The Influence of Patient Exposure to Breast Reconstruction Approaches and Education on Patient Choices in Breast Cancer Treatment

EBCC-13 manifesto: Balancing pros and cons for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy

After a diagnosis of unilateral breast cancer, increasing numbers of patients are requesting contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM), the surgical removal of the healthy breast after diagnosis of unilateral breast cancer. It is important for the community of breast cancer specialists to provide meaningful guidance to women considering CPM. This manifesto discusses the issues and challenges of CPM and provides recommendations to improve oncological, surgical, physical and psychological outcomes for women presenting with unilateral breast cancer: (1) Communicate best available risks in manageable timeframes to prioritise actions; better risk stratification and implementation of risk-assessment tools combining family history, genetic and genomic information, and treatment and prognosis of the first breast cancer are required; (2) Reserve CPM for specific situations; in women not at high risk of contralateral breast cancer (CBC), ipsilateral breast-conserving surgery is the recommended option; (3) Encourage patients at low or intermediate risk of CBC to delay decisions on CPM until treatment for the primary cancer is complete, to focus on treating the existing disease first; (4) Provide patients with personalised information about the risk:benefit balance of CPM in manageable timeframes; (5) Ensure patients have an informed understanding of the competing risks for CBC and that there is a realistic plan for the patient; (6) Ensure patients understand the short- and long-term physical effects of CPM; (7) In patients considering CPM, offer psychological and surgical counselling before surgery; anxiety alone is not an indication for CPM; (8) Eliminate inequality between countries in reimbursement strategies; CPM should be reimbursed if it is considered a reasonable option resulting from multidisciplinary tumour board assessment; (9) Treat breast cancer patients at specialist breast units providing the entire patient-centred pathway.

The effect and prognosis of combinative implantation by autologous-fat granule and prosthesis for breast reconstruction after radical mastectomy

OBJECTIVES

In this study, we analyzed the effect and prognosis of combinative implantation of autologous-fat granule and prosthesis for breast reconstruction after radical mastectomy.

METHODS

73 cases of breast cancer patients hospitalized from March 2015 to March 2017 were chosen and separated into observation group (n=41) and control group (n=32) on the basis of the surgical methods. Both the two groups underwent modified radical mastectomy. In addition, the control group received prosthesis implantation for breast reconstruction, and the observation group was implanted with combination of prosthesis and autologous-fat granule transplantation. Thereafter, the surgical indexes, postoperative complications, aesthetic effects of breast reconstruction and prognosis of the two groups of patients were evaluated.

RESULTS

The surgical duration of the observation group was obviously longer than that of the control group (P<0.05), while the two groups had insignificant difference in postoperative drainage duration and postoperative hospital stay (P>0.05). FACT-B score of both groups of patients one year after surgery was dramatically higher than that before surgery (P<0.05), and patients in observation group had remarkably higher scores than those in control group (P<0.05). The incidence of postoperative complications in observation group was substantially lower than that in control group (P<0.05). In addition, the aesthetic evaluation of the observation-group patients postoperatively was notably higher than that in control group (P<0.05), and there was no statistically significant difference in progression-free survival between the two groups (P>0.05).

CONCLUSION

The combinative implantation of both prosthesis and autologous-fat granule for breast reconstruction after radical mastectomy is simple in operation procedure, and has better aesthetic outcome and safety. It satisfies the aesthetic demand of patients while having lesions resection, and does not affect the surgical effect of modified radical mastectomy, which is worthy of clinical promotion.

ESPRAS Survey on Breast Reconstruction in Europe

BACKGROUND

 The European Leadership Forum (ELF) of the European Society of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery (ESPRAS) previously identified the need for harmonisation of breast reconstruction standards in Europe, in order to strengthen the role of plastic surgeons. This study aims to survey the status, current trends and potential regional differences in the practice of breast reconstruction in Europe, with emphasis on equity and access.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 A largescale web-based questionnaire was sent to consultant plastic and reconstructive surgeons, who are experienced in breast reconstruction and with understanding of the national situation in their country. Suitable participants were identified via the Executive Committee (ExCo) of ESPRAS and national delegates of ESPRAS. The results were evaluated and related to evidence-based literature.

RESULTS

 A total of 33 participants from 29 European countries participated in this study. Overall, the incidence of breast reconstruction was reported to be relatively low across Europe, comparable to other large geographic regions, such as North America. Equity of provision and access to breast reconstruction was distributed evenly within Europe, with geographic regions potentially affecting the type of reconstruction offered. Standard practices with regard to radiotherapy differed between countries and a clear demand for European guidelines on breast reconstruction was reported.

CONCLUSION

 This study identified distinct lack of consistency in international practice patterns across European countries and a strong demand for consistent European guidance. Large-scale and multi-centre European clinical trials are required to further elucidate the presented areas of interest and to define European standard operating procedures.

Overall Complication Rates of DIEP Flap Breast Reconstructions in Germany-A Multi-Center Analysis Based on the DGPRÄC Prospective National Online Registry for Microsurgical Breast Reconstructions

While autologous breast reconstruction has gained momentum over recent years, there is limited data on the structure and quality of care of microsurgical breast reconstruction in Germany. Using the breast reconstruction database established by the German Society of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons (DGPRÄC), the presented study investigated the overall outcomes of deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap reconstructions in Germany. Data of 3926 patients and 4577 DIEP flaps performed by 22 centers were included in this study. Demographics, patient characteristics, perioperative details and postoperative outcomes were accounted for. Centers performing < Ø 40 (low-volume (LV)) vs. ≥ Ø 40 (high-volume (HV)) annual DIEP flaps were analyzed separately. Overall, total and partial flap loss rates were as low as 2.0% and 1.1% respectively, and emergent vascular revision surgery was performed in 4.3% of cases. Revision surgery due to wound complications was conducted in 8.3% of all cases. Mean operative time and length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the HV group (LV: 385.82 min vs. HV: 287.14 min; LV: 9.04 (18.87) days vs. HV: 8.21 (5.04) days; both p < 0.05). The outcome and complication rates deduced from the national registry underline the high standard of microsurgical breast reconstruction on a national level in Germany.

Bilateral Mastectomy in Women With Unilateral Breast Cancer: A Review

Importance

Rates of bilateral mastectomy continue to increase in average-risk women with unilateral in situ and invasive breast cancer. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rates increased from 5% to 12% of all operations for breast cancer in the US from 2004 to 2012. Among women having mastectomy, rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy have increased from less than 2% in 1998 to 30% in 2012.

Observations

The increased use of breast magnetic resonance imaging and genetic testing has marginally increased the number of candidates for bilateral mastectomy. Most bilateral mastectomies are performed on women who are at no special risk for contralateral cancer. The true risk of contralateral breast cancer is not associated with the decision for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy; rather, the clinical factors associated with the probability of distant recurrence are associated with bilateral mastectomy. Several changes in society and health care delivery appear to act concurrently and synergistically. First, the anxiety engendered by a fear of cancer recurrence is focused on the contralateral cancer because this is most easily conceptualized and provides a ready target that can be acted upon. Second, the modern woman with breast cancer is supported by the surgeon and the social community of breast cancer survivors. Surgeons want to respect patient autonomy, despite guidelines discouraging bilateral mastectomy, and most women have their expenses covered by a third-party payer. Satisfaction with the results is high, but the association with improved psychosocial well-being remains to be fully understood.

Conclusions and Relevance

Reducing the use of medically unnecessary contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in women with nonhereditary, unilateral breast cancer requires a social change that addresses patient-, physician-, cultural-, and systems-level enabling factors. Such a transformation begins with educating clinicians and patients. The concerns of women who want preventive contralateral mastectomy must be explored, and women need to be informed of the anticipated benefits (or lack thereof) and risks. Areas requiring further study are considered.

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and implications for breast reconstruction

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) rates have continued to rise in the United States, impacting all stakeholders including plastic and reconstructive surgeons. Multiple factors may be influencing this trend, including patient decision-making characteristics, knowledge about breast cancer disease and prognosis, advances in genetic testing and enhanced imaging capabilities, sociodemographic factors, and access to specialty surgical services such as breast reconstruction. In this review, the authors shed light on the current state of CPM and summarize the literature analyzing its increasing prevalence in the United States, as well as outline future directions for study and dissemination of knowledge from providers to patients surrounding this important and complex treatment decision.

Psychosocial well-being at time of diagnosis of breast cancer affects the decision whether or not to undergo breast reconstruction

OBJECTIVES

Numerous studies have shown that breast reconstruction after mastectomy improves QoL in breast cancer survivors. However, still about half of the patients does not opt for reconstruction. In order to accommodate suitable counseling, we should elucidate the factors that play a role in the decision-making process. This study aimed to evaluate the influence of QoL, among women diagnosed with breast cancer before the start of any treatment, on their decision whether or not to undergo breast reconstruction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

BREAST-Q surveys were provided to breast cancer patients at the specialized breast care outpatient clinic after their first consultation with a surgical oncologist, between June 2017 and March 2019. The Q-scores of the subdomains physical well-being, psychosocial well-being, sexual well-being, and satisfaction with breasts of patients that underwent mastectomy were statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven patients, undergoing mastectomy, completed the questionnaire. Fifty-four percent received reconstructive surgery. Mean age of patients seeking breast reconstruction was significantly lower than patients who did not opt for a reconstruction (53.5 vs. 63.7). Mean follow-up after mastectomy was 18.1 months. Except for satisfaction with breasts, mean Q-scores were higher in the group of patients who did not choose for reconstructive surgery. Psychosocial well-being was significantly higher in the non-reconstruction group (p = 0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

Psychosocial well-being at time of diagnosis of breast cancer was significantly higher in patients refraining from breast reconstructive surgery after mastectomy. Psychosocial characteristics might be essential for the decision-making process as well. Further prospective research should evaluate this.