily Ji-Yun Suh
- Division of Plastic Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
| | - Carla S Fisher
- Divison of Surgical Oncology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
| | - Brett Hartman
- Division of Plastic Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
| | - Mary Lester
- Division of Plastic Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
| | - Aladdin H Hassanein
- Division of Plastic Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Nepon H, Safran T, Reece EM, Murphy AM, Vorstenbosch J, Davison PG. Radiation-Induced Tissue Damage: Clinical Consequences and Current Treatment Options. Semin Plast Surg 2021; 35:181-188. [PMID: 34526866 PMCID: PMC8432995 DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1731464] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Abstract
Radiation therapy is a valuable tool in the treatment of numerous malignancies but, in certain cases, can also causes significant acute and chronic damage to noncancerous neighboring tissues. This review focuses on the pathophysiology of radiation-induced damage and the clinical implications it has for plastic surgeons across breast reconstruction, osteoradionecrosis, radiation-induced skin cancers, and wound healing. The current understanding of treatment modalities presented here include hyperbaric oxygen therapy, autologous fat grafting and stem cells, and pharmaceutical agents.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hillary Nepon
- Division of Experimental Surgery, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Tyler Safran
- Division of Plastic Surgery, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Edward M. Reece
- Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
| | - Amanda M. Murphy
- Division of Plastic Surgery, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | | | - Peter G. Davison
- Division of Plastic Surgery, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
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
|
10
|
Hershenhouse KS, Bick K, Shauly O, Kondra K, Ye J, Gould DJ, Patel KM. "Systematic review and meta-analysis of immediate versus delayed autologous breast reconstruction in the setting of post-mastectomy adjuvant radiation therapy". J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2020; 74:931-944. [PMID: 33423976 DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2020.11.027] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/02/2020] [Revised: 11/03/2020] [Accepted: 11/22/2020] [Indexed: 01/29/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Immediate post-mastectomy autologous breast reconstruction in breast cancer patients requiring post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) minimizes the number of operations that patients must undergo and alleviates the psychological impact of living without a breast. However, the safety and impact of radiation on the reconstructed breast remains to be established. This study aimed to compare immediate versus delayed autologous reconstruction in the setting of PMRT to determine the optimal sequencing of reconstruction and adjuvant radiation. METHODS A systematic review of the literature identified 292 studies meeting criteria for full-text review, 44 of which underwent meta-analysis. This represented data on 1,927 immediate reconstruction (IR) patients and 1,546 delayed reconstruction (DR) patients (3,473 total patients). Early complications included flap loss, fat necrosis, thrombosis, seroma, hematoma, infection, and skin dehiscence. Late complications included fibrosis or contracture, severe asymmetry, hyperpigmentation, and decreased flap volume. RESULTS Immediate breast reconstruction did not demonstrate significantly increased complication rates. Reported mean complication rates in IR versus DR groups, respectively, were fat necrosis 14.91% and 8.12% (p = 0.076), flap loss 0.99% and 1.80% (p = 0.295), hematoma 1.91% and 1.14% (p = 0.247), infection 11.66% and 4.68% (p = 0.155), and thrombosis 1.51% and 3.36% (p = 0.150). Seroma rates were significantly lower in the immediate cohort at 2.69% versus 10.57% in the delayed cohort (p = 0.042). CONCLUSION Complication rates are comparable between immediate and delayed breast reconstruction in the setting of PMRT. Given the patient benefits incurred by an IR algorithm, immediate autologous breast reconstruction should be considered as a viable treatment option in patients requiring PMRT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Katherine Bick
- Keck School of Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Orr Shauly
- Keck School of Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Katelyn Kondra
- Department of Surgery, Keck Hospital of USC, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Jason Ye
- Radiation Oncology, Keck School of Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | | | - Ketan M Patel
- Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Keck Hospital of USC, Los Angeles, California, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Heiman AJ, Gabbireddy SR, Kotamarti VS, Ricci JA. A Meta-Analysis of Autologous Microsurgical Breast Reconstruction and Timing of Adjuvant Radiation Therapy. J Reconstr Microsurg 2020; 37:336-345. [PMID: 32957153 DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1716846] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) decreases loco-regional recurrence and improves survival in patients with locally advanced breast cancer. Autologous free flap reconstruction, while more durable in the setting of radiation than alloplastic reconstruction, is still susceptible to radiation-induced fibrosis, contracture, fat necrosis, volume loss, and distortion of breast shape. Options for reconstruction timing (immediate vs. delayed) have been discussed to mitigate these effects, but a clear optimum is not known. METHODS A systematic review of the literature was conducted according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines using search terms "breast reconstruction AND (radiation OR irradiation OR radiotherapy)" were used. Inclusion criteria consisted of studies reporting complications for free flap breast reconstruction in the setting of PMRT. Patients who underwent PMRT were pooled into two groups: those who underwent immediate free flap reconstruction prior to PMRT and those who underwent delayed reconstruction after PMRT. RESULTS Out of the 23 studies, 12 focused on immediate reconstruction, seven focused on delayed reconstruction, and four studies included both groups. Overall, 729 patients underwent immediate reconstruction, while 868 underwent delayed reconstruction. Complete and partial flap loss rates were significantly higher in patients undergoing delayed reconstruction, while infection and wound-healing complication rates were higher in those undergoing immediate reconstructions. Rates of unplanned reoperations, vascular complications, hematoma/seroma, and fat necrosis did not differ significantly between the two groups. However, rates of planned revision surgeries were higher in the delayed reconstruction group. CONCLUSION Immediate free flap breast reconstruction is associated with superior flap survival compared with delayed reconstruction. Rates of complications are largely comparable, and rates of revision surgeries are equivalent. The differences in long-term aesthetic outcomes are not, however, clearly assessed by the available literature. Even in the face of PMRT, immediate free flap breast reconstruction is an effective approach.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Adee J Heiman
- Division of Plastic Surgery, Albany Medical Center, Albany, New York
| | | | | | - Joseph A Ricci
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
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
|
13
|
A Clinical Algorithm for Breast Cancer Patients: Exploring Reconstructive Options after Radiation. CURRENT BREAST CANCER REPORTS 2019. [DOI: 10.1007/s12609-019-00344-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/25/2022]
|
14
|
Comparative Analysis of Single versus Stacked Free Flap Breast Reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019; 144:369e-377e. [DOI: 10.1097/prs.0000000000005906] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
|
15
|
Abstract
Purpose: The optimal approach to the integration of postmastectomy reconstruction and radiation therapy is not well-established. This review will summarize current literature pertaining to the most common types of reconstruction in the setting of postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). Data Sources: Literature from PubMed was reviewed from 2000 to 2016. Study Selection: Studies were selected with relevance to “postmastectomy breast reconstruction,” “breast reconstruction,” and “breast reconstructive methods and PMRT.” Surgical outcomes, patient satisfaction, and cost-effectiveness were examined. Data Extraction: Data from publications was extracted, summarized, and converted to a table. Results of Data Synthesis: Implant-based techniques are on the rise, in the setting of PMRT. Implant-based methods are more affordable in the short term and result in immediate breast-mound formation compared to autologous methods. When compared to implant-based reconstruction with PMRT, autologous reconstruction with PMRT results in better quality of life (QoL) and sensory recovery as well as fewer complications and failures. Among autologous flaps, deep inferior epigastric perforator flaps are considered superior to transverse rectus abdominal muscle (TRAM) pedicled flaps and may be more suitable for PMRT. Latissimus dorsi and muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps are also viable options. In delayed autologous, which may be advantageous for high-risk patients, the optimal timing to delay surgery after radiation therapy is unknown. Reconstruction with a 2-stage tissue expander-implant technique offers good to excellent cosmetic outcomes in the setting of PMRT, although there may be complications in this 2-stage process. Conclusion: Surgical, cosmetic, quality of life, and life expectancy must be taken into account when selecting the way to integrate breast reconstruction and PMRT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Johanna H Yun
- 1 Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Roberto Diaz
- 2 Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Amber G Orman
- 2 Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Abstract
With the indications for radiation therapy in the treatment of breast cancer continuing to expand, many patients present for reconstruction having previously had radiation or having a high likelihood of requiring radiation following mastectomy. Both situations are challenging for the plastic surgeon, with different variables impacting the surgical outcome. To date, multiple studies have been performed examining prosthetic and autologous reconstruction in this setting. The purpose of this article was to provide a general platform for understanding the literature as it relates to reconstruction and radiation through an examination of recent systematic reviews and relevant recent publications. We examined this with a focus on the timing of the radiation, and within this context, examined the data from the traditional surgical outcomes standpoint as well as from a patient-reported outcomes perspective. The data provided within will aid in patient counseling and the informed consent process.
Collapse
|
17
|
Immediate Breast Reconstruction with Abdominal Free Flap and Adjuvant Radiotherapy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 140:681-690. [DOI: 10.1097/prs.0000000000003664] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
|
18
|
Cooke AL, Diaz-Abele J, Hayakawa T, Buchel E, Dalke K, Lambert P. Radiation Therapy Versus No Radiation Therapy to the Neo-breast Following Skin-Sparing Mastectomy and Immediate Autologous Free Flap Reconstruction for Breast Cancer: Patient-Reported and Surgical Outcomes at 1 Year—A Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium (MROC) Substudy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2017; 99:165-172. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.05.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/12/2017] [Revised: 04/19/2017] [Accepted: 05/01/2017] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
|
19
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND The impact of connective tissue disease (CTD) on outcomes following breast surgery and reconstruction is unknown. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of both CTDs and systemic immunomodulatory therapy on outcomes following breast surgery and reconstruction. METHODS A retrospective review was performed of all patients from 2005 to 2010 with an active CTD who underwent breast surgery with or without reconstruction. Surgical events were assigned to 1 of 4 groups: ablative surgery alone, autologous reconstruction, implant reconstruction, and revision surgery. Logistic regression was utilized to examine the relationship between complications and type of surgery, CTD diagnosis, and immunomodulatory therapy. Four non-CTD control groups were then compiled for outcome comparison. The a priori P-value was set at P < 0.05, and all tests were 2 sided. RESULTS Thirty-three patients with CTD underwent112 procedures. Diagnoses included psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis (n = 12), rheumatoid arthritis (n = 10), lupus (n = 4), scleroderma (n = 3), Sjogren syndrome (n = 2), mixed CTD (n = 1), and seronegative polyarthritis (n = 1). Nineteen of 33 (58%) patients who received systemic treatment for CTD in the perioperative period were less likely to experience a minor complication compared with those without treatment (odds ratio= 0.69; P = 0.019). There were no differences in postoperative complications in patients with CTD compared with control groups. CONCLUSIONS Ablative breast surgery and reconstruction among patients with CTDs can be performed safely with low perioperative complication rates. Patients receiving systemic therapy, and continuing their regimens perioperatively, experience complication rates similar to those not requiring therapy.
Collapse
|
20
|
Ricci JA, Epstein S, Momoh AO, Lin SJ, Singhal D, Lee BT. A meta-analysis of implant-based breast reconstruction and timing of adjuvant radiation therapy. J Surg Res 2017; 218:108-116. [PMID: 28985836 DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2017.05.072] [Citation(s) in RCA: 108] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/27/2017] [Revised: 04/25/2017] [Accepted: 05/19/2017] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Implant-based breast reconstruction is the most common type of reconstruction after postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). The impact of the timing of PMRT to a tissue expander or permanent implant is not well understood. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate outcomes in implant-based reconstruction and the timing of PMRT. METHODS A review of the English literature in the PubMed/MEDLINE database (2000-2016) was performed to identify all articles on implant-based breast reconstruction and PMRT. Cases from each study were grouped by PMRT to a tissue expander or PMRT to a permanent implant. Outcomes of interest included reconstructive failure and capsular contracture as overall rates and associations were pooled. Effect sizes (z values), risk ratios (RRs), and heterogeneity scores (I2) were calculated on meta-analysis. RESULTS There were 20 studies meeting inclusion criteria with 2348 patients identified. Pooled analysis revealed an overall rate of reconstructive failure of 17.6% and Baker grade III/IV capsular contracture of 37.5%. PMRT applied to tissue expanders resulted in higher rates of reconstructive failure compared with PMRT applied to permanent silicone implants (20% versus 13.4%, RR = 2.33, P = 0.0083, 95% confidence interval 1.24-4.35), but lower rates of capsular contracture (24.5% versus 49.4%, RR = 0.53, P = 0.083, 95% confidence interval 0.26-1.09). CONCLUSIONS Regardless of timing, PMRT applied to implant-based breast reconstruction was associated with high risk of reconstructive failure and capsular contracture. Surgeons should consider alternative strategies, such as autologous tissue reconstructions, in patients requiring PMRT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joseph A Ricci
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Sherise Epstein
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Adeyiza O Momoh
- Section of Plastic Surgery, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Samuel J Lin
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Dhruv Singhal
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Bernard T Lee
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Schmauss D, Machens HG, Harder Y. Breast Reconstruction after Mastectomy. Front Surg 2016; 2:71. [PMID: 26835456 PMCID: PMC4717291 DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2015.00071] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/31/2015] [Accepted: 12/18/2015] [Indexed: 01/13/2023] Open
Abstract
Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in women worldwide. Its surgical approach has become less and less mutilating in the last decades. However, the overall number of breast reconstructions has significantly increased lately. Nowadays, breast reconstruction should be individualized at its best, first of all taking into consideration not only the oncological aspects of the tumor, neo-/adjuvant treatment, and genetic predisposition, but also its timing (immediate versus delayed breast reconstruction), as well as the patient's condition and wish. This article gives an overview over the various possibilities of breast reconstruction, including implant- and expander-based reconstruction, flap-based reconstruction (vascularized autologous tissue), the combination of implant and flap, reconstruction using non-vascularized autologous fat, as well as refinement surgery after breast reconstruction.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel Schmauss
- Department of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München , Munich , Germany
| | - Hans-Günther Machens
- Department of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München , Munich , Germany
| | - Yves Harder
- Department of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany; Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Ospedale Regionale di Lugano, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale, Lugano, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
El-Sabawi B, Carey JN, Hagopian TM, Sbitany H, Patel KM. Radiation and breast reconstruction: Algorithmic approach and evidence-based outcomes. J Surg Oncol 2016; 113:906-12. [DOI: 10.1002/jso.24143] [Citation(s) in RCA: 36] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/12/2015] [Accepted: 12/14/2015] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Bassim El-Sabawi
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery; Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California; Los Angeles California
| | - Joseph N. Carey
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery; Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California; Los Angeles California
| | - Thomas M. Hagopian
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery; Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California; Los Angeles California
| | - Hani Sbitany
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery; University of California San Francisco; San Francisco California
| | - Ketan M. Patel
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery; Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California; Los Angeles California
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Voineskos SH, Frank SG, Cordeiro PG. Breast reconstruction following conservative mastectomies: predictors of complications and outcomes. Gland Surg 2015; 4:484-96. [PMID: 26645003 DOI: 10.3978/j.issn.2227-684x.2015.04.13] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
Breast reconstruction can be performed using a variety of techniques, most commonly categorized into an alloplastic approach or an autologous tissue method. Both strategies have certain risk factors that influence reconstructive outcomes and complication rates. In alloplastic breast reconstruction, surgical outcomes and complication rates are negatively impacted by radiation, smoking, increased body mass index (BMI), hypertension, and prior breast conserving therapy. Surgical factors such as the type of implant material, undergoing immediate breast reconstruction, and the use of fat grafting can improve patient satisfaction and aesthetic outcomes. In autologous breast reconstruction, radiation, increased BMI, certain previous abdominal surgery, smoking, and delayed reconstruction are associated with higher complication rates. Though a pedicled transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flap is the most common type of flap used for autologous breast reconstruction, pedicled TRAMs are more likely to be associated with fat necrosis than a free TRAM or deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap. Fat grafting can also be used to improve aesthetic outcomes in autologous reconstruction. This article focuses on factors, both patient and surgical, that are predictors of complications and outcomes in breast reconstruction.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sophocles H Voineskos
- 1 Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, 2 Surgical Outcomes Research Centre (SOURCE), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada ; 3 Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| | - Simon G Frank
- 1 Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, 2 Surgical Outcomes Research Centre (SOURCE), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada ; 3 Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| | - Peter G Cordeiro
- 1 Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, 2 Surgical Outcomes Research Centre (SOURCE), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada ; 3 Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
El-Sabawi B, Sosin M, Carey JN, Nahabedian MY, Patel KM. Breast reconstruction and adjuvant therapy: A systematic review of surgical outcomes. J Surg Oncol 2015; 112:458-64. [DOI: 10.1002/jso.24028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 77] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/18/2015] [Accepted: 08/18/2015] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Bassim El-Sabawi
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery; Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California; Los Angeles California
| | - Michael Sosin
- Department of Surgery; Medstar Georgetown University Hospital; Washington District of Columbia
| | - Joseph N. Carey
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery; Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California; Los Angeles California
| | - Maurice Y. Nahabedian
- Department of Plastic Surgery; Georgetown University; Washington District of Columbia
| | - Ketan M. Patel
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery; Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California; Los Angeles California
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Kaminsky AJ, Patel KM, Cocilovo C, Nahabedian MY, Miraliakbari R. The biplanar oncoplastic technique case series: a 2-year review. Gland Surg 2015; 4:257-62. [PMID: 26161310 DOI: 10.3978/j.issn.2227-684x.2015.04.07] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/08/2015] [Accepted: 03/25/2015] [Indexed: 11/14/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Oncoplastic techniques for breast reconstruction following partial mastectomy are now commonly included in the armamentarium of most reconstructive plastic surgeons. These techniques have been frequently used for women with large breast volume and less frequently used form women with small to moderate breast volume. Most women with smaller breast volumes have been typically considered for mastectomy. As an alternative to mastectomy, the biplanar technique was designed and described as an oncoplastic option. The purpose of this manuscript is to review our 2-year experience using this technique in a series of women with small to moderate breast volume. METHODS A retrospective review of patients who underwent oncoplastic surgery from 2011-2012 by the senior authors (RM and MYN) was completed. Ten patients were identified that had the biplanar technique involving glandular tissue rearrangement in conjunction with the immediate placement of a submuscular implant or tissue expander. Patient demographics, perioperative details, and post-operative outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS The mean age and BMI of the ten patients in the study was 56 years (range, 40-68 years) and 24.1 years (range, 20.3-28.6 years) respectively. The mean resection volume was 76.5 g (range, 25-164 g). Eight patients had placement of a permanent implant and two patients had placement of a tissue expander. The average volume of the implanted devices was 138 cc (range, 90-300 cc). In eight patients, a sheet of acellular dermal matrix was used. Immediate biplanar reconstruction was performed in seven patients and a staged-immediate biplanar reconstruction was performed in three patients. Complications included a positive margin on final pathology requiring mastectomy (n=1), infection (n=1), incisional dehiscence following radiation (n=1), and loss of nipple sensation (n=2). Follow-up ranged from 4.5-27 months (mean of 19.5 months). CONCLUSIONS The biplanar oncoplastic technique may represent a valuable option in women with small to moderate breast volumes that choose to have breast conservation therapy (BCT). This technique has demonstrated success with minimizing contour irregularities and maintaining breast volume. Based on our early experience, patient satisfaction is favorable.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander J Kaminsky
- 1 INOVA Fairfax Hospital, Falls Church, VA 22042, USA ; 2 Department of Plastic Surgery, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC 20007, USA ; 3 Private Practice, Fairfax Virginia, USA
| | - Ketan M Patel
- 1 INOVA Fairfax Hospital, Falls Church, VA 22042, USA ; 2 Department of Plastic Surgery, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC 20007, USA ; 3 Private Practice, Fairfax Virginia, USA
| | - Costanza Cocilovo
- 1 INOVA Fairfax Hospital, Falls Church, VA 22042, USA ; 2 Department of Plastic Surgery, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC 20007, USA ; 3 Private Practice, Fairfax Virginia, USA
| | - Maurice Y Nahabedian
- 1 INOVA Fairfax Hospital, Falls Church, VA 22042, USA ; 2 Department of Plastic Surgery, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC 20007, USA ; 3 Private Practice, Fairfax Virginia, USA
| | - Reza Miraliakbari
- 1 INOVA Fairfax Hospital, Falls Church, VA 22042, USA ; 2 Department of Plastic Surgery, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC 20007, USA ; 3 Private Practice, Fairfax Virginia, USA
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Abstract
Women considering breast ablative therapy are confronted with a variety of decisions that include the type of mastectomy (partial, total, skin sparing, nipple areolar sparing), the type of reconstruction (prosthetic, autologous, oncoplastic) and the need for adjuvant therapy (chemotherapy, radiation). The parameters for each are multifactorial and require significant thought and counseling. Therapeutic options are essentially individualized and dependent upon a variety of factors such as tumor size and location, lymph node involvement, comorbidities, expectations and body characteristics. The role of reconstructive surgery is now well appreciated and an integral component of the multidisciplinary care of the patient and is influenced by the opinions and recommendations of surgical, medical and radiation oncologists. This manuscript will review the role of reconstructive surgery and the many factors to consider.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maurice Y Nahabedian
- Department of Plastic Surgery, Georgetown University Hospital, 3800 Reservoir Rd, NW, Washington, DC 20007, USA, Tel.: +1 202 444 6576,
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Acellular dermal matrices and radiotherapy in breast reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. PLASTIC SURGERY INTERNATIONAL 2014; 2014:472604. [PMID: 24987526 PMCID: PMC4055390 DOI: 10.1155/2014/472604] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/04/2014] [Accepted: 04/22/2014] [Indexed: 01/31/2023]
Abstract
The increasing use of commercially available acellular dermis matrices for postmastectomy breast reconstruction seems to have simplified the surgical procedure and enhanced the outcome. These materials, generally considered to be highly safe or with only minor contraindications due to the necessary manipulation in preparatory phases, allow an easier one-phase surgical procedure, in comparison with autologous flaps, offering a high patient satisfaction. Unfortunately, the claim for a higher rate of complications associated with irradiation at the implant site, especially when the radiation therapy was given before the reconstructive surgery, suggested a careful behaviour when this technique is preferred. However, this hypothesis was never submitted to a crucial test, and data supporting it are often discordant or incomplete. To provide a comprehensive analysis of the field, we searched and systematically reviewed papers published after year 2005 and registered clinical trials. On the basis of a meta-analysis of data, we conclude that the negative effect of the radiotherapy on the breast reconstruction seems to be evident even in the case of acellular dermis matrices aided surgery. However, more trials are needed to make solid conclusions and clarify the poor comprehension of all the factors negatively influencing outcome.
Collapse
|