Impact of Oncoplastic Breast Surgery on Rate of Complications, Time to Adjuvant Treatment, and Risk of Recurrence

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 American Society of Breast Surgeons classification system for oncoplastic breast conserving surgery independently predicts the risk of delayed wound healing

INTRODUCTION

Oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (OBCS) aims to provide safe and satisfying surgery for breast cancer patients. The American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) classification system is based on volumetric displacement cut-offs (level I for <20% of breast volume; level II for 20-50%). It aims to facilitate communication among treating physicians and patients. Here, we investigate whether the extent of OBCS as classified by ASBrS independently predicts postoperative complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database included patients with stage I-III breast cancer who underwent OBCS between 03/2011 and 12/2020 at a Swiss university hospital. Outcomes included short-term (≤30 days) complications and chronic (>30 days) pain after surgery. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to identify independent predictors.

RESULTS

In total, 439 patients were included, 314 (71.5%) received ASBrS level I surgery, and 125 (28.5%) underwent ASBrS level II surgery. ASBrS level II was found to be an independent predictor of delayed wound healing (odds ratio [OR] 9.75, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 2.96-32.10). However, ASBrS level did not predict chronic postoperative pain (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.20, 95%CI 0.85-1.70), as opposed to age (IRR 1.19, 95%CI 1.11-1.27 per 5 years decrease), and weight disorders (underweight [BMI <18.5] vs. normal weight [BMI 18.5 < 25]: IRR 4.02, 95%CI 1.70-9.54; obese [BMI ≥30] vs. normal weight: IRR 2.07, 95%CI 1.37-3.13).

CONCLUSION

ASBrS level II surgery predicted delayed wound healing, warranting close clinical follow-up and prompt treatment to avoid delays in adjuvant therapy.

Diagnostic ultrasound of the chest wall in the symptomatic patient after mastectomy

BACKGROUND

Lack of standardized imaging recommendations among mastectomy patients has led to variability in how recurrences are detected.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the findings and assess the diagnostic efficacy of ultrasound in the evaluation of symptomatic post-mastectomy patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This single institution, retrospective study included 749 consecutive diagnostic chest wall ultrasound examinations performed in mastectomy patients, from January 2016 to June 2017. Chest wall ultrasound evaluated the mastectomy bed with or without reconstruction. Electronic health records were queried for the primary breast cancer histology prior to mastectomy, clinical symptoms prompting the diagnostic ultrasound, ultrasound findings, subsequent cytology and pathology, and follow-up data. Excluded were patients with a known recurrence, asymptomatic patients, and those with <2 years of clinical or imaging follow-up. Descriptive and comparative statistical analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Among the 749 ultrasounds performed, 58 malignancies were identified for a 7.7% (58/749) malignancy rate, with a median tumor size of 20 mm. Patients diagnosed with a malignancy most often presented with a palpable abnormality (79.3%, 46/58) or skin changes (13.8%, 8/58) and rarely with pain (1.7%, 1/58). Patients who underwent a biopsy yielding a benign result most often presented with a palpable abnormality (41.5%, 287/691), pain (25.6%,177/691), or postoperative swelling/suspected fluid collection (17.8%, 123/691). Diagnostic ultrasound yielded a 91.4% sensitivity (95% CI 81.0, 97.1), 96.1% specificity (95% CI 94.4, 97.4), 66.3% PPV₃ (95% CI 57.4, 74.1), and 99.3% negative predictive value (95% CI 98.3, 99.7) for cancer detection. There were 5 false negative ultrasound cases after a skin punch biopsy was performed due to clinically suspicious skin changes.

CONCLUSIONS

Chest wall ultrasound has a high sensitivity and negative predictive value for detection of breast cancer recurrence in symptomatic patients after mastectomy. Skin changes remain an important clinical manifestation of a cancer recurrence.

Oncoplastic versus conventional breast-conserving surgery in breast cancer: a pooled analysis of 6941 female patients

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer in women. In the past few years, surgical interventions for breast cancer have experienced massive changes from radical excision to conserving approaches. In this study, we aim to compare the two breast surgery interventions, including conventional breast-conserving surgery (CBCS) versus oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OPBCS).

METHODS

We searched on PubMed, Web of Science (WOS), Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane till 2 October 2021. All relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies were included. The data were extracted and pooled using Review Manager software (RevMan 5.4).

RESULTS

The pooled meta-analysis of the included studies showed that OPBCS was significantly superior to CBCS in most of the outcomes. Re-excision significantly favoured CBCS (RR = 0.49, 95% CI [0.37, 0.63], P < 0.00001). However, local recurrence (RR = 0.55, 95% CI [0.27, 1.09], P = 0.09), close surgical margins (RR = 0.37, 95% CI [0.14, 1.00], P = 0.05) and end up to the risk of mastectomy (RR = 0.73, 95% CI [0.54, 97], P = 0.06) showed no significant difference between both techniques. Notably, while performing a sensitivity analysis, other outcomes as local recurrence, significantly showed favourable results towards OPBCS. In terms of safety outcomes, there was no significant difference between OPBCS and CBCS.

CONCLUSION

We recommend the oncoplastic approach rather than the conventional one in females with breast cancer. Re-excision rates showed better results following OPBCS.

The impact of neoadjuvant systemic treatment on postoperative complications in breast cancer surgery

PURPOSE

The aim of the study was to analyze the impact of neoadjuvant systemic treatment (NST) on postoperative complications and the beginning of adjuvant treatment.

METHODS

This study includes data from a prospectively maintained database including patients with breast cancer (BC) stage I-IV with or without NST undergoing breast cancer surgery between January 2010 and September 2021.

RESULTS

Out of 517 enrolled patients, 77 received NST, 440 had primary breast surgery. After NST patients underwent surgery after a meantime of 34 days (26.5-40 days). No statistical significance could be found comparing the complication grading according to the Clavien Dindo classification. The complications were most frequently rated as grade 3b. There were no complications with grade 4 or higher. When differentiating into short and long-term, the overall rate of short-term complications was 20.3% with no significant difference between the two groups (20.8% vs. 20.2%). Regarding long-term complications, there was more impairment of shoulder mobility (26.0% vs. 9.5%, p ≤ 0.001) and chronic pain (42.9% vs. 28.6%, p ≤ 0.016) for patients with NST. The beginning of the administration of the adjuvant treatment was comparable in both groups (46.3 days vs. 50.5 days).

CONCLUSION

In our cohort, complications between both groups were comparable according to Clavien Dindo. This study shows that NST has no negative impact on postoperative short-term complications and most importantly did not lead to a delay of the beginning of adjuvant treatment. Therefore, NST can be safely admitted, even when followed by extensive breast reconstruction surgery.

Breast surgery after neoadjuvant therapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The standard of care in breast surgery has changed, from mastectomy to breast conserving surgery whenever possible, and from axillary dissection to sentinel node biopsy. Neoadjuvant systemic approaches have broadened the indications for organ-conserving and less mutilating surgery, but also raise important questions of balancing locoregional treatment de-escalation and protecting excellent long-term outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies have aimed at investigating the safety of de-escalating surgical approaches not only in the upfront breast surgery situation but also after neoadjuvant systemic therapy. This pertains to both the safety of breast conserving surgery - including more complex oncoplastic approaches - within the new (posttherapeutic) anatomical extent of the residual disease, but more controversially to de-escalating surgical treatment of the axilla. While sentinel node biopsy appears to be the standard of care for node-negative disease also after primary systemic therapy, the optimal procedure in situations of posttherapeutic node-positive disease remains highly controversial.

SUMMARY

Both breast and axillary surgery after neoadjuvant systemic therapy for women with breast cancer has undergone multiple paradigm changes in recent years. For the primary tumor in the breast, breast-conserving surgery constitutes the standard of care, and unnecessary mastectomies should be strongly discouraged. For axillary surgery, sentinel-node biopsy should be aimed at, and completion axillary dissections minimized for situations of extensive disease and or poor neoadjuvant treatment response. Additional techniques such as targeted axillary dissection are currently under evaluation in clinical trials.

Postoperative Hematomas in the Era of Outpatient Mastectomy: Is Ketorolac Really to Blame?

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols following mastectomy with or without implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) include ketorolac for multimodal perioperative analgesia. There are concerns that ketorolac could be associated with increased risk of postoperative hematoma formation.

METHODS

Retrospective review of patients undergoing mastectomy with or without IBBR between January 2013 and December 2019 at a single institution. Patients received 15 mg, 30 mg, or no ketorolac depending on ERAS protocol adherence, patient characteristics, and surgeon preference. Clinically significant hematoma was defined as requiring surgical intervention on day of surgery or postoperative day 1. Patients were compared by demographics, surgical characteristics, ketorolac dose, and hematoma prevalence. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression evaluated hematoma formation odds.

RESULTS

Eight hundred patients met inclusion criteria: 477 received ketorolac. Those who received ketorolac were younger, had lower ASA scores, were more likely to have bilateral procedures and undergo concomitant IBBR, had longer operative times, were less likely to take antiplatelet or anticoagulation medications, had higher PACU pain scores, and had higher incidence of hematomas requiring surgical intervention. Of the cohort, 4.4% had clinically significant hematomas. The 15 mg and 30 mg ketorolac groups had similar prevalence (6.0% vs 5.8%, p = 0.95). On univariable regression, there were increased odds of hematoma formation in patients who were younger, had bilateral procedures, had longer OR times, and who received ketorolac. On multivariable regression, none of the prior variables remained significant.

CONCLUSION

After accounting for associations with longer operative times, concomitant IBBR, and bilateral procedures, ketorolac administration did not remain an independent risk factor for hematoma formation.

Innovative Standards in Oncoplastic Breast Conserving Surgery: From Radical Mastectomy to Extreme Oncoplasty

BACKGROUND

Oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (OBCS), which is the current procedure of choice for eligible BC patients, describes a philosophy that prioritizes oncologic and cosmetic outcomes. However, knowledge gaps regarding training, acceptance, and practice preclude standardization and make it difficult to design algorithmic guidelines to optimize individualized management in the era of precision medicine.

SUMMARY

The harmony between patient expectations and oncologic goals creates the state of the art of OBCS. Nevertheless, to achieve these goals, multidisciplinary approach is a must. Surgical decisions require a comprehensive evaluation including patient factors, tumor biology, genetics, technical considerations, and adjunct therapies. Moreover, the quality-of-life (QOL) issues should be considered as the highest level of priority with a shared decision making instituted on realistic discussions with the patient.

KEY MESSAGES

The standardization in OBCS should be initiated via defining a breast surgeon who should gain theorical and practical competence on techniques via national or international educational programs. The algorithmic patient assessment with appropriate documentation before and after surgery should be established. A simple and safe global lexicon should be designed regarding techniques to be proposed and quality metrics to be considered. Additionally, international multicenter prospective trials should be instituted to overcome knowledge gaps. It is evident that OBCS is the perfect union of science with art. Nevertheless, at the very end, the question is not the nature of the surgeon/artist who would be the extremist, the innovator, or the conservative, but the patient's satisfaction, prognosis, and QOL that conclude the cascade of state of the art of OBCS.