Oncologic outcomes after immediate breast reconstruction following mastectomy: comparison of implant and flap using propensity score matching

Implants versus autologous tissue flaps for breast reconstruction following mastectomy

BACKGROUND

Women who have a mastectomy for breast cancer treatment or risk reduction may be offered different options for breast reconstruction, including use of implants or the woman's own tissue (autologous tissue flaps). The choice of technique depends on factors such as the woman's preferences, breast characteristics, preoperative imaging, comorbidities, smoking habits, prior chest or breast irradiation, and planned adjuvant therapies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of implants versus autologous tissue flaps for postmastectomy breast reconstruction on women's quality of life, satisfaction, and short- and long-term surgical complications.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registries in July 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that compared implant-based reconstruction with autologous tissue-based reconstruction following mastectomy for breast cancer treatment or risk reduction. The minimum eligible sample size was 100 participants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data using standard Cochrane procedures. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-five non-randomised studies with 57,555 participants met our inclusion criteria. There were nine prospective cohort studies and 26 retrospective cohort studies. We judged 26 studies at serious overall risk of bias and the remaining studies at moderate overall risk of bias. Some studies measured quality of life and satisfaction using the BREAST-Q (scale of 0 to 100, higher is better). Implants may reduce postoperative psychosocial well-being compared with autologous tissue flaps (mean difference (MD) -4.26 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.91 to -3.61; I² = 0%; 6 studies, 3335 participants; low-certainty evidence). Implants may reduce or have little to no effect on postoperative physical well-being compared with autologous tissue flaps, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD -1.92 points, 95% CI -4.44 to 0.60; I² = 87%; 6 studies, 3335 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Implants may reduce postoperative sexual well-being compared with autologous reconstruction (MD -6.63 points, 95% CI -7.55 to -5.72; I² = 0; 6 studies, 3335 participants; low-certainty evidence). Women who undergo breast reconstruction with implants versus autologous tissue flaps may be less satisfied with the breast, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD -8.17 points, 95% CI -11.41 to -4.92; I² = 90%; 6 studies, 3335 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This outcome refers to a woman's satisfaction with breast size, bra fit, appearance in the mirror (clothed or unclothed), and how the breast feels to touch. Women who undergo breast reconstruction with implants versus autologous tissue flaps may be less satisfied with the reconstruction (MD -5.96 points, 95% CI -10.24 to -1.68; I² = 62%; 4 studies, 1196 participants; low-certainty evidence). This outcome refers to whether the aesthetic outcome has met the woman's expectations, the impact surgery has had on her life, and whether she thinks she made the right decision to have the reconstruction. Implants may reduce or have little to no effect on the risk of short-term complications compared with autologous tissue flaps, but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.03; I² = 91%; 22 studies, 34,244 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Implants may increase long-term complications compared with autologous tissue flaps, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.22; I² = 94%; 17 studies, 26,930 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Implants may have little to no effect on the need for reintervention compared with autologous tissue flaps, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.68; I² = 93%; 15 studies, 14,171 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Implants may reduce the duration of surgery compared with autologous tissue flaps, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD -125.04 minutes, 95% CI -131.41 to -118.67; I² = 0; 2 studies, 836 participants; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this review show that autologous tissue-based reconstruction compared with implant-based reconstruction may improve participant-reported outcomes such as psychosocial well-being, sexual well-being, and satisfaction with the reconstruction. There is also very uncertain evidence to suggest that autologous tissue-based reconstruction increases satisfaction with the breast and reduces the risk of long-term complications compared with implants. Implant-based reconstruction may be a shorter procedure, but the evidence is very uncertain. Despite the growing demand for breast reconstruction, the best technique has not been adequately studied in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and the evidence provided by non-randomised studies is often unsatisfactory. There is no superior breast reconstruction technique for all women. Future research should focus on the definition of decisional drivers to guide an evidence-based shared decision-making process in reconstructive breast surgery.

The significance of timing in breast reconstruction after mastectomy: An ACS-NSQIP analysis

BACKGROUND

A variety of breast reconstruction (BR) options are available. The significance of timing on outcomes remains debated. This study aims to compare complications in breast cancer patients undergoing implant-based and autologous BR immediately after mastectomy or at a delayed time point.

METHODS

We reviewed the ACS-NSQIP database (2008-2021) to identify all female patients who underwent BR for oncological purposes. Outcomes were stratified by technique (implant-based versus autologous) and timing (immediate versus delayed), and included 30-day mortality, reoperation, (unplanned) readmission, and surgical and medical complications.

RESULTS

A total of 21,560 patients were included: 11,237 (52%) implant-based (9791/87% immediate, 1446/13% delayed) and 10,323 (48%) autologous (8378/81% immediate, 1945/19% delayed). Complications occurred in 3666 (17%) patients (implant-based: n = 1112/11% immediate, n = 64/4.4% delayed cohorts; Autologous: n = 2073/25% immediate, n = 417/21% delayed cohorts). In propensity score weighting (PSW) analyses, immediate BR was associated with significantly more complications than delayed BR (p < 0.0001). This was the case for both implant-based and autologous BR, with a greater difference between the two time points noted in implant-based. Confounder-adjusted multivariable analyses confirmed these results.

CONCLUSION

At the 30-day time point, delayed BR is associated with significantly lower complication rates than immediate BR, in both the implant-based and autologous cohorts. These findings are not a blanket recommendation in favor of immediate and/or delayed BR. Instead, our insights may guide surgeons and patients in decision-making and help refine patients' eligibility in a case-by-case workup.

Breast Reconstruction following Mastectomy for Breast Cancer or Prophylactic Mastectomy: Therapeutic Options and Results

(1) Importance of problem: Breast cancer accounted for 685,000 deaths globally in 2020, and half of all cases occur in women with no specific risk factor besides gender and age group. During the last four decades, we have seen a 40% reduction in age-standardized breast cancer mortality and have also witnessed a reduction in the medium age at diagnosis, which in turn means that the number of mastectomies performed for younger women increased, raising the need for adequate breast reconstructive surgery. Advances in oncological treatment have made it possible to limit the extent of what represents radical surgery for breast cancer, yet in the past decade, we have seen a marked trend toward mastectomies in breast-conserving surgery-eligible patients. Prophylactic mastectomies have also registered an upward trend. This trend together with new uses for breast reconstruction like chest feminization in transgender patients has increased the need for breast reconstruction surgery. (2) Purpose: The purpose of this study is to analyze the types of reconstructive procedures, their indications, their limitations, their functional results, and their safety profiles when used during the integrated treatment plan of the oncologic patient. (3) Methods: We conducted an extensive literature review of the main reconstructive techniques, especially the autologous procedures; summarized the findings; and presented a few cases from our own experience for exemplification of the usage of breast reconstruction in oncologic patients. (4) Conclusions: Breast reconstruction has become a necessary step in the treatment of most breast cancers, and many reconstructive techniques are now routinely practiced. Microsurgical techniques are considered the "gold standard", but they are not accessible to all services, from a technical or financial point of view, so pediculated flaps remain the safe and reliable option, along with alloplastic procedures, to improve the quality of life of these patients.

Does the Type of Reconstruction Matter? A Propensity Score Analysis of Immediate Postmastectomy Implant and Flap Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

No randomized controlled trials have compared implant and flap reconstruction. Recently, worse longitudinal outcomes have been suggested for flap reconstruction. The authors compared long-term oncologic outcomes of postmastectomy breast reconstruction using propensity score matching.

METHODS

A retrospective study of postmastectomy reconstruction was achieved using the Weill Cornell Breast Cancer Registry between 1998 and 2019. Patients were matched using propensity scores based on demographic, clinical, and surgical characteristics. Kaplan-Meier estimates, Cox-regression models, and restricted mean survival times (RMST) were used to evaluate patient outcomes.

RESULTS

Before matching, 1395 implant and 586 flap patients were analyzed. No difference in overall survival and recurrence were observed. Multivariable models showed decreased survival for Medicare/Medicaid [hazard ratio (HR), 3.09; 95% CI, 1.63 to 5.87; P < 0.001], pathologic stage II (HR, 2.98; 95% CI, 1.12 to 7.90; P = 0.028), stage III (HR, 4.88; 95% CI, 1.54 to 15.5; P = 0.007), 11 to 20 lymph nodes positive (HR, 3.66; 95% CI, 1.31 to 10.2; P = 0.013), more than 20 lymph nodes positive (HR, 6.41; 95% CI, 1.49 to 27.6; P = 0.013). RMST at 10 years after flap reconstruction showed 2 months of decreased survival time compared with implants (9.56 versus 9.74 years; 95% CI, -0.339 to -0.024; P = 0.024). After matching, 563 implant and 563 flap patients were compared. Reconstruction was not associated with overall survival and recurrence. RMST between implant and flap reconstruction showed no difference in each 5-year interval over 20 years.

CONCLUSION

Postmastectomy breast reconstruction was not associated with a difference in long-term oncologic outcomes over a 20-year period.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

A retrospective cohort study comparing reconstructive techniques and outcomes in post-mastectomy triple negative breast cancer patients

Background

Up to 42% of all breast cancer patients undergo post-mastectomy reconstruction, however reconstructive techniques have not been widely studied in patients with triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). Reconstructive complications may delay adjuvant treatments; in TNBC, which inherently carries an increased risk of locoregional recurrence, this can greatly affect oncological outcomes. Therefore, we evaluate factors influencing choice of reconstructive techniques following mastectomy in TNBC patients and assess operative and oncologic safety outcomes.

Methods

A single institution retrospective chart review identified TNBC patients who underwent post-mastectomy reconstruction between 2010 to 2020. Clinical characteristics collected included demographics, cancer history, reconstructive techniques [autologous-based reconstruction (ABR) vs. implant-based reconstruction (IBR)] and surgical and oncologic outcomes such as complications, recurrence, and mortality. Factors impacting whether patients underwent ABR versus IBR were assessed, as well as differences in outcomes between the two procedures. Statistical significance was defined as P<0.05.

Results

During the 10-year period, 52.9% (n=127) of all post-mastectomy TNBC patients (n=240) underwent breast reconstruction, most frequently immediately after mastectomy (97.0%). Most patients underwent IBR compared to ABR (82.4% vs. 14.5%). Patients undergoing ABR were older than IBR patients (54.3 vs. 46.4 years; P=0.040) and had a higher body mass index (BMI; 30.0 vs. 26.1 kg/m2; P=0.007). Patients more often pursued ABR if they had a prior breast cancer history (36.8% vs. 16.7%; P=0.041) or experienced TNBC recurrence (26.3% vs. 9.3%; P=0.034), while primary TNBC patients more often opted for IBR. Reconstructive type did not impact complications (ABR 31.6% vs. IBR 16.8%, P=0.131), recurrence (ABR 15.8% vs. IBR 13.0%, P=0.719), or mortality (ABR 0.0% vs. IBR 6.5%, P=0.593) rates.

Conclusions

Factors such as age, BMI, and breast cancer history impacted choice of reconstructive technique among TNBC women. No differences in complications, recurrence, or mortality occur in these high-risk patients regardless of reconstructive technique, highlighting that neither ABR nor IBR is superior in regard to surgical and oncologic safety in post-mastectomy TNBC patients.

Breast cancer recurrence after immediate and delayed postmastectomy breast reconstruction-A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Oncological safety of different types and timings of PMBR after breast cancer remains controversial. Lack of stratified risk assessment in literature makes current clinical and shared decision-making complex. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate differences in oncological outcomes after immediate versus delayed postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR) for autologous and implant-based PMBR separately.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase. The Cochrane Collaboration Handbook and Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist were followed for data abstraction. Variability in point estimates attributable to heterogeneity was assessed using I2 -statistic. (Loco)regional breast cancer recurrence rates, distant metastasis rates, and overall breast cancer recurrence rates were pooled in generalized linear mixed models using random effects.

RESULTS

Fifty-five studies, evaluating 14,217 patients, were included. When comparing immediate versus delayed autologous PMBR, weighted average proportions were: 0.03 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02-0.03) versus 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01-0.04), respectively, for local recurrences, 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01-0.03) versus 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01-0.03) for regional recurrences, and 0.04 (95% CI, 0.03-0.06) versus 0.01 (95% CI, 0.00-0.03) for locoregional recurrences. No statistically significant differences in weighted average proportions for local, regional and locoregional recurrence rates were observed between immediate and delayed autologous PMBR. Data did not allow comparing weighted average proportions of distant metastases and total breast cancer recurrences after autologous PMBR, and of all outcome measures after implant-based PMBR.

CONCLUSIONS

Delayed autologous PMBR leads to similar (loco)regional breast cancer recurrence rates compared to immediate autologous PMBR. This study highlights the paucity of strong evidence on breast cancer recurrence after specific types and timings of PMBR.

LAY SUMMERY

Oncologic safety of different types and timings of postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR) remains controversial. Lack of stratified risk assessment in literature makes clinical and shared decision-making complex. This meta-analysis showed that delayed autologous PMBR leads to similar (loco)regional recurrence rates as immediate autologous PMBR. Data did not allow comparing weighted average proportions of distant metastases and total breast cancer recurrence after autologous PMBR, and of all outcome measures after implant-based PMBR. Based on current evidence, oncological concerns do not seem a valid reason to withhold patients from certain reconstructive timings or techniques, and patients should equally be offered all reconstructive options they technically qualify for.

Implant-based versus Autologous Reconstruction after Mastectomy for Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

For women undergoing breast reconstruction after mastectomy, the comparative benefits and harms of implant-based reconstruction (IBR) and autologous reconstruction (AR) are not well known. We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis of IBR versus AR after mastectomy for breast cancer.

Methods

We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies from inception to March 23, 2021. We assessed the risk of bias of individual studies and strength of evidence (SoE) of our findings using standard methods.

Results

We screened 15,936 citations and included 40 studies (two randomized controlled trials and 38 adjusted nonrandomized comparative studies). Compared with patients who undergo IBR, those who undergo AR experience clinically significant better sexual well-being [summary adjusted mean difference (adjMD) 5.8, 95% CI 3.4-8.2; three studies] and satisfaction with breasts (summary adjMD 8.1, 95% CI 6.1-10.1; three studies) (moderate SoE for both outcomes). AR was associated with a greater risk of venous thromboembolism (moderate SoE), but IBR was associated with a greater risk of reconstructive failure (moderate SoE) and seroma (low SoE) in long-term follow-up (1.5-4 years). Other outcomes were comparable between groups, or the evidence was insufficient to merit conclusions.

Conclusions

Most evidence regarding IBR versus AR is of low or moderate SoE. AR is probably associated with better sexual well-being and satisfaction with breasts and lower risks of seroma and long-term reconstructive failure but a higher risk of thromboembolic events. New high-quality research is needed to address the important research gaps.

Immediate breast reconstruction has no impact on the oncologic outcomes of patients treated with post-mastectomy radiation therapy: a comparative analysis based on propensity score matching

PURPOSE

To investigate the impact of immediate breast reconstruction (iBR) on patients treated with post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) using propensity score matching (PSM).

METHODS

After a retrospective review of patients treated with PMRT between 2008 and 2017, we included 153 patients who underwent iBR and 872 patients who did not undergo iBR. Among the 153 patients who underwent iBR, 34 received one-stage iBR with autologous tissue and 119 received two-stage iBR. Conventional fractionated PMRT with a total dose of 50-50.4 Gy in 25-28 fractions was performed in all patients. Propensity scores were calculated via logistic regression.

RESULTS

Patients who underwent iBR were younger, had early stage disease, and had more frequent hormone receptor-positive tumor than those who did not undergo iBR. After PSM, 127 patients from each group with well-balanced characteristics were selected. With a median follow-up of 67.5 months, iBR led to better 6-year disease-free survival rates compared to no iBR before PSM (84.8% vs. 71.4%, p = 0.003); after PSM, there was no significant difference (84.8% vs. 75.5%, p = 0.130). On multivariable analysis in the matched cohort, iBR was not associated with inferior disease-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.67; p = 0.175). In the sensitivity analysis, iBR was not associated with a lower disease-free survival across all prognostic groups. The 5-year cumulative incidence of iBR failure was 15.0%.

CONCLUSION

In patients with adverse pathologic factors planning to receive PMRT, iBR did not compromise oncologic outcomes. In addition, iBR can be considered in patients treated with PMRT with several clinicopathologic risk factors.

Breast cancer outcomes following immediate breast reconstruction with implants versus autologous flaps: a propensity score-matched study

PURPOSE

A large proportion of patients with breast cancer who had mastectomy had undergone breast reconstruction with implants or autologous flaps. However, only a few studies have compared the breast cancer outcomes between the implant-based reconstruction (IBR) and autologous flap reconstruction (AFR). In this study, we retrospectively compared the local recurrence rates, distant metastasis rates, and survival outcomes between immediate IBR and AFR.

METHODS

A total of 1530 patients with primary breast cancer who underwent IBR or AFR with nipple-/skin-sparing mastectomy were included. Patients who underwent neoadjuvant systemic therapy were excluded from the study. After propensity score matching by age at diagnosis, T stage, N stage, molecular subtype, mastectomy type, adjuvant radiotherapy status, and follow-up period, 938 patients were 1:1 matched, comprising the well-balanced IBR and AFR groups. Locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRRFS), disease-free survival (DFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) were compared between the matched groups.

RESULTS

After matching, the median follow-up periods were 68 months and 71 months for the IBR and AFR groups, respectively. No significant differences were observed between the IBR and AFR groups regarding the local recurrence (7.2% vs. 5.1%; P = 0.175), regional recurrence (2.1% vs. 1.5%; P = 0.463), or distant metastasis (3.2% vs. 3.2%; P = 1.000) rates. Moreover, no significant difference was observed between the IBR and AFR groups in the LRRFS (hazard ratio, 0.691; 95% CI, 0.433-1.102; P = 0.118), DFS (hazard ratio, 0.709; 95% CI, 0.468-1.076; P = 0.104), DMFS (hazard ratio, 1.006; 95% CI, 0.491-2.059; P = 0.987), or BCSS (hazard ratio, 0.445; 95% CI, 0.111-1.786; P = 0.659).

CONCLUSION

In this propensity score-matched analysis of oncologic outcomes in patients with primary breast cancer who underwent immediate breast reconstruction with nipple-/skin-sparing mastectomy, no significant differences were observed between the IBR and AFR groups.

The effect of immediate breast reconstruction on adjuvant therapy delay, locoregional recurrence, and disease-free survival

BACKGROUND

An important risk inherent to both alloplastic and autologous immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) is the higher incidence of postoperative complications and delays to adjuvant therapy. The main objective of this retrospective cohort study was to identify risk factors for locoregional recurrence after breast cancer mastectomy and IBR.

METHODS

A 6-year retrospective study of breast cancer patients treated with mastectomy only (MO) or mastectomy and IBR (MIBR) was conducted from January 2013 to May 2019. The outcomes of interest included delay in adjuvant chemoradiotherapy, postoperative complications, and locoregional recurrence. Cox regression survival was used to estimate the risk of locoregional recurrence and time to adjuvant therapy.

RESULTS

Of 1832 patients reviewed, 720 (38%) were included. The cohort consisted of 443 (62%) MO and 277 (38%) MIBR [140 (51%) direct-to-implant (MIBRi1), 96(35%) tissue expander to implant (MIBRi2), and 41(15%) autologous flap (MIBRf)]. MIBR had more delays to adjuvant therapy compared to MO [113 (70%) vs. 72 (80%) months, p = 0.022]. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that MIBRi2 had significantly shorter DFS compared to MO [MIBRi2: 39.2 (15.6) vs MO: 41.7 (19.6) months, log-rank p-value = 0.01]. Cox regression indicated that MIBRi2 was associated with a 3.26-higher risk of locoregional recurrence compared to MO [HR: 3.26; 95% CI: 1.56, 9.24].

CONCLUSIONS

Cox regression showed MIBRi2 was significantly associated with increased risk of locoregional recurrence compared to MO. Neither delays nor postoperative complications were identified as significant risk factors for locoregional recurrence risk.

Immediate breast reconstruction is oncologically safe for node-positive patients: Comparison using propensity score matching

The oncological safety of immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) in lymph node-positive patients is unclear. In the present study, the impact of IBR on recurrence based on data of patients with axillary lymph node metastases only was examined.The subjects were 232 patients who underwent breast surgery. The patients were grouped into 2 cohorts: non-IBR patients who underwent mastectomy with axillary lymph node dissection; and IBR patients with tissue expander or flap transfer and axillary lymph node dissection. The Non-IBR group included 165 patients, and the IBR group included 67 patients. For the comparison of oncological outcomes between the 2 groups, propensity score matching was performed. The propensity scores were calculated by logistic regression analysis, including age, tumor staging, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status, and estrogen receptor status. There was no difference in locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRRFS) between the non-IBR and IBR groups. The 5-year LRRFS rate was 78.9% in the non-IBR group and 85.1% in the IBR group. There was no difference in recurrence-free survival (RFS) between the non-IBR and IBR groups. The 5-year RFS rate was 75.6% in the non-IBR group and 78.8% in the IBR group. In all patients, the 5-year LRRFS rate was 77.3%, and the RFS rate was 70.5%. Multivariate Cox regression analysis to identify factors affecting RFS in all patients showed that estrogen receptor status and high nuclear grade were significant prognostic factors; IBR was irrelevant.This is the first report of an analysis using propensity score matching limited to node-positive breast cancer patients, and it showed that IBR is relatively safe in such patients.

Rates of Ipsilateral Local-regional Recurrence in High-risk Patients Undergoing Immediate Post-mastectomy Reconstruction (AFT-01)

BACKGROUND

Some surgeons remain hesitant to perform immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) in patients with higher risk cancers owing to concerns about cancer recurrence and/or detection. Our objective was to determine the rate of ipsilateral local-regional recurrence for stage II/III patients who underwent IBR.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database special study mechanism was used to create a stratified sample of women diagnosed with stage II/III breast cancer from 1217 facilities. Demographic, tumor, and recurrence data for women who underwent mastectomy with or without IBR were abstracted, including location of recurrence and method of detection. Estimates of 5-year local-regional recurrence rates were calculated and factors associated with recurrence were identified with multivariable Cox regression.

RESULTS

Some 13% (692/5318) of stage II/III patients underwent IBR after mastectomy. Patients undergoing IBR were younger (P < .001), with fewer comorbid conditions (P < .001), and with lower tumor burden in the breast (P = .001) and the lymph nodes (P = 0.01). The 5-year rate of ipsilateral local-regional recurrence was 3.6% with no significant difference between patients with or without IBR (3.0% vs. 3.7%, P = .4). Most recurrences were detected by the patient (45%) or on physician examination (24%). Reconstruction was not associated with recurrence on multivariable analysis (hazard ratio = 0.83, P = .52).

CONCLUSION

Women with stage II/III breast cancer selected for IBR had similar rates of ipsilateral local-regional recurrence compared with those undergoing mastectomy alone. Offering IBR after mastectomy in a patient-centered manner to select patients with stage II/III breast cancer is an acceptable consideration.

A propensity score-matched comparison of recurrence outcomes after immediate implant vs autologous flap reconstruction in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer

PURPOSE

We compared oncologic outcomes between breast cancer patients who underwent immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) and those who underwent autologous flap reconstruction (AFR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT).

METHODS

The study group comprised 536 patients with primary breast cancer who underwent NACT followed by immediate IBBR or AFR. After propensity score matching, 138 patients in the IBBR group and 276 patients in the AFR group were selected for comparisons of locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRRFS), disease-free survival (DFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS).

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed between the matched groups in locoregional recurrence rates (IBBR vs. AFR: 12.3% vs. 12%; P = 0.915) and distant metastasis (13% vs. 17%; P = 0.293). There was also no significant difference between the groups in LRRFS (P = 0.956), DFS (P = 0.606), DMFS (P = 0.283), or BCSS (P = 0.121). The 5- and 10-year LRRFS rates were 87.6% and 85.9% in the IBBR group, and 87.7% and 86.1% in the AFR group; the 5- and 10-year DFS rates were 79% and 77.5% in the IBBR group, and 77% and 75% in the AFR group; the 5- and 10-year DMFS rates were 85.9% and 85.9% in the IBBR group, and 83.2% and 81.8% in the AFR group; and the 5- and 10-year BCSS rates were 97.8% and 91.3% in the IBBR group, and 91.8% and 86% in the AFR group, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In this propensity score-matched analysis of oncologic outcomes in breast cancer patients who underwent immediate reconstruction after NACT, no significant differences were observed between the IBBR and AFR groups.

Axillary lymph node recurrence in patients with breast cancer who underwent breast reconstruction using a latissimus dorsi flap after mastectomy

At our institution (Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Medical Hospital), latissimus dorsi flap (LD flap) reconstruction without a prosthetic implant is a popular surgical strategy following total mastectomy in patients with breast cancer. The LD flap, especially the extended LD flap, is usually rotated anteriorly through the axilla. However, if future additional surgery is required for axillary recurrence after LD flap reconstruction, the flap interferes with the visual field, making the surgical procedure more difficult. Because cases of axillary lymph node recurrence alone are rare, to the best of our knowledge, no paper has reported in detail on the technique and course of lymph node recurrence after LD flap reconstruction. The present study describes two cases of successful axillary lymph node dissection without sacrificing the flap for breast cancer recurrence after LD flap reconstruction. A brief analysis of immediate breast reconstruction with an LD flap performed in patients with breast cancer at our institution is also reported.

Breast Cancer and Secondary Cancer Recurrences After Autologous Tissue Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

The medical literature defining breast cancer recurrence and secondary cancers after autologous tissue reconstruction for breast cancer is sparse. We sought to identify and analyze occurrences at our institution.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A 20-year retrospective review of cancer recurrences and atypical breast neoplasms after autologous tissue breast reconstruction at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center was conducted after being granted a waiver from the institutional review board.

RESULTS

Eighteen locoregional recurrences among 337 cases were identified and analyzed. Overall recurrence rate was 5.3%. Four secondary cancers (1.2%) were radiation-induced angiosarcoma, undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma, and metaplastic carcinoma. One case of flat epithelial atypia was identified.

CONCLUSION

Our retrospective review found incidence and survival after treatment of breast cancer concordant with reports in the literature. We also identified and analyzed secondary neoplasms, including a unique case of undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma and metachronous recurrence of breast carcinoma. A case of recurrence as metaplastic carcinoma was identified.