Oncoplastic breast surgery and radiotherapy-Adverse aesthetic outcomes, proposed classification of aesthetic components, and causality attribution

'PartBreCon' study. A UK multicentre retrospective cohort study to assess outcomes following PARTial BREast reCONstruction with chest wall perforator flaps

BACKGROUND

Partial breast reconstruction with a pedicled chest wall perforator flap (CWPF) enables breast conservation in a higher tumour: breast volume ratio scenario. Since there is limited evidence, this retrospective cohort study aimed to ascertain immediate (30-days) and medium-term (follow-up duration) surgical outcomes.

METHODS

STROBE-compliant protocol ascertained CWPF outcomes between March 2011-March 2021. UK centres known to perform CWPF were invited to participate if they performed at least 10 cases. Data were retrospectively collected, including patient demographics, tumour and treatment characteristics, and surgical and oncological outcomes. Statistical analysis (R™) included multivariable logistic regression and sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

Across 15 centres, 507 patients with median age (54 years, IQR; 48-62), body mass index (25.4 kg/m2, IQR; 22.5-29), tumour size (26 mm, IQR; 18-35), and specimen weight (62 g, IQR; 40-92) had following flap types: LiCAP (54.1%, n = 273), MiCAP/AiCAP (19.6%, n = 99), LiCAP + LTAP (19.8%, n = 100) and TDAP (2.2%, n = 11). 30-days complication rates were in 12%: haematoma (4.3%, n = 22), wound infection (4.3%, n = 22), delayed wound healing (2.8%, n = 14) and flap loss (0.6%, n = 3; 1 full) leading to readmissions (2.6%, n = 13) and re-operations (2.6%, n = 13). Positive margins (n = 88, 17.7%) led to 15.9% (n = 79) re-excisions, including 7.5% (n = 37) at the planned 2nd of 2-stage surgery and 1.8% (n = 9) mastectomy. At median 23 months (IQR; 11-39) follow-up, there were 1.2% (n = 6) symmetrisations; recurrences: local (1%), regional/nodal (0.6%) and distant (3.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

This large multicentre cohort study demonstrates acceptable complication and margin re-excision rates. CWPF extends the range of breast conservation techniques. Further studies are required for long-term oncological outcomes.

Factors associated with unsatisfactory cosmetic results in oncoplastic surgery

INTRODUCTION

Oncoplastic surgery (OS) has expanded the indications for breast-conserving surgery associated with an adequate aesthetic result. However, few studies have described the factors associated with unsatisfactory cosmetic outcomes from this surgical modality.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a cross-sectional prospective study that included patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery (BCS) with or without OS. The patients self-evaluated the cosmetic results of the breasts posttreatment and had them photographed. The photos were analyzed by BCCT.core. Individual and treatment factors (local and systemic) for all patients were evaluated. These factors were dichotomized according to the use of OS and to the cosmetic result (satisfactory and unsatisfactory). Categorical variables were tested for association with surgical outcome using the chi-square test while numerical variables using the Mann-Whitney U test. Variables with p <0,2 were selected for multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 300 patients evaluated, 72 (24,0%) underwent OS. According to the patient self-evaluations, an unsatisfactory cosmetic result from OS was significantly associated with younger age at diagnosis, higher body mass index (BMI) at the time of evaluation, larger tumor size and greater weight of the surgical specimen. According to the BCCT.core, only the laterality of the tumor (left) was significantly associated with an unsatisfactory cosmetic result. In logistic regression, considering OS as a control variable, the risk of an unsatisfactory outcome according to patient self-evaluation was related to the tumor ≥ T2 odds ratio (OR) 1,85 (1,027-3,34) and age at diagnosis < 40 [OR 5,0 (1,84-13,95)]. However, according to the software, the variables were associated with an increased risk of an unsatisfactory outcome were the time interval between surgery and evaluation [OR 1,27 (1,16-1,39)], the presence of lymphedema [OR 2,97 (1,36-6,46)], surgical wound infection [OR 3,6 (1,22-11,16)], tumor location on the left side [OR 3,06 (1,69-5,53)], overweight [OR 2,93 (1,48-5,8)] and obesity [OR 2,52 (1,2-5,31)].

CONCLUSION

There is no standard methodology for breast cosmesis evaluation, which influences the factors associated with unsatisfactory results. Younger patients and those with increased BMI, left breast cancer and extensive resections tend to present with unsatisfactory cosmetic results when OS is performed.

Use of tumour bed boost radiotherapy in volume replacement oncoplastic breast surgery: A systematic review

Tumour bed boost radiotherapy (RT) following breast conserving surgery reduces local recurrence in high-risk disease. There is recent debate over challenges to accurately localise tumour bed for RT boost delivery following volume replacement oncoplastic breast surgery (VR-OBS). This review evaluates the reporting of RT boost following VR-OBS in the literature published between January 2010 and December 2021. This review was in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Metaanalysis statement.Nine studies met the inclusion criteria (n=670 patients), and RT boost was used in eight studies. Boost was administered in total to 384 patients (62.5% of irradiated patients). Only two studies reported boost planned target volumes and only one compared these against surgical specimen volumes.RT boost was not reported in most published studies on VR-OBS. Future prospective research are strongly needed to evaluate long-term outcomes of VR-OBS following RT boost, especially on breast cosmesis and patients' satisfaction. DATA AVAILABILITY: Data will be made available upon request.

Aesthetic, Quality-of-Life, and Clinical Outcomes after Inferior Pedicle Oncoplastic Reduction Mammoplasty

BACKGROUND

Oncoplastic breast surgery is more likely to achieve superior aesthetic outcomes compared to lumpectomy alone. Oncoplastic reduction mammoplasty (ORM) is a volume displacement oncoplastic technique that combines lumpectomy and reduction mammoplasty. Data on aesthetic and quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes after ORM are scarce in the literature. Based on a literature review, this present study reports outcomes on the largest group of ORM patients to date.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of all patients who underwent ORM between 2011 and 2018 at a tertiary care centre. Patients were excluded if no pedicle information was available or did not undergo post-operative radiotherapy. All patients with available post-operative photographs were aesthetically evaluated by four blinded, independent investigators blinded based on breast symmetry, nipple symmetry, and overall appearance. The BREAST-Q (breast conserving module) was used to assess QoL outcomes.

RESULTS

Two-hundred-and-sixteen consecutive patients (223 breasts) were included. Macromastia (cup size D or higher) was present in 173 patients (80.1%). Inferior pedicle ORM was utilized in 179 (80.3%) breasts. Eighty-eight patients (40.7%) were aesthetically evaluated, of whom 69 patients (78.4%) had "good", "very good", or "excellent" grades in all aesthetic categories. Seventy-five patients (85.2%) had "good" or better grades in overall appearance. Preoperative ptosis grade, cup size, presence of post-operative complications, and breast specimen weight had no significant correlations with aesthetic grades. Inferior pedicle ORM was associated with a higher "satisfaction with breast" Q-score (p=0.017) compared to other pedicle approaches.

CONCLUSION

Inferior pedicle ORM achieves objectively excellent aesthetic outcomes and high patient satisfaction with the reconstruction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

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 .

Delayed Mastopexy Following Breast-Conserving Surgery and Radiation Therapy: A Case-Control Study to Evaluate Safety and Versatility of the Central Mound Technique

INTRODUCTION

Breast remodeling following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and radiation therapy (RT) is challenging and often burdened by complications due to irradiated tissue atrophy. The authors present a case-control study to compare the central mound mastopexy (CMM) to more conventional techniques, applying it to different patterns of skin excision.

METHODS

A variation of the original central mound technique is presented separately addressing glandular and cutaneous deformities. Between 2012 and 2018, 17 consecutive patients presenting defects following unilateral BCS and RT underwent breast remodeling with CMM technique. Immediate and long-term complications together with patient-reported outcomes were evaluated and compared to a matched control group of sixteen patients who underwent superior pedicle mammoplasty. Two independent plastic surgeons reviewed pre- and postoperative photographs and rated the cosmetic outcomes on a visual analog scale from 1 to 5.

RESULTS

In the study group, different patterns of skin excision, i.e., inverted-T pattern (41.2%), circumareolar (23.5%), skin-sparing type V (17.65%), omega (11.77%), and J (5.88%), were used to correct various breast deformities, and a decisional algorithm was developed. No major complications were registered. Retraction recurrence rate was higher in the control group (p = 0.037). Cosmetic results were considered more satisfying in the CMM group by both patients (4.18 vs 3.00, p<0.001) and surgeons (4.06 vs 2.69, p=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The CMM technique is an advanced approach that addresses breast remodeling after BCS-RT surgery yielding reliable results. Following our algorithm, several patterns of skin excision, tailored to pre-existing scars, can be considered and safely performed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

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 outcomes and safety of radiotherapy for immediate breast reconstruction with autologous flap transfer following breast-conserving surgery

BACKGROUND

The outcomes of immediate autologous breast reconstruction (IABR) after partial mastectomy followed by postoperative radiotherapy (RT) in terms of aesthetics, treatment-related complications, and local control are unclear. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of IABR after partial mastectomy with or without breast RT, and thus the impact of radiation on autologous flap transfer.

METHOD

A retrospective cohort study involving consecutive breast cancer patients who underwent IABR after partial mastectomy between July 2011 and December 2017 at Shengjing Hospital was performed. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether or not they received RT after IABR. We compared aesthetic outcomes and changes in the flap size over the three-dimensional coordinates at various timepoints (pre-RT, 1, 6, and 12 months post-RT), as well as postoperative complications, survival, and recurrence rates between the two groups.

RESULTS

In total, 84 breast cancer patients were enrolled, with 32 patients in the RT group and 52 in the non-RT group. At a median follow-up time of 33.3 months, no significant difference was found in the rate of regional recurrence between the two groups (3.13% vs. 3.85%, P = 1.00), and no local recurrences occurred in either group. At the timepoints pre-RT, 1, and 6 months post-RT (approximately 4, 7, and 12 months after IABR, respectively), 77 (91.7%), 70 (83.3%), and 83 (98.8%) patients, respectively, had achieved very good or good cosmetic outcomes, and only changes in breast skin color at 1 month after RT significantly differed between the RT and non-RT groups, with very good or good cosmetic result rates of 62.5% vs. 96.2%, respectively (P < 0.001). No significant difference in the reduction of flap size was observed at any timepoint between the two groups. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the rates of postoperative complications including necrosis of the flap, infection, hematoma, or seroma (all P > 0.05). Additionally, no grade 3 or greater RT-associated adverse events occurred during or after RT.

CONCLUSION

RT following IABR provides aesthetically satisfactory results without intolerable adverse complications and may safely be performed in patients who underwent IABR after partial mastectomy.

Dermatologic sequelae of breast cancer: From disease, surgery, and radiation

The care of breast cancer patients is important to dermatologists. Breast cancer's initial presentation, clinical progression, and its associated treatments can result in a variety of cutaneous complications. Dermatologists may be the first to identify a breast cancer diagnosis, as a subset of patients first present with direct extension of an underlying tumor or with a cutaneous metastasis. The surgical treatment of breast cancer also begets a variety of skin sequelae, including postoperative lymphedema, soft tissue infections, seromas, pyoderma gangrenosum, and scarring disorders. Moreover, breast cancer radiation treatment commonly results in skin changes, which can range from mild and temporary dermatoses to chronic and disfiguring skin ulceration, fibrosis, and necrosis. Radiation may also precipitate secondary malignancies, such as angiosarcoma, as well as rarer dermatologic diseases, such as radiation-induced morphea, lichen planus, and postirradiation pseudosclerodermatous panniculitis. Finally, breast cancer is also associated with an array of paraneoplastic phenomena, including Sweet's syndrome and the rarer intralymphatic histiocytosis. Herein, we review the dermatological manifestations of breast cancer, including conditions associated with its presentation, progression, and treatment sequelae. Chemotherapy-induced cutaneous side effects are beyond the scope of this review. This article provides a comprehensive review for dermatologist to be able to identify, diagnose, and manage breast cancer patients from initial presentation to treatment monitoring and subsequent follow-up.

Patient satisfaction after unilateral oncoplastic volume displacement surgery for breast cancer, evaluated with the BREAST-Q™

Background

Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery allows larger resections in unfavorable locations, with an improved chance of preserving esthetics. Indications and timing for potential contralateral surgery to obtain symmetry are not clear. The aim of this study was to evaluate patient satisfaction after unilateral oncoplastic volume displacement surgery, to investigate potential risk factors for lower patient satisfaction and to assess patient wish for contralateral surgery.

Method

A cohort of 144 women, consecutively treated for breast cancer with unilateral breast-conserving oncoplastic volume displacement surgery, followed by radiotherapy and with an unoperated contralateral breast, was sent the BREAST-Q™ breast-conserving therapy (BCT) and a study-specific questionnaire. In all, 120 women (83%) responded. For these women, the median value for resected specimen weight was 92 g (range 14–345) and for the estimated percentage of the breast volume excised 15% (range 3–35%).

Results

The median patient-reported score for “Satisfaction with breast” (BREAST-Q™ BCT) was 74/100. Factors associated with a score below median value in a simple logistic regression model adjusted for age and BMI were axillary clearance (OR 2.46, 95% CI 1.09–5.56), neoadjuvant chemotherapy (OR 3.26, 95% CI 1.15–9.24), and low breast density (OR 2.32 95% CI 1.02–5.29). Thirteen women (11%) were interested in contralateral surgery.

Conclusion

Most patients in this study cohort, who had undergone breast-conserving therapy with oncoplastic volume displacement techniques, were satisfied with their breasts without surgery to the contralateral breast. This indicates that contralateral surgery to achieve symmetry only should be performed after individual evaluation and as a delayed procedure.