Oncoplastic partial breast reconstruction improves patient satisfaction and aesthetic outcome for central breast tumours

Efficacy and safety of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery versus conventional breast-conserving surgery: An updated meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women. The surgical treatment of breast cancer has transitioned progressively from radical mastectomy to breast-conserving surgery. In this meta-analysis, we are aiming to compare oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OS) with conventional breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in terms of efficacy and safety.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane databases, Clinicaltrial.gov, and CNKI until April 30, 2024. Data from cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Outcomes included primary outcomes (re-excision, local recurrence, positive surgical margin, mastectomy), secondary outcomes and safety outcomes. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to evaluate the quality of outcomes.

RESULTS

Our study included 52 studies containing 46,835 patients. Primary outcomes comprise re-excision, local recurrence, positive surgical margin, and mastectomy, there were significant differences favoring OS over BCS (RR 0.68 [0.56, 0.82], RR 0.62 [0.47, 0.82], RR 0.76 [0.59, 0.98], RR 0.66 [0.44, 0.98] respectively), indicating superior efficacy of OS. Additionally, OS demonstrated significant aesthetic benefits (RR 1.17 [1.03, 1.33] and RR 1.34 [1.18, 1.52]). While total complications were significantly fewer in the OS group (RR 0.70 [0.53, 0.94]), the differences in specific complications were not significant. Furthermore, subgroup analyses were conducted based on nationality, sample size, quality, and type.

CONCLUSION

OS demonstrates either superior or at least comparable outcomes across various aspects when compared to BCS.

The Oncological and Surgical Outcomes of Immediate Oncoplastic Breast Reconstruction With Contralateral Breast Adjustment

BACKGROUND

Oncoplastic surgery is an expanding approach for managing breast conservation because it offers improved cosmetic outcomes while maintaining oncological safety.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess the oncological and surgical outcomes of patients who underwent oncoplastic procedures at a single institution.

METHODS

The study population includes all consecutive breast cancer patients who underwent lumpectomy followed by immediate oncoplastic breast reconstruction with contralateral breast adjustment between 2010 and 2021. Following IRB approval, patient demographics, tumor characteristics, surgical details, complications, and follow-up were evaluated for this group. Quality of life (QOL) and patient-reported outcome measures were assessed through questionnaires.

RESULTS

Following multidisciplinary tumor board discussion, 77 patients (82 breasts) underwent oncoplastic surgery. Of these, 92.2% underwent breast MRI prior to surgery with mean mass enhancement of 2.35 cm (range, 0-8.5 cm) and non-mass enhancement of 5.77 cm (range, 0-14 cm), and 44% presented with multifocal disease. The final positive surgical margin rate was 2.4%, and all conserved breasts received adjuvant radiation therapy. The 5-year local recurrence rate for invasive tumors was 4.1%. QOL scores were generally high, with most patients reporting good to excellent cosmetic outcomes and high personal satisfaction with breast appearance and softness. Physicians reported breast symmetry in 89.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that oncoplastic surgery with contralateral breast adjustment is safe, effective, and an excellent option for breast cancer patients wishing for breast conservation even for large or multifocal masses, with favorable oncologic and cosmetic outcomes. The QOL analysis indicates high patient satisfaction. These results support the use of oncoplastic surgery in the management of breast cancer.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Local practice variations and payer differences underlie state-wide disparities in oncoplastic breast surgery

BACKGROUND

Little is known about disparities in oncoplastic breast surgery delivery.

METHODS

The Massachusetts All-Payer Claims Database was queried for patients who received lumpectomy for a diagnosis of breast cancer. Oncoplastic surgery was defined as adjacent tissue transfer, complex trunk repair, reduction mammoplasty, mastopexy, flap-based reconstruction, prosthesis insertion, or unspecified breast reconstruction after lumpectomy.

RESULTS

We identified 18 748 patients who underwent lumpectomy between 2016 and 2020. Among those, 3140 patients underwent immediate oncoplastic surgery and 436 patients underwent delayed oncoplastic surgery. Eighty-one percent of patients who underwent oncoplastic surgery did so in the same county as they underwent a lumpectomy. However, the relative frequency of oncoplastic surgery varied significantly among counties. In multivariable regression, public insurance status (odds ratio: 0.87, 95% confidence interval: 0.80-0.95, p = 0.002) was associated with lower odds of undergoing oncoplastic surgery, even after adjusting for macromastia, other comorbidities, and county of lumpectomy. Average payments for lumpectomy with oncoplastic surgery were more than twice as high from private insurers ($840 vs. $1942, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Disparities in the receipt of oncoplastic surgery were related to differences in local practice patterns and the type of insurance patients held. Expanding services across counties and considering billing reform may help reduce these disparities.

A Scoping Review of the Application of BREAST-Q in Surgical Research

Background

Collection of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data can facilitate cost-effective, evidence-based, and patient-centered care. The BREAST-Q has become the gold standard tool to measure PRO data in breast surgery. The last review of its application indicated that it was underutilized. Considering the evolution in breast surgery, the purpose of this study was to perform a scoping review of BREAST-Q application since 2015 and identify emerging trends and potential persistent gaps to guide patient-centered practice and future research in breast surgery.

Methods

We performed an electronic literature review to identify publications published in English that used the BREAST-Q to assess patient outcomes. We excluded validation studies, review papers, conference abstracts, discussions, comments, and/or responses to previously published papers.

Results

We identified 270 studies that met our inclusion criteria. Specific data was extracted to examine the evolution of the BREAST-Q application and examine clinical trends and research gaps.

Discussion

Despite a significant increase in BREAST-Q studies, gaps in the understanding of the patient experience remain. The BREAST-Q is uniquely designed to measure quality of life and satisfaction with outcome and care. The prospective collection of center-specific data for every type of breast surgery will generate important information for the provision of patient-centered and evidence-based care.

Sometimes it is better to just make it simple. De-escalation of oncoplastic and reconstructive procedures

Simple breast conservation surgery (sBCS) has technically advanced onto oncoplastic breast procedures (OBP) to avoid mastectomy and improve breast cancer patients' psychosocial well-being and cosmetic outcome. Although OBP are time-consuming and expensive, we are witnessing an increase in their use, even for cases that could be managed with sBCS. The choice between keeping it simple or opting for more complex oncoplastic procedures is difficult. This review proposes a pragmatic approach in assisting this decision. Medical literature suggests that OBP and sBCS might be similar regarding local recurrence and overall survival, and patients seem to have higher satisfaction levels with the aesthetic outcome of OBP when compared to sBCS. However, the lack of comprehensive high-quality research assessing their safety, efficacy, and patient-reported outcomes hinders these supposed conclusions. Postoperative complications after OBP may delay the initiation of adjuvant RT. In addition, precise displacement of the breast volume is not effectively recorded despite surgical clips placement, making accurate dose delivery tricky for radiation oncologists, and WBRT preferable to APBI in complex OBP cases. With a critical eye on financial toxicity, patient satisfaction, and oncological outcomes, OBP must be carefully integrated into clinical practice. The thoughtful provision of informed consent is essential for decision-making between sBCS and OBP. As we look into the future, machine learning and artificial intelligence can potentially help patients and doctors avoid postoperative regrets by setting realistic aesthetic expectations.

Outcome reporting in therapeutic mammaplasty: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Modified Grisotti flap technique in centrally located breast cancer: case report

Traditionally, breast cancer patients with centrally located mass always receive mastectomy or the combination of central excision and primary closure. With the development of modern oncoplastic breast-conserving techniques, these patients can conserve their breast, and achieve satisfactory cosmetic outcome as well as clear margin. A variety of techniques are available to deal with centrally located breast cancers (CLBCs). Among these techniques, Grisotti flap technique is special, because it is easy to handle, and only causes minor injury by using a local rotational dermoglandular flap to fill the defection of central part. However, in our clinical practice, we find a lot of women in south China have special properties. Such as short distance from inframammary liner to the nipple, long distance from midclavicular to the nipple, and large breast diameter. Simply apply the Grisotti flap technique to those patients is not very suitable that drive us to modify this technique to suit our patients. We adopt the idea that use pedicled skin flap with skin island to replace the central defection to modify Grisotti flap technique. And applied this technique to two patients. We find modified Grisotti flap technique for Paget's disease or CLBC had good cosmetic results as well as safety in suitable patients. In the future, we can use superior pedicle with skin island for ptotic breasts, and lateral pedicle is suitable for patients without large and ptotic breasts.

Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery for women with primary breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (O-BCS) involves removing the tumour in the breast and using plastic surgery techniques to reconstruct the breast. The adequacy of published evidence on the safety and efficacy of O-BCS for the treatment of breast cancer compared to other surgical options for breast cancer is still debatable. It is estimated that the local recurrence rate is similar to standard breast-conserving surgery (S-BCS) and also mastectomy, but the aesthetic and patient-reported outcomes may be improved with oncoplastic techniques.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary objective was to assess oncological control outcomes following O-BCS compared with other surgical options for women with breast cancer. Our secondary objective was to assess surgical complications, recall rates, need for further surgery to achieve adequate oncological resection, patient satisfaction through patient-reported outcomes, and cosmetic outcomes through objective measures or clinician-reported outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (via OVID), Embase (via OVID), the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov on 7 August 2020. We did not apply any language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised comparative studies (cohort and case-control studies). Studies evaluated any O-BCS technique, including volume displacement techniques and partial breast volume replacement techniques compared to any other surgical treatment (partial resection or mastectomy) for the treatment of breast cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four review authors performed data extraction and resolved disagreements. We used ROBINS-I to assess the risk of bias by outcome. We performed descriptive data analysis and meta-analysis and evaluated the quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria. The outcomes included local recurrence, breast cancer-specific disease-free survival, re-excision rates, complications, recall rates, and patient-reported outcome measures.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 78 non-randomised cohort studies evaluating 178,813 women. Overall, we assessed the risk of bias per outcome as being at serious risk of bias due to confounding; where studies adjusted for confounding, we deemed these at moderate risk. Comparison 1: oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (O-BCS) versus standard-BCS (S-BCS) The evidence in the review found that O-BCS when compared to S-BCS, may make little or no difference to local recurrence; either when measured as local recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.34; 4 studies, 7600 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or local recurrence rate (HR 1.33, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.83; 4 studies, 2433 participants; low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain due to most studies not controlling for confounding clinicopathological factors. O-BCS compared to S-BCS may make little to no difference to disease-free survival (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.26; 7 studies, 5532 participants; low-certainty evidence). O-BCS may reduce the rate of re-excisions needed for oncological resection (risk ratio (RR) 0.76, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.85; 38 studies, 13,341 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. O-BCS may increase the number of women who have at least one complication (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.27; 20 studies, 118,005 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and increase the recall to biopsy rate (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.67 to 3.42; 6 studies, 715 participants; low-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis was not possible when assessing patient-reported outcomes or cosmetic evaluation; in general, O-BCS reported a similar or more favourable result, however, the evidence is very uncertain due to risk of bias in the measurement methods. Comparison 2: oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (O-BCS) versus mastectomy alone O-BCS may increase local recurrence-free survival compared to mastectomy but the evidence is very uncertain (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.91; 2 studies, 4713 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of O-BCS on disease-free survival as there were only data from one study. O-BCS may reduce complications compared to mastectomy, but the evidence is very uncertain due to high risk of bias mainly resulting from confounding (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.83; 4 studies, 4839 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Data on patient-reported outcome measures came from single studies; it was not possible to meta-analyse the data. Comparison 3: oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (O-BCS) versus mastectomy with reconstruction O-BCS may make little or no difference to local recurrence-free survival (HR 1.37, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.62; 1 study, 3785 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or disease-free survival (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.22; 1 study, 317 participants; very low-certainty evidence) when compared to mastectomy with reconstruction, but the evidence is very uncertain. O-BCS may reduce the complication rate compared to mastectomy with reconstruction (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.54; 5 studies, 4973 participants; very low-certainty evidence) but the evidence is very uncertain due to high risk of bias from confounding and inconsistency of results. The evidence is very uncertain for patient-reported outcome measures and cosmetic evaluation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence is very uncertain regarding oncological outcomes following O-BCS compared to S-BCS, though O-BCS has not been shown to be inferior. O-BCS may result in less need for a second re-excision surgery but may result in more complications and a greater recall rate than S-BCS. It seems that O-BCS may give better patient satisfaction and surgeon rating for the look of the breast, but the evidence for this is of poor quality, and due to lack of numerical data, it was not possible to pool the results of different studies. It seems O-BCS results in fewer complications compared with surgeries involving mastectomy. Based on this review, no certain conclusions can be made to help inform policymakers. The surgical decision for what operation to proceed with should be made jointly between clinician and patient after an appropriate discussion about the risks and benefits of O-BCS personalised to the patient, taking into account clinicopathological factors. This review highlighted the deficiency of well-conducted studies to evaluate efficacy, safety and patient-reported outcomes following O-BCS.

Long-Term Quality of Life (BREAST-Q) in Patients with Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction

(1) Background: Mastectomy is the surgical treatment of choice in 20-30% of women with breast cancer. In addition, more women are undergoing risk-reducing mastectomies. It is necessary to study these women's quality of life and satisfaction after surgery, as studies report high percentages of dissatisfaction with the results. The publication of the BREAST-Q© questionnaire in 2009 provided a valuable tool to measure these results. (2) Methods: Descriptive, cross-sectional study of 70 patients who underwent mastectomy and breast reconstruction, both therapeutic and prophylactic, in the last 10 years to whom the BREAST-Q© 2.0-Reconstruction Module questionnaire was provided for completion. (3) Results: The sexual satisfaction scale was the lowest score of the entire questionnaire (51.84 ± 21.13), while the highest score was obtained on the satisfaction with the surgeon scale (91.86 ± 18.11). The satisfaction with care scales showed the importance of the evaluation of these items for future studies. More than half of the patients of the study (51.5%) underwent at least one reoperation after the first surgery, with an average of one (1.15) intervention per patient and a maximum of five. (4) Conclusions: Mastectomy and breast reconstruction have a high negative impact on the sexual well-being of patients. The high percentage of reoperations is a factor to consider because of its possible influence on these patients' quality of life and satisfaction.

Oncoplastic reconstruction of central lumpectomy defects using the medial pillar island flap

PURPOSE

This report presents the medial pillar island flap technique of oncoplastic breast reconstruction of central defects that involve the nipple-areola complex.

METHODS

The procedure was performed in patients who presented with inferior pole redundancy using a vertical mammaplasty pattern. The flap was designed utilizing the territory of the lower pole as an island flap pedicled by the internal mammary artery perforators surrounded by the soft tissue of the medial pillar.

RESULTS

Eight patients underwent the procedure with a mean age of 57.6 years. Median breast cup size was D (range: from C to DDD). The mean body mass index was 37.3 kg/m² (range: from 32.1 to 41.5). The size of the defect ranged from 64 to 150 cm³ (mean, 97.2). Concomitant opposite breast vertical reduction was performed in 6 cases. Flap survival was uneventful. Nipple reconstruction was performed 6 months after radiation treatment in 4 patients. No major complications were encountered. Two patients developed minor wound breakdown after nipple reconstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

The medial pillar island flap is presented as a safe and reliable option for the reconstruction of central partial mastectomy defects in patients with macromastia or breast ptosis. Internal mammary system provides predictable and robust flap viability while complete separation from the inframammary fold allows for unrestricted mobility. The procedure is designed with vertical scar mammaplasty, which results in a smooth contour to the lower pole. The flap allows for nipple reconstruction using well-vascularized skin paddle. The technique is offered as an alternative oncoplasty option for neoareolar reconstruction.

Should oncoplastic breast conserving surgery be used for the treatment of early stage breast cancer? Using the GRADE approach for development of clinical recommendations

Introduction

The potential advantages of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (BCS) have not been validated in robust studies that constitute high levels of evidence, despite oncoplastic techniques being widely adopted around the globe. There is hence the need to define the precise role of oncoplastic BCS in the treatment of early breast cancer, with consensual recommendations for clinical practice.

Methods

A panel of world-renowned breast specialists was convened to evaluate evidence, express personal viewpoints and establish recommendations for the use of oncoplastic BCS as primary treatment of unifocal early stage breast cancers using the GRADE approach.

Results

According to the results of the systematic review of literature, the panelists were asked to comment on the recommendation for use of oncoplastic BCS for treatment of operable breast cancer that is suitable for breast conserving surgery, with the GRADE approach. Based on the voting outcome, the following recommendation emerged as a consensus statement: Oncoplastic breast conserving surgery should be recommended versus standard breast conserving surgery for the treatment of operable breast cancer in adult women who are suitable candidates for breast conserving surgery (with very low certainty of evidence).

Discussion

This review has revealed a low level of evidence for most of the important outcomes in oncoplastic surgery with lack of any randomized data and absence of standard tools for evaluation of clinical outcomes and especially patients’ values.

Despite areas of controversy, about one-third (36%) of panel members expressed a strong recommendation in support of oncoplastic BCS. Presumably, this reflects a synthesis of views on the relative complexity of these techniques, associated complications, impact on quality of life and costs.

[Oncoplasty by the Thorek technique for lower quadrant cancers in a condition of gigantomastia]

OBJECTIVE

Describe our experience of Oncoplasty according to Thorek in gigantomastia with hard and less plastic breasts and a major ptosis.

METHODOLOGY

Thirteen cases of breast carcinoma on gigantomastia operated using the Thorek technique between 2014 and 2019 in Burkina Faso were analyzed retrospectively. The operative indications, technique and results were considered. Breast Q was used to assess patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

The indication of oncoplasty by the Thorek's technique was breast lower quadrants carcinoma, associated with a major ptosis, gigantomastia. There was a consequence on the spine in 9 over 13 cases. The breasts were hard and less plastic, making the other breast reduction techniques difficult. This technique helped remove the carcinoma, reduce the volume of the breast and address the ptosis. The patients were satisfied with the volume of the remaining breasts and their aesthetic look. The resection margins were safe. Two cases of aerolar dyschromia were noticed.

CONCLUSION

The Thorek technique remains an alternative concerning tumours on gigantomastia, with hard and less plastic breasts and a major ptosis. The results combine carcinological and aesthetic requirements.