Impact of Radiation on Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction in Prepectoral Versus Submuscular Planes

Modifiable Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy Factors and Impact on Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy and other modifiable radiation factors have been associated with decreased radiation toxicity. These factors could allow for improved reconstructive outcomes in patients requiring postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). However, they have not yet been well studied in implant-based breast reconstruction.

METHODS

The authors performed a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent mastectomy with immediate tissue expander placement followed by PMRT. Radiation characteristics were collected, including radiation technique, bolus regimen, x-ray energy, fractionation, maximum radiation hot spot, and tissue volume receiving more than 105% or more than 107% of the prescription dose. Reconstructive complications occurring after initiation of PMRT were analyzed with respect to these radiation characteristics.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight patients (70 breasts) were included in this study. The overall complication rate was 28.6%, with infection being the most common complication (24.3%), requiring removal of the tissue expander or implant in greater than half of infections (15.7%). Maximum radiation hot spot was greater in patients who required explantation after PMRT, and this approached statistical significance (114.5% ± 7.2% versus 111.4% ± 4.4%; P = 0.059). Tissue volume receiving more than 105% and 107% were also greater in patients who required explantation after PMRT (42.1% ± 17.1% versus 33.0% ± 20.9% and 16.4% ± 14.5% versus 11.3% ± 14.6%, respectively); however, this was not statistically significant ( P = 0.176 and P = 0.313, respectively). There were no significant differences in complication rates between patients with respect to radiation technique or other radiation characteristics studied.

CONCLUSION

Minimizing the radiation hot spots and volumes of tissue receiving greater than the prescription dose of radiation may improve reconstructive outcomes in patients undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction followed by PMRT.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Near-Surface Dose Correlates With Moist Desquamation and Unplanned Reconstructive Surgery in Patients With Implant-Based Reconstruction Receiving Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy

Purpose

Postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) reduces disease recurrence in appropriately selected patients but may compromise implant-based reconstruction. We investigated whether near-surface dose correlates with radiation-related toxic effects in these patients.

Methods and Materials

Patients receiving PMRT at a single institution from 2016 to 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Patient demographics and treatment information were collected. Three near-surface structures were retrospectively generated, bound by the chest wall tangent beam as well as the skin surface and the skin-3 mm contour (SR3), skin surface and skin-5 mm contour (SR5), or skin-5 and skin-10 mm contours. Dosimetric analysis of these near-surface contours was performed in 2 Gy intervals. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify predictors of moist desquamation, grade 2+ chest wall pain, use of opiate pain medication, unplanned reconstructive surgery, and implant failure. Logistic regression for each outcome and near-surface contour was performed for receiver-operator area under the curve (AUC) analysis and the Youden J Statistic was used to determine the optimal threshold for each dosimetric parameter.

Results

Of 126 patients reviewed, 109 met the study's eligibility criteria. Median follow-up was 2.3 years. Twenty-five patients (23%) underwent unplanned reconstructive surgery, and 10 (9.2%) experienced implant failure. Among clinical variables, low body mass index and history of smoking predicted unplanned surgery on univariate and multivariate analyses, and moist desquamation predicted grade 2+ chest wall pain. The top dosimetric parameters by AUC for moist desquamation, grade 2+ chest wall pain, use of opiates, unplanned reconstructive surgery, and implant failure were SR5 D10 cc (AUC = 0.701, optimal threshold 57.8 Gy, P < .001), SR3 D10 cc (AUC = 0.600, optimal threshold 56.8 Gy, P = .079), SR5 D10 cc (AUC = 0.642, optimal threshold 57.3 Gy, P = .041), SR3 V44 Gy (AUC = 0.711, optimal threshold 81%, P = .001), and SR3 V44 Gy (AUC = 0.688, optimal threshold 82%, P = .052), respectively.

Conclusions

Near-surface dose correlates with moist desquamation and unplanned reconstructive surgery after PMRT. Further evaluation of prospective optimization of dosimetric parameters related to SR3 and SR5 should be considered.

Effect of radiation therapy during surgery on postoperative wound complications after breast reconstruction in patients with breast cancer: A meta-analysis

Breast remodelling is a major therapeutic choice in radical mastectomy. Breast reconstruction is regarded as a promising option for the treatment of breast cancer. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to investigate the effect of Post mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) on postoperative wound complications in breast carcinoma. A comprehensive review of documents was conducted between the date of establishment and the 28th of August 2023. In all of the trials, patients were treated with breast cancer. The researchers chose 11 publications out of 8068 related studies. Two researchers examined these publications to satisfy the inclusion criteria. Among the 516 patients who had received radiation therapy in the course of the operation, 1772 had not received radiation therapy. The impact of radiation therapy and non-radiation therapy in breast cancer patients after breast reconstruction was reported in 8 studies, and the incidence of postoperative wound infection in non-radiation group was significantly lower (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.26-3.02 p = 0.003). In nine studies, There is not considered to have achieved statistical significance between radiation therapy and non-radiation treatment for post-operation wound dehiscence in breast cancer patients who had received chemotherapy (OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 0.70-3.72 p = 0.27). The results of six trials demonstrated that radiation therapy and non-radiation therapy had no statistical significance on post-operation haemorrhage in breast cancer patients (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.42-2.47 p = 0.96). The results of 7 trials demonstrated that radiation therapy and non-radiation therapy had no significant impact on the post-operation of skin necrosis (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.66-2.28 p = 0.53). Two trials demonstrated that those without radiation therapy were less likely than those who received radiation therapy in skin contracture in patients (OR, 7.24; 95% CI, 1.80-29.10 p = 0.005). Regarding the incidence of wound infection and cutaneous contraction was higher in the radiation group.

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 trends in postmastectomy breast reconstruction

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Breast reconstruction is established as integral part of the treatment. New materials, indications and surgical techniques are subject to rapid modification to further improve safety, quality and longevity.

RECENT FINDINGS

Skin-sparing-mastectomy is accepted as an appropriate alternative in risk-reducing and many breast cancer patients, further reducing conventional mastectomy patterns.Radiation in combination with reconstruction is still challenging with no clear advances reducing skin-toxicity.Autologous reconstructions, not only in radiation settings, are turning to a first line approach. A trend driven by improved techniques to minimize morbidity and flap-variations.Breast implant surfaces associated with a high risk of Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) are now withdrawn. The residual risk for the remaining implant styles is not known, but can be expected considerably lower than estimations published presently.In order to reduce local complications, supplemental material often in combination with prepectoral implant placement is advertised. The present evidence on long-term outcome is limited.Super-microsurgery treating lymphedema is evolving rapidly. Refinements of various techniques and their differential indication are under evaluation to standardize the procedures.

SUMMARY

Breast reconstruction evolved to a complex, specialized field with a multitude of options. A multidisciplinary team is required to fully utilize todays potential and offer optimal individual treatments.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of postmastectomy radiation therapy on prepectoral versus subpectoral breast reconstruction

Background

Prepectoral breast reconstruction has once again appealed, which attributes to the introduction of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) and mesh. Postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT), meanwhile, is crucial in the whole course of treatment for breast cancer patients with lymph node-positive. The impact of PMRT on outcomes after prepectoral breast reconstruction has not been clearly defined to date. This study aimed to compare the impact of PMRT on outcomes after prepectoral vs. subpectoral breast reconstruction.

Methods

A comprehensive research on databases including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries was performed to retrieve literature pertaining to prepectoral breast reconstruction from database inception to October 2021. All included studies evaluated the impact of PMRT on outcomes after breast reconstruction. Only studies comparing patients who underwent prepectoral breast reconstruction with a control group who underwent subpectoral breast reconstruction were included. Data were analyzed using RevMan version 5.2.

Results

A total of 4 studies were included in the meta-analysis, with a total of 394 breasts. In the setting of postmastectomy radiation therapy, 164 breasts were reconstructed with a prepectoral approach, whereas the remaining 230 breasts underwent subpectoral reconstruction. Overall, outcomes between PBR and SBR was no statistical significance in the overall complications (OR: 1.30, 95% CI: 0.35-4.85), infection (OR: 1.62, 95% CI: 0.90-2.91), seroma (OR: 1.60, 95% CI: 0.48-5.27), skin flap necrosis (OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.17-3.45), hematoma (OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.10-1.41), wound dehiscence (OR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.36-1.85). But, included studies lacked data about the patient quality of life and satisfaction with the outcome of the reconstructed breast.

Conclusions

In the setting of postmastectomy radiation therapy, prepectoral breast reconstruction is a safe and effective option.

The Impact of Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy on the Outcomes of Prepectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Breast reconstruction is the mainstay treatment choice for patients subjected to a mastectomy. Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is deemed to be a promising alternative to subpectoral reconstruction. Postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) is necessary for locoregional recurrence control and to improve the disease-free survival rate in locally advanced breast cancer. This systematic review and meta-analysis study was designed to reveal the surgical, aesthetic, and oncological outcomes of prepectoral IBBR after PMRT.

METHODS

An extensive literature search was performed from inception to March 28, 2022. All clinical studies that included patients who were subjected to prepectoral IBBR and PMRT were included. Studies that included patients who received radiation therapy before prepectoral IBBR were excluded.

RESULTS

This systematic review included six articles encompassing 1234 reconstructed breasts. Of them, 391 breasts were subjected to PMRT, while 843 breasts were not subjected. Irradiated breasts were more susceptible to develop wound infection (RR 2.49; 95% 1.43, 4.35; P = 0.001) and capsular contracture (RR 5.17; 95% 1.93, 13.80; P = 0.001) than the non-irradiated breasts. Furthermore, irradiated breasts were more vulnerable to losing implants (RR 2.89; 95% 1.30, 6.39; P = 0.009) than the non-irradiated breast. There was no significant difference between both groups regarding the risk of implant extrusion (RR 1.88; 95% 0.20, 17.63; P = 0.58).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with prepectorally IBBR and PMRT were more vulnerable to developing poor outcomes. This included a higher risk of breast-related and implant-related adverse events.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

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.