1
|
Liu J, Chen C, Chen H, Xiang A, Zheng R, Hu S, Guo J, Qu L, Zhou J, Wu J. Patient-Reported Outcomes and Complication Profiles of Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction in Patients With Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy. Ann Plast Surg 2024; 93:22-29. [PMID: 38885161 DOI: 10.1097/sap.0000000000003974] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/20/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This study aims to investigate the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and complications of distinct implant-based breast reconstruction modality for patients with postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). METHODS A retrospective review was conducted on breast cancer patients with stage II-III disease who performed implant-based breast reconstruction following with PMRT between September 2016 and April 2022. The patients were categorized into two matched groups: (1) patients receiving prepectoral breast reconstruction (PBR) or (2) subpectoral breast reconstruction (SBR) followed by PMRT. Following reconstruction, the patients were further compared for PMRT with the tissue expander (PMRT-TE) versus PMRT with permanent implant (PMRT-PI). PROs were measured with BREAST-Q questionnaire. Early and late complications were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS A total of 55 eligible patients were recruited. Patients who underwent PBR reported significantly higher satisfaction with breasts scores (P = 0.003) compared with the SBR group. The PMRT-TE group had higher satisfaction with breasts (P = 0.001) but lower physical well-being (P = 0.029) scores compared with PMRT-PI group. Moreover, patients in SBR cohort had a higher risk of capsular contracture (Baker grade III or IV) (20.5% vs 6.3%) and implant dislocation (48.7% vs 12.5%) than patients in PBR cohort. Patients in PMRT-PI group had a slightly higher rate of capsular contracture (Baker grade III or IV) than PMRT-TE group (20.8% vs 12.9%). CONCLUSIONS PBR was associated with lower rates of late complications, especially for implant dislocation, and higher satisfaction with breasts scores compared to SBR. In addition, compared to PMRT-TE with PMRT-PI, patients in PMRT-TE cohort reported superior PROs of satisfaction with breasts.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jian Liu
- From the Department of Breast Surgery, Affiliated Hangzhou First People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Westlake University, Hangzhou
| | - Cong Chen
- From the Department of Breast Surgery, Affiliated Hangzhou First People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Westlake University, Hangzhou
| | - Honggang Chen
- From the Department of Breast Surgery, Affiliated Hangzhou First People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Westlake University, Hangzhou
| | - Aizhai Xiang
- From the Department of Breast Surgery, Affiliated Hangzhou First People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Westlake University, Hangzhou
| | - Ruzhen Zheng
- From the Department of Breast Surgery, Affiliated Hangzhou First People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Westlake University, Hangzhou
| | - Shufang Hu
- From the Department of Breast Surgery, Affiliated Hangzhou First People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Westlake University, Hangzhou
| | - Jufeng Guo
- From the Department of Breast Surgery, Affiliated Hangzhou First People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Westlake University, Hangzhou
| | - Li Qu
- From the Department of Breast Surgery, Affiliated Hangzhou First People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Westlake University, Hangzhou
| | - Jun Zhou
- From the Department of Breast Surgery, Affiliated Hangzhou First People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Westlake University, Hangzhou
| | - Jiong Wu
- Department of Breast Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Zhang H, Song D, Xie L, Zhan N, Xie W, Zhang J. Postmastectomy radiotherapy in breast reconstruction: Current controversies and trends. CANCER INNOVATION 2024; 3:e104. [PMID: 38948530 PMCID: PMC11212305 DOI: 10.1002/cai2.104] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/21/2023] [Revised: 09/11/2023] [Accepted: 09/13/2023] [Indexed: 07/02/2024]
Abstract
Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women worldwide. Postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) is an essential component of combined therapy for early-stage, high-risk breast cancer. Breast reconstruction (BR) is often considered for patients with breast cancer who have undergone mastectomy. There has been a considerable amount of discussion about the optimal approach to combining PMRT with BR in the treatment of breast cancer. PMRT may increase the risk of complications and prevent good aesthetic results after BR, while BR may increase the complexity of PMRT and the radiation dose to surrounding normal tissues. The purpose of this review is to give a broad overview and summary of the current controversies and trends in PMRT and BR in the context of the most recent literature available.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Honghong Zhang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Xiang'an Hospital of Xiamen University, Cancer Research Center, School of MedicineXiamen University, Xiang'anXiamenFujianChina
| | - Dandan Song
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Xiang'an Hospital of Xiamen University, Cancer Research Center, School of MedicineXiamen University, Xiang'anXiamenFujianChina
| | - Liangxi Xie
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Xiang'an Hospital of Xiamen University, Cancer Research Center, School of MedicineXiamen University, Xiang'anXiamenFujianChina
| | - Ning Zhan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Xiang'an Hospital of Xiamen University, Cancer Research Center, School of MedicineXiamen University, Xiang'anXiamenFujianChina
| | - Wenjia Xie
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Xiang'an Hospital of Xiamen University, Cancer Research Center, School of MedicineXiamen University, Xiang'anXiamenFujianChina
| | - Jianming Zhang
- Fujian Provincial Key Laboratory of Intelligent Identification and Control of Complex Dynamic System, Quanzhou Institute of Equipment Manufacturing, Haixi InstitutesChinese Academy of SciencesQuanzhouFujianChina
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Novick K, Chadha M, Daroui P, Freedman G, Gao W, Hunt K, Park C, Rewari A, Suh W, Walker E, Wong J, Harris EE. American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy: Executive Summary of Clinical Topics. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2024; 118:458-465. [PMID: 37478956 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.07.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/06/2023] [Revised: 07/06/2023] [Accepted: 07/10/2023] [Indexed: 07/23/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE To conduct an appropriate use criteria expert panel update on clinical topics relevant to current clinical practice regarding postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS An analysis of the medical literature from peer-reviewed journals was conducted from May 4, 2010 to May 4, 2022 using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines to search the PubMed database to retrieve a comprehensive set of relevant articles. A well-established methodology (modified Delphi) was used by the expert panel to rate the appropriate use of procedures. RESULTS Evidence for key questions in PMRT regarding benefit in special populations and technical considerations for delivery was examined and described. Risk factors for local-regional recurrence in patients with intermediate-risk disease that indicate benefit of PMRT include molecular subtype, age, clinical stage, and pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Use of hypofractionated radiation in PMRT has been examined in several recent randomized trials and is under investigation for patients with breast reconstruction. The use of bolus varies significantly by practice region and has limited evidence for routine use. Adverse effects occurred with both PMRT preimplant and postimplant exchange in 2-staged breast reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS Most patients with even limited nodal involvement will likely benefit from PMRT with significant reduction in local-regional recurrence and potential survival. Patients with initial clinical stage III disease and/or any residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy should be strongly considered for PMRT. Growing evidence supports the use of hypofractionated radiation for PMRT with equivalent efficacy and decreased acute side effects, but additional evidence is needed for special populations. There is limited evidence to support routine use of bolus in all patients. Timing of PMRT regarding completion of 2-staged breast reconstruction requires a discussion of increased risks with radiation postimplant exchange compared with increased risk of failure of reconstruction or surgical complications with radiation preimplant exchange.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kristina Novick
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
| | - Manjeet Chadha
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mount Sinai, New York, New York
| | - Parima Daroui
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Los Angeles, California
| | - Gary Freedman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Wendy Gao
- Tacoma Valley Radiation Oncology Centers, Tacoma, Washington
| | - Kelly Hunt
- Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Catherine Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, California
| | - Amar Rewari
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ann Arundel Medical Center, Annapolis, Maryland
| | - Warren Suh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ridely Tree Cancer Center, Santa Barbara, California
| | - Eleanor Walker
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Henry Ford Health, Detroit, Michigan
| | - Julia Wong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana Farber Brigham Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Eleanor E Harris
- Department of Radiation Oncology, St. Luke's University Health Network, Easton, Pennsylvania
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Vinsensia M, Schaub R, Meixner E, Hoegen P, Arians N, Forster T, Hoeltgen L, Köhler C, Uzun-Lang K, Batista V, König L, Zivanovic O, Hennigs A, Golatta M, Heil J, Debus J, Hörner-Rieber J. Incidence and Risk Assessment of Capsular Contracture in Breast Cancer Patients following Post-Mastectomy Radiotherapy and Implant-Based Reconstruction. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16:265. [PMID: 38254756 PMCID: PMC10813520 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16020265] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/21/2023] [Revised: 12/29/2023] [Accepted: 01/04/2024] [Indexed: 01/24/2024] Open
Abstract
Our study aims to identify the risk factors and dosimetry characteristics associated with capsular contracture. METHODS We retrospectively analyzed 118 women with breast cancer who underwent PMRT following an IBR between 2010 and 2022. Patients were treated with PMRT of 50.0-50.4 Gy in 25-28 fractions. Capsular contracture was categorized according to the Baker Classification for Reconstructed Breasts. RESULTS After a median follow-up of 22 months, the incidence of clinically relevant capsular contracture (Baker III-IV) was 22.9%. Overall, capsular contracture (Baker I-IV) occurred in 56 patients (47.5%) after a median of 9 months after PMRT. The rate of reconstruction failure/implant loss was 25.4%. In the univariate analysis, postoperative complications (prolonged pain, prolonged wound healing, seroma and swelling) and regional nodal involvement were associated with higher rates of capsular contracture (p = 0.017, OR: 2.5, 95% CI: 1.2-5.3 and p = 0.031, respectively). None of the analyzed dosimetric factors or the implant position were associated with a higher risk for capsular contracture. CONCLUSION Postoperative complications and regional nodal involvement were associated with an increased risk of capsular contracture following breast reconstruction and PMRT, while none of the analyzed dosimetric factors were linked to a higher incidence. Additional studies are needed to identify further potential risk factors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maria Vinsensia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Riccarda Schaub
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Eva Meixner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Philipp Hoegen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Nathalie Arians
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Tobias Forster
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Line Hoeltgen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Clara Köhler
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Kristin Uzun-Lang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Vania Batista
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Laila König
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Oliver Zivanovic
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Brustzentrum Heidelberg Klinik St. Elisabeth, 69121 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Andre Hennigs
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Brustzentrum Heidelberg Klinik St. Elisabeth, 69121 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Michael Golatta
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Brustzentrum Heidelberg Klinik St. Elisabeth, 69121 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Jörg Heil
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Brustzentrum Heidelberg Klinik St. Elisabeth, 69121 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Jürgen Debus
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Heidelberg, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Juliane Hörner-Rieber
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Teimouri K, Khoshgard K, Farshchian N, Rouzbahani M, Azimivaghar J. Investigation of electrocardiography and echocardiography changes after adjuvant radiation therapy of left-sided breast cancer. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci 2023; 54:495-502. [PMID: 37183077 DOI: 10.1016/j.jmir.2023.04.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/22/2022] [Revised: 03/30/2023] [Accepted: 04/17/2023] [Indexed: 05/16/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The primary objective of radiation therapy (RT) is to deliver lethal radiation doses to abnormal cancer cells so that healthy cells are exposed to minimal radiation. In the present study, changes in electrocardiography (ECG) and echocardiography(ECHO) following adjuvant RT were investigated in patients with left-sided breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS 30 patients with left-sided breast cancer who had previously undergone breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy underwent RT after completing chemotherapy from February 2019 to January 2020. ECG and ECHO tests were performed before RT, immediately following RT, and three months after RT. Dose-volume parameters of the heart and its substructures as an organ at risk were analyzed. RESULTS The mean heart dose (±SD) for all patients was 7.51 ± 2.42 Gy. T-wave inversion was observed 3 months after RT in 47% of patients. T-wave decline was associated with mean heart radiation dose (β = 0.605, p-value = 0.005). The present study showed that the left ventricular volume receiving the 5 Gy (LV-V5) parameter was associated with a reduction in ST segment duration (p-value = 0.027) as well as with an increase in left ventricular systolic diameter (LVESD, mm) (P-value = 0.027). CONCLUSION RT-induced ECG and ECHO changes are frequent in patients with left breast cancer. LVEF and Twave abnormalities were observed after RT in our patients. ECG and ECHO modalities can be used to monitor the cardiac function after RT in patients with left-sided breast cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kolsoum Teimouri
- Students Research Committee, School of Medicine, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran
| | - Karim Khoshgard
- Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran.
| | - Negin Farshchian
- Department of Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran
| | - Mohammad Rouzbahani
- Department of Cardiology, School of Medicine, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran
| | - Javad Azimivaghar
- Department of Cardiology, School of Medicine, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Polanco TO, Shamsunder MG, Parikh RP, Chu JJ, McCarthy C, Tadros A, Matros E, Disa JJ, Mehrara BJ, Allen RJ, Nelson JA. Quality of Life in Breast Reconstruction Patients after Irradiation to Tissue Expander: A Propensity-Matched Preliminary Analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2023; 152:259-269. [PMID: 36724013 PMCID: PMC10390648 DOI: 10.1097/prs.0000000000010249] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/02/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Tissue expanders (TEs) are routinely placed as a first step in breast reconstruction for women who require postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). The final reconstruction can then be performed with implants or conversion to autologous tissues. The purpose of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes and surgical complications in autologous (ABR) versus implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) patients following TE-PMRT. METHODS The authors performed a propensity score preliminary analysis (1:1 matching, no replacement) in patients undergoing ABR or IBR following TE-PMRT. Matched covariates included age, race/ethnicity, smoking status, body mass index, history of psychiatric diagnosis, and laterality of reconstruction. Outcomes of interest included complications and BREAST-Q scores for Satisfaction with Breasts, Physical Well-Being of the Chest, Sexual Well-Being, and Psychosocial Well-Being domains. RESULTS Of 341 patients with TE-PMRT, a total of 106 patients were included in the matched analysis: 53 ABR patients and 53 IBR patients. ABR and IBR did not differ significantly in matched baseline, cancer, and surgical characteristics. ABR patients had higher scores for Satisfaction with Breasts (greater than the four-point minimal clinically important difference) at all postreconstruction time points compared with IBR patients ( P < 0.05). There were no significant postoperative differences in other BREAST-Q domains. The incidence of complications after definitive reconstruction did not differ significantly among cohorts. CONCLUSIONS In this matched preliminary analysis, patients who underwent ABR following irradiation to a TE demonstrated superior satisfaction with breast scores compared with IBR patients. Higher powered matched studies are needed to improve shared decision-making for patients who require mastectomy and PMRT as part of their treatment. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic, III.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thais O. Polanco
- Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Meghana G. Shamsunder
- Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Rajiv P. Parikh
- Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Jacqueline J. Chu
- Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Colleen McCarthy
- Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Audree Tadros
- Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Evan Matros
- Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Joseph J. Disa
- Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Babak J. Mehrara
- Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Robert J. Allen
- Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Jonas A. Nelson
- Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Sirák I, Fibír A, Slaninka I, Paulík A, Kolářová I, Motyčka P, Grepl J, Paluska P, Vošmik M. Breast reconstruction and radiotherapy. ONKOLOGIE 2023; 17:113-118. [DOI: 10.36290/xon.2023.023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/07/2023]
|
8
|
Lee CT, Ruth K, Patel S, Bleicher R, Sigurdson E, Weiss S, Hayes S, Anderson P, Wong JK. Factors Associated with Reconstruction Failure and Major Complications After Postmastectomy Radiation to a Reconstructed Breast. Pract Radiat Oncol 2023; 13:122-131. [PMID: 36332800 PMCID: PMC10684027 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2022.09.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/19/2022] [Revised: 09/12/2022] [Accepted: 09/22/2022] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Postmastectomy radiation therapy is known to increase risk of complications in the reconstruction setting. We aim to identify the variables associated with reconstruction failure and other major complications. METHODS AND MATERIALS A prospectively collected institutional database was queried for patients with up to stage IIIC breast cancer treated from 2000 to 2017, undergoing mastectomy, immediate implant or autologous tissue reconstruction, and radiation to the reconstructed breast within 1 year of surgery. Reconstruction failure was defined as complication requiring surgical revision or implant removal. Additional major complications were defined as any infection, contracture, necrosis, or fibrosis. Covariates of interest included age, body mass index, smoking status, stage, hormone receptor and HER2 status, systemic therapy timing, radiation technique, nodal irradiation, and interval between surgery and start of postmastectomy radiation therapy. Differences in complication rates were assessed with χ² or Fisher exact tests. Competing risk regression was used to estimate hazard ratios; covariates were included one at a time to avoid over adjustment. RESULTS A total of 206 reconstructed breasts in 202 patients resulted from our initial query, with 139 treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and 67 treated with conventional radiation therapy (CRT). Median follow-up was 45 months (range, 4-210 months); patient cohorts were generally similar. Eight patients were excluded from toxicity analysis for insufficient follow-up (<2 years). Overall, reconstruction failure and major complication rates were significantly lower in the IMRT group. Reconstruction failure rates were 3.0% for IMRT versus 16.4% for CRT (P = .002), and major complication rates were 6.8% for IMRT versus 24.6% for CRT (P < .001). On univariate analysis, CRT was significantly predictive of implant failure (hazard ratio, 5.54; P = .003) and increased complication rates (hazard ratio, 3.83; P = .001). Significance persisted on multivariable analysis. Survival outcomes were similar, with no difference in 2 year overall survival (P = .12) and local recurrence (P = .41). CONCLUSIONS Using IMRT may improve reconstruction outcomes over CRT, with significantly lower reconstruction failure and complication rates without compromising local control or survival.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Charles T Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Karen Ruth
- Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Sameer Patel
- Department of Plastic Surgery, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Richard Bleicher
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Elin Sigurdson
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Stephanie Weiss
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Shelly Hayes
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Penny Anderson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - J Karen Wong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Cagli B, Morelli Coppola M, Augelli F, Segreto F, Tenna S, Cogliandro A, Persichetti P. Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy in the Setting of Two-Stage Retropectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Should It be Delivered Before or After Implant Exchange? A Retrospective Analysis on 183 Patients. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2022; 46:2643-2654. [PMID: 35854008 DOI: 10.1007/s00266-022-03001-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/24/2022] [Accepted: 06/19/2022] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) has a primary role in the treatment of locally advanced breast cancer; however, the most appropriate timing of irradiation in immediate tissue expander breast reconstruction (ITEBR) still remains unknown. METHODS A retrospective review was performed on all women undergoing mastectomy and retropectoral ITEBR at Campus Bio-Medico University Hospital in Rome, Italy, between 2010 and 2019. The patients were categorized into three cohorts: patients undergoing PMRT with the tissue expander (TE) in situ, patients with PMRT delivered to the permanent implant (PI), patients who were not administered RT. Complications and failure rates were analysed and compared. Potential predictors of adverse outcomes were analysed. RESULTS Over 10 years, 183 patients underwent retropectoral ITEBR (55 PMRT-TE, 50 PMRT-PI, 78 no-PMRT). The three groups were well matched with respect to patient- and treatment-related factors (p > 0.05), with the exception of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and irradiation. The mean follow-up was, respectively, 4.58, 7 and 5.75 years. Radiotherapy either to the TE or to the PI was independently associated with failure and conversion to autologous procedures (p < 0.0001). Failure rate was significantly higher when TE was irradiated (p = 0.03). PMRT was associated with severe capsular contracture development (p < 0.00001), the odds being higher when irradiation was delivered after implant exchange (p = 0.04). Increased BMI was significantly associated with failure. CONCLUSIONS When PMRT is delivered to the TE, the risk of failure is higher (OR 2.77); when the PI is irradiated, reconstruction will more likely be affected by severe capsular contracture (OR 2.7). However, considering that the overall risk of severe capsular contracture correlated to PMRT is higher than failure, we believe that irradiation should be delivered to the TE. Performing a proper capsuloplasty at the time of implant exchange, indeed, allows to correct the deformities related to radiation-induced capsular contracture. Patients with unfavourable outcomes after TE placement and RT, instead, can be directly switched to autologous 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 .
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Barbara Cagli
- Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Campus Bio-Medico University, Rome, Italy
| | - Marco Morelli Coppola
- Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Campus Bio-Medico University, Rome, Italy.
| | - Federica Augelli
- Department of Plastic Surgery and Burn Unit, Niguarda Hospital, Milan, Italy
| | - Francesco Segreto
- Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Campus Bio-Medico University, Rome, Italy
| | - Stefania Tenna
- Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Campus Bio-Medico University, Rome, Italy
| | - Annalisa Cogliandro
- Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Campus Bio-Medico University, Rome, Italy
| | - Paolo Persichetti
- Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Campus Bio-Medico University, Rome, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Optimal timing of postmastectomy radiotherapy in two-stage prosthetic breast reconstruction: An updated meta-analysis. Int J Surg 2022; 105:106814. [PMID: 35977650 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2022.106814] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/25/2022] [Revised: 07/07/2022] [Accepted: 07/27/2022] [Indexed: 10/15/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is no consensus on the timing of postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) in relation to the exchange procedure in breast cancer patients undergoing the immediate two-stage prosthetic breast reconstruction. This meta-analysis investigated the reconstruction failure, complications, and cosmesis between PMRT to the tissue expander (TE) and PMRT to the permanent implant (PI). METHODS A literature search was conducted in PubMed and Embase databases until February 2022. Studies presenting at least one aspect relating to reconstruction failure, complications, and cosmesis between two cohorts were included. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the risk of bias in included studies. RESULTS Eleven studies presenting 1447 patients were enrolled. Three studies were prospective controlled research. The risk for implant loss was higher in PMRT to TE cohort (RR 1.75; 95% CI, 1.03 to 2.98; p = 0.04); meanwhile, the PMRT to TE cohort had a significantly lower risk of capsular contracture (RR 0.47; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.78; p = 0.003). However, the synthesized result should be interpreted sensibly due to heterogeneity in statistical methods and definitions. CONCLUSION Delivering PMRT to PI may reduce the risk of implant loss, while delivering PMRT to TE can reduce the risk of severe capsular contracture. More high-quality studies are warranted for the refinement of clinical practice.
Collapse
|
11
|
Nelson JA, Cordeiro PG, Polanco T, Shamsunder MG, Patel A, Allen RJ, Matros E, Disa JJ, Cuaron JJ, Morrow M, Mehrara BJ, Pusic AL, McCarthy CM. Association of Radiation Timing with Long-Term Satisfaction and Health-Related Quality of Life in Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2022; 150:32e-41e. [PMID: 35499580 DOI: 10.1097/prs.0000000000009180] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Radiation therapy is increasingly used after breast cancer surgery, which may impact patients' postoperative quality of life. This study assessed differences in long-term patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life after radiation therapy administered at different stages of implant-based breast reconstruction or with no radiation after surgery. METHODS In this observational study, long-term outcomes were evaluated for four cohorts of women who completed breast reconstruction and received (1) no radiation, (2) radiation before tissue expander placement, (3) radiation after tissue expander placement, or (4) radiation after permanent implant between 2010 and 2017 at Memorial Sloan Kettering. Satisfaction and health-related quality of life were assessed using the prospectively collected Satisfaction with Breasts and Physical Well-Being of Chest BREAST-Q subscales. Score distributions were examined by radiation exposure status for 3 years after surgery using nonparametric analyses and regression models. RESULTS Of 2932 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 25.8 percent received radiation during breast cancer treatment, including before tissue expander placement ( n = 239; 8.2 percent), after tissue expander placement ( n = 290; 9.9 percent), and after implant placement ( n = 228; 7.8 percent). Radiotherapy patients had average scores 7 to 9 points lower at all postoperative time points for Satisfaction with Breasts and Physical Well-Being of Chest subscales ( p < 0.001). Although patient-reported outcomes did not differ by radiation timing, there were higher rates of severe capsular contracture with postimplant radiotherapy ( p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Radiation therapy significantly affected patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life following implant breast reconstruction through 3 years postoperatively. Patient perception of outcome was unaffected by radiotherapy timing; however, capsular contracture was higher after postimplant radiotherapy, suggesting there may be an advantage to performing radiotherapy before placement of the final reconstruction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic, III.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jonas A Nelson
- From the Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service and Breast Surgery Service, Department of Surgery, and Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; and Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital
| | - Peter G Cordeiro
- From the Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service and Breast Surgery Service, Department of Surgery, and Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; and Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital
| | - Thais Polanco
- From the Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service and Breast Surgery Service, Department of Surgery, and Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; and Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital
| | - Meghana G Shamsunder
- From the Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service and Breast Surgery Service, Department of Surgery, and Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; and Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital
| | - Aadit Patel
- From the Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service and Breast Surgery Service, Department of Surgery, and Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; and Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital
| | - Robert J Allen
- From the Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service and Breast Surgery Service, Department of Surgery, and Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; and Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital
| | - Evan Matros
- From the Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service and Breast Surgery Service, Department of Surgery, and Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; and Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital
| | - Joseph J Disa
- From the Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service and Breast Surgery Service, Department of Surgery, and Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; and Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital
| | - John J Cuaron
- From the Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service and Breast Surgery Service, Department of Surgery, and Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; and Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital
| | - Monica Morrow
- From the Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service and Breast Surgery Service, Department of Surgery, and Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; and Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital
| | - Babak J Mehrara
- From the Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service and Breast Surgery Service, Department of Surgery, and Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; and Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital
| | - Andrea L Pusic
- From the Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service and Breast Surgery Service, Department of Surgery, and Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; and Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital
| | - Colleen M McCarthy
- From the Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service and Breast Surgery Service, Department of Surgery, and Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; and Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Wolter A, Fertsch S, Lisboa BW, Andree C. [Breast Reconstruction Strategies in Case of Planned Radiotherapy]. HANDCHIR MIKROCHIR P 2022; 54:279-296. [PMID: 35728602 DOI: 10.1055/a-1826-2992] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/04/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The ideal technical and chronological approach of breast reconstruction in case of planned radiotherapy after mastectomy (post-mastectomy radiotherapy, PMRT) continues to be controversially discussed. METHODS The authors analysed the MEDLINE Database PubMed for relevant studies concerning PMRT and breast reconstruction. The main theses from these publications were extracted and summarised. RESULTS An implant-based approach is the least invasive technique for immediate breast-mound formation in a PMRT setting. Reconstruction in a PMRT setting with a two-stage expander-implant technique or expander-implant-autologous procedure can provide good to excellent cosmetic outcomes. In contrast to the implant-based approach, autologous reconstruction methods provide an improved quality of life as well as haptic and sensory advantages and are usually associated with lower complication rates. PMRT after autologous reconstruction can have a negative impact on the autologous tissue. A delayed autologous approach can be advantageous and should be generally favoured in high-risk patients. CONCLUSION Factors influencing a meticulous planning of breast reconstruction including PMRT are surgical, aesthetic and patient characteristics, quality of life, preference and expectation. Ideally, PMRT is completed before autologous reconstruction to avoid radiation-associated side-effects on the final reconstructive result. If PMRT is likely, but potentially not necessary, an immediate-delayed procedure may be of advantage.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andreas Wolter
- Plastische und Ästhetische Chirurgie, Sana Krankenhaus Gerresheim, Düsseldorf, Germany.,Fakultät für Gesundheit, Universität Witten/Herdecke, Witten, Germany
| | - Sonia Fertsch
- Plastische und Ästhetische Chirurgie, Sana Krankenhaus Gerresheim, Düsseldorf, Germany.,Fakultät für Gesundheit, Universität Witten/Herdecke, Witten, Germany
| | | | - Christoph Andree
- Plastische und Ästhetische Chirurgie, Sana Krankenhaus Gerresheim, Düsseldorf, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Kooijman MML, Hage JJ, Scholten AN, Vrancken Peeters MJTFD, Woerdeman LAE. Short-Term Surgical Complications of Skin-Sparing Mastectomy and Direct-to-Implant Immediate Breast Reconstruction in Women Concurrently Treated with Adjuvant Radiotherapy for Breast Cancer. Arch Plast Surg 2022; 49:332-338. [PMID: 35832162 PMCID: PMC9142242 DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1748648] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) is allegedly associated with a higher risk of complications of combined nipple-sparing or skin-sparing mastectomy and subpectoral direct-to-implant immediate breast reconstruction ([N]SSM/SDTI-IBR). For this reason, this combination is usually advised against or, even, refused in women who need to undergo PMRT. Because this advice has never been justified, we assessed the short-term complications that may potentially be associated with PMRT after [N]SSM/SDTI-IBR. Methods We compared the complications requiring reintervention and implant loss occurring after 273 [N]SSM/SDTI-IBR that were exposed to PMRT within the first 16 postoperative weeks (interventional group) to those occurring in 739 similarly operated breasts that were not (control group). Additionally, we compared the fraction of complications requiring reintervention occurring after the onset of radiotherapy in the interventional group to that occurring after a comparable postoperative period in the control group. Results The fraction of breasts requiring unscheduled surgical reinterventions for complications and the loss of implants did not differ significantly between both groups but significantly more reinterventions were needed among the controls ( p = 0.00). The fraction of events after the onset of radiotherapy in the interventional group was higher than the fraction of events after 6.2 weeks in the control group, but not significantly so. Conclusion We found no prove for the alleged increase of short-term complications of adjuvant radiotherapy. Therefore, we advise that these should not be considered valid arguments to advice against [N]SSM/SDTI-IBR.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Merel M. L. Kooijman
- Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - J. Joris Hage
- Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Astrid N. Scholten
- Department of Radiotherapy, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Marie-Jeanne T. F. D. Vrancken Peeters
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Leonie A. E. Woerdeman
- Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Baranova A, Krasnoselskyi M, Starikov V, Kartashov S, Zhulkevych I, Vlasenko V, Oleshko K, Bilodid O, Sadchikova M, Vinnyk Y. Triple-negative breast cancer: current treatment strategies and factors of negative prognosis. J Med Life 2022; 15:153-161. [PMID: 35419095 PMCID: PMC8999097 DOI: 10.25122/jml-2021-0108] [Citation(s) in RCA: 39] [Impact Index Per Article: 19.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/04/2021] [Accepted: 10/28/2021] [Indexed: 12/26/2022] Open
Abstract
Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women and the most common cause of death in working-age women. According to the results of immunohistochemical studies, 10-20% of cases revealed a triple-negative type of breast cancer. This subtype is characterized by significant proliferative activity and growth rate, aggressive clinical course, and early metastasis. This leads to a suspicious prognosis and, accordingly, encourages an increase of surgical treatment radicalism and aggressive systemic treatment. This review briefly analyzes existing treatment strategies for triple-negative breast cancer with a focus on surgical treatment. Surgical treatment is an integral part of complex therapy. Currently, the attention of researchers is focused not only on the radicalism of the operation, ensuring long-term survival, but also on achieving a good cosmetic result that determines the quality of life of patients. In this aspect, organ-preserving and prosthetic methods of operations are promising, the feasibility and effectiveness of which are being discussed. The relevance of choosing the optimal method of operation is evidenced by the lack of generally accepted approaches based on informative markers for the prognosis of the course of the disease. Therefore, the choice of the optimal method of surgical treatment taking into account the individual characteristics of the patient and the tumor, indications for chemotherapy, and radiation therapy remains an unresolved issue and requires further research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anna Baranova
- Department of Radiology and Oncology, Grigoriev Institute for Medical Radiology NAMS of Ukraine, Kharkiv, Ukraine.,Department of Oncology, Kharkiv National Medical University, Kharkiv, Ukraine
| | - Mykola Krasnoselskyi
- Department of Radiology and Oncology, Grigoriev Institute for Medical Radiology NAMS of Ukraine, Kharkiv, Ukraine.,Department of Oncology, Radiology and Radiation Medicine V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, Kharkiv, Ukraine
| | - Volodymyr Starikov
- Department of Oncology, Kharkiv National Medical University, Kharkiv, Ukraine
| | - Sergii Kartashov
- Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Oncogynecology, Kharkiv Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education, Kharkiv, Ukraine
| | - Igor Zhulkevych
- Department of Oncology, Radiology Diagnostics and Therapy and Radiation Medicine, I. Horbachevsky Ternopil National Medical University, Ternopil, Ukraine
| | - Vadym Vlasenko
- Department of Cancer Surgery, Medical Center Molecule, Kharkiv, Ukraine
| | - Kateryna Oleshko
- Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Oncogynecology, Kharkiv Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education, Kharkiv, Ukraine
| | - Olga Bilodid
- Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Oncogynecology, Kharkiv Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education, Kharkiv, Ukraine
| | - Marina Sadchikova
- Department of Cancer Surgery, Radiation Therapy and Palliative Care, Kharkiv Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education, Kharkiv, Ukraine
| | - Yurii Vinnyk
- Department of Cancer Surgery, Radiation Therapy and Palliative Care, Kharkiv Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education, Kharkiv, Ukraine
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Optimal Timing of Expander-to-Implant Exchange after Irradiation in Immediate Two-Stage Breast Reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2022; 149:185e-194e. [PMID: 35077405 DOI: 10.1097/prs.0000000000008712] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Time intervals for expander-to-implant exchange from radiation therapy have been reported to reduce device failure. This study investigated the optimal timing of expander-to-implant exchange after irradiation in terms of short- and long-term outcomes. METHODS This retrospective review enrolled consecutive patients who underwent immediate two-stage breast reconstruction and radiation therapy to tissue expanders from 2010 to 2019. Receiver operating characteristic curves and the Youden index were used to estimate the optimal time from radiation therapy to implant placement in terms of 49-day (early) and 2-year (late) complications. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the risk factors for each complication. RESULTS Of the 1675 patients, 133 were included. The 49-day and 2-year complication rates were 8.3 percent and 29.7 percent, respectively. Capsular contracture was the most common 2-year complication. The Youden index indicated that implant placement at 131 days after radiation therapy was most effective in reducing the 49-day complications, but that the 2-year complication was less significant, with lower sensitivity and area under the curve. Modified radical mastectomy, expander fill volume at radiation therapy, and size of permanent implant increased the odds of 49-day complications; none of them was associated with the odds of 2-year complications. CONCLUSIONS To reduce short-term complications, the best time point for permanent implant placement was 131 days after radiation therapy. However, there was no significant time interval for reducing long-term complications. Capsular contracture was an irreversible complication of radiation injury that was not modified by postirradiation variables including the time from irradiation or size of permanent implant. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic, III.
Collapse
|
16
|
Tampaki EC, Tampakis A. Breast Reconstruction: Necessity for Further Standardization of the Current Surgical Techniques Attempting to Facilitate Scientific Evaluation and Select Tailored Individualized Procedures Optimizing Patient Satisfaction. Breast Care (Basel) 2022; 16:574-583. [PMID: 35087360 DOI: 10.1159/000518745] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/06/2021] [Accepted: 07/28/2021] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Various breast cancer reconstruction methods and novel surgical techniques include autologous or allogenic procedures, which can increase patient's quality of life and provide options when dealing with patients seen as challenging clinical scenarios. Summary Our aim was to review the current literature and present published evidence on innovative standards in whole breast reconstruction. Advances in flap monitoring or newly published data regarding neurotization in breast reconstruction, arm lymphedema management, breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma reconstruction treatment, and robotic surgery with regard to radiotherapy define innovative standards in the breast reconstruction setting. The role of meshes/acellular dermal matrix and fat grafting as well as optimal sequencing of postmastectomy radiotherapy in autologous and alloplastic breast reconstruction appear highly debatable also in expert panel meetings rendering further clinical research including RCTs imperative. Key Messages There is an abundance of novel available techniques, which mandate further standardization, facilitating scientific evaluation in an attempt to help surgeons select tailored procedures for each patient with the goal to promote informed decision-making in breast reconstruction.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Athanasios Tampakis
- Department of General and Visceral Surgery, Basel University Hospital, Basel, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Dickey RM, Amaya J, Teotia SS, Haddock NT. Influence of Triple-Negative versus Luminal A Breast Cancer Subtype on Choice of Autologous versus Implant-Based Delayed-Immediate Breast Reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg 2021; 39:264-271. [PMID: 34666408 DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1736319] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Triple-negative (TN) and luminal A breast cancer molecular subtypes have divergent clinical and prognostic characteristics for breast cancer patients. Our study aims to compare the reconstructive choice of these two groups from the time they receive a tissue expander (TE) to the time they complete autologous or implant-based breast reconstruction. METHODS A total of 255 patients who underwent delayed-immediate breast reconstruction with TE placement from 2013 to 2017 diagnosed with either TN (n = 73) or luminal A (n = 182) invasive breast cancer subtype seen by two surgeons at a single institution were identified. Preference of autologous and implant-based reconstruction was analyzed, along with TE complications, race, age, body mass index (BMI), smoking, adjuvant therapy, and comorbidities. RESULTS There was a significant difference in the choice of implant- or autologous-based reconstruction among these two groups (p < 0.05). A greater proportion of luminal A patients underwent implant-based reconstruction (63.47%) and a greater proportion of TN patients underwent autologous-based reconstruction (53.13%). With regard to TE outcomes, there was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to duration of TE placement by reconstructive type or TE surgical complications. Significantly, more TN patients underwent radiation therapy (p < 0.01) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (p < 0.0001) than luminal A patients. BMI, comorbidities, radiation therapy, and overall TE complications were identified as predictive factors of patients electing for autologous reconstruction over implants. CONCLUSION TN breast cancer patients mostly chose autologous-based reconstruction, while luminal A patients chose implant-based reconstruction. Both patient groups carried their TEs for similar duration with similar complication profile. Radiation therapy is likely a major factor in the decision for the type of delayed-immediate reconstruction among this population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ryan M Dickey
- Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | - Joshua Amaya
- Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | - Sumeet S Teotia
- Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | - Nicholas T Haddock
- Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Rojas DP, Leonardi MC, Frassoni S, Morra A, Gerardi MA, La Rocca E, Cattani F, Luraschi R, Fodor C, Zaffaroni M, Rietjens M, De Lorenzi F, Veronesi P, Galimberti VE, Intra M, Bagnardi V, Orecchia R, Dicuonzo S, Jereczek-Fossa BA. Implant risk failure in patients undergoing postmastectomy 3-week hypofractionated radiotherapy after immediate reconstruction. Radiother Oncol 2021; 163:105-113. [PMID: 34419507 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.08.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/07/2021] [Revised: 08/05/2021] [Accepted: 08/12/2021] [Indexed: 01/29/2023]
Abstract
AIM To evaluate reconstruction failure (RF) rate in patients receiving implant-based immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) and hypofractionated (HF) postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS Stage II-III breast cancer patients, treated with HF-PMRT using intensity modulated radiotherapy were stratified in two groups according to IBR: single-stage direct-to-implant (DTI-group) and two-stage expander and implant (TE/I-group). Irradiated patients were matched with non-irradiated ones who underwent the same IBR during the same period. Prescription dose was 40.05 Gy/15 fractions to chest wall and infra/supraclavicular nodal region. Primary endpoint was RF defined as the need of major revisional surgery (MaRS) for implant removal or conversion to autologous reconstruction. Secondary endpoint was the rate of minor revisional surgeries (MiRS) including implant repositioning or substitution with another implant. RESULTS One hundred and seven irradiated patients (62 in TE/I-group, 45 in DTI-group) were matched with 107 non-irradiated subjects. Median follow-up was 4.2 years (0.1-6.1) In the TE/I setting, MaRS was performed in 8/62 irradiated patients (12.9%) of the irradiated TE/I group compared to 1/62 (1.6%) non-irradiated subjects (p = 0.015). In the DTI setting, MaRs occurred in 3/45 irradiated patients (6.7%) compared to 1/45 non-irradiated ones (2.2%) (p = 0.35). Overall MaRS rate was 10.3% in the irradiated group. MiRS was performed in 35.6% and 31.1% of the irradiated and non-irradiated DTI-groups (p = 0.65), respectively, and in 12.9% and 8.1% of the irradiated and non-irradiated TE/I groups (p = 0.38), respectively. CONCLUSIONS Compared to the non-irradiated counterparts, the TE/I group showed higher rate of RF, while no statistically significant difference was observed for the DTI group. The use of hypofractionation and IMRT to implant-based IBR did not seem to increase the risk of RF which appeared to be in line with the literature.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Samuele Frassoni
- Department of Statistics and Quantitative Methods, University of Milan-Bicocca, Italy
| | - Anna Morra
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | | | - Eliana La Rocca
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy; Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Italy
| | - Federica Cattani
- Unit of Medical Physics, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Rosa Luraschi
- Unit of Medical Physics, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Cristiana Fodor
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Mattia Zaffaroni
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Mario Rietjens
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Francesca De Lorenzi
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Paolo Veronesi
- Division of Breast Surgery, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy; Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Italy
| | | | - Mattia Intra
- Division of Breast Surgery, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Vincenzo Bagnardi
- Department of Statistics and Quantitative Methods, University of Milan-Bicocca, Italy
| | - Roberto Orecchia
- Scientific Direction, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Samantha Dicuonzo
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Barbara Alicja Jereczek-Fossa
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy; Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Mandó P, Hirsch I, Waisberg F, Ostinelli A, Luca R, Pranevicene B, Ferreyra Camacho A, Enrico D, Chacon M. Appraising the quality of meta-analysis for breast cancer treatment in the adjuvant setting: A systematic review. Cancer Treat Res Commun 2021; 27:100358. [PMID: 33957603 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctarc.2021.100358] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/19/2020] [Revised: 03/16/2021] [Accepted: 03/17/2021] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Breast cancer is the tumor with highest incidence in women worldwide and adjuvant treatment is extremely important to achieve disease control. Given the relevance of systematic reviews, their rigor should be warranted to avoid biased conclusions. Our objective was to investigate the methodological quality of meta-analysis of early breast cancer adjuvant treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS Comprehensive searches were performed using electronic databases from 1/1/2007 to 11/12/2018. All studies identified as a systematic review with meta-analysis investigating the efficacy of breast cancer adjuvant treatments were included. Two reviewers independently assessed titles and abstracts, then full-texts for eligibility. Quality was assessed using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) version 2 tool. RESULTS Of 950 citations retrieved, 66 studies (7.0%) were deemed eligible. Methodological quality was highly variable, median AMSTAR score 8.5 (IQR 7-9.5) and range 0-16. There was a weak positive correlation between journal impact factor and AMSTAR score (r = 0.17) and citation rate and AMSTAR score (r = 0.16). Cochrane Systematic Reviews were of higher quality than reviews from other journals. Overall confidence was critically low for 61 (92.4%) studies, and the least well-reported domains were the statement of conflict of interest and funding source for the included studies (4.6%), the report of a pre-defined study protocol (15.2%), and the description of details of excluded studies (6.1%). CONCLUSIONS Our findings reinforce concerns about the design, conduction and interpretation of meta-analysis in current literature. Methodological quality should be carefully considered and journal editors, decision makers and readers in general, must follow a critical approach to this studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pablo Mandó
- Argentine Association of Clinical Oncology, Gorostiaga 2450, Ciudad de Buenos Aires, CP1426, Argentina; CEMIC, Galvan 4102, Ciudad de Buenos Aires, CP 1431, Argentina.
| | - Ian Hirsch
- Argentine Association of Clinical Oncology, Gorostiaga 2450, Ciudad de Buenos Aires, CP1426, Argentina; Hospital General de Agudos Teodoro Álvarez, Juan Felipe Aranguren 2701, Ciudad de Buenos Aires, CP1406, Argentina
| | - Federico Waisberg
- Argentine Association of Clinical Oncology, Gorostiaga 2450, Ciudad de Buenos Aires, CP1426, Argentina
| | - Alexis Ostinelli
- Argentine Association of Clinical Oncology, Gorostiaga 2450, Ciudad de Buenos Aires, CP1426, Argentina; Instituto Alexander Fleming, Cramer 1180, Ciudad de Buenos Aires, CP1426, Argentina
| | - Romina Luca
- Argentine Association of Clinical Oncology, Gorostiaga 2450, Ciudad de Buenos Aires, CP1426, Argentina
| | - Belen Pranevicene
- Argentine Association of Clinical Oncology, Gorostiaga 2450, Ciudad de Buenos Aires, CP1426, Argentina
| | - Augusto Ferreyra Camacho
- Argentine Association of Clinical Oncology, Gorostiaga 2450, Ciudad de Buenos Aires, CP1426, Argentina
| | - Diego Enrico
- Argentine Association of Clinical Oncology, Gorostiaga 2450, Ciudad de Buenos Aires, CP1426, Argentina
| | - Matías Chacon
- Argentine Association of Clinical Oncology, Gorostiaga 2450, Ciudad de Buenos Aires, CP1426, Argentina; Instituto Alexander Fleming, Cramer 1180, Ciudad de Buenos Aires, CP1426, Argentina
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Breast Implants for Mammaplasty: An Umbrella Review of Meta-analyses of Multiple Complications. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2020; 44:1988-1996. [PMID: 32696163 DOI: 10.1007/s00266-020-01866-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/02/2020] [Accepted: 06/30/2020] [Indexed: 02/05/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The association of breast implants and complications after mammaplasty has been extensively researched. The aim of this study is to summarize all available results in meta-analysis investigating the association between implants and the incidence of various complications. METHODS An umbrella review for breast implants and associated complications was performed by searching related reviews from electronic databases including Pubmed, Ovid and CINAHL. We collected and reviewed evidence across meta-analyses of observational and interventional studies of implants and any health outcome. The quality of the reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR tool (A measurement tool to assess systematic reviews). RESULTS The research included 92 meta-analyses of 609 studies concerning various areas. Capsular contracture was the most investigated outcome. Radiotherapy, human acellular dermal matrix application, direct-to-implant reconstruction, smooth implant, silicone-filled implant and periareolar incision were significantly associated with higher rates of some of the complications. CONCLUSIONS This umbrella review provides surgeons with summarized evidence of the association between the complications and implant-related factors in mammaplasty surgery to help surgeons make informed choices in the future. 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 .
Collapse
|
21
|
Song SY, Chang JS, Fan KL, Kim MJ, Chang HP, Lew DH, Roh TS, Roh H, Kim YB, Lee DW. Hypofractionated Radiotherapy With Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Decreases Postoperative Complications in Prosthetic Breast Reconstructions: A Clinicopathologic Study. Front Oncol 2020; 10:577136. [PMID: 33282731 PMCID: PMC7705232 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.577136] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/28/2020] [Accepted: 10/20/2020] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Emerging radiation technologies are expected to provide a positive impact on the reduction in postoperative complications in patients receiving prosthetic breast reconstruction. This study aimed to determine whether hypofractionated radiation therapy(RT) with volumetric modulated arc therapy(VMAT) is superior to conventional RT in the setting of prosthetic reconstruction. Methods From retrospective data collections, postoperative complications were compared for all patients with mastectomy and staged prosthetic reconstruction without RT, with hypofractionation using 40 Gy in 15 fractions with VMAT (Hypo-VMAT) or conventional RT (50 Gy over 5 weeks). After harvesting subpectoral capsules from patients with informed consents, histologic analysis including immunohistochemistry and immunofluorescence for collagen type I, α-smooth muscle actin, CD34 and CD31 expression was performed. Results A total of 288 reconstructions without RT, 55 reconstructions with Hypo-VMAT, and 29 reconstructions with conventional RT were examined. During average follow-up period of 34.8 months, rates of overall complications were 6.3% in the no-radiation group, 18.2% in Hypo-VMAT group and 44.8% in conventional-RT group with significant differences (no-RT vs Hypo-VMAT: p=0.006; Hypo-VMAT vs conventional-RT: p=0.012). Levels of myofibroblasts and tissue fibrosis were lower in the Hypo-VMAT group than in conventional-RT group (p=0.016 and p=0.040, respectively), while those of progenitor cells and microvessel density were higher in the Hypo-VMAT group than in conventional-RT group (p<0.001 and p<0.001, respectively). Conclusion We demonstrated that hypofractionated RT with VMAT served to reduce radiation-related morbidities in prosthetic reconstruction from a clinicopathologic perspective, compared to conventional RT. It may offer a practical strategy to mitigate radiation-related complications in clinical settings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Seung Yong Song
- Department of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery and Institute for Human Tissue Restoration, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Jee Suk Chang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Kenneth L Fan
- Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington DC, United States
| | - Mi Jung Kim
- Department of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery and Institute for Human Tissue Restoration, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Hsien Pin Chang
- Department of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery and Institute for Human Tissue Restoration, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Dae Hyun Lew
- Department of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery and Institute for Human Tissue Restoration, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Tai Suk Roh
- Department of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery and Institute for Human Tissue Restoration, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Hyun Roh
- Department of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery and Institute for Human Tissue Restoration, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Yong Bae Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Dong Won Lee
- Department of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery and Institute for Human Tissue Restoration, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Frisell A, Lagergren J, Halle M, de Boniface J. Risk factors for implant failure following revision surgery in breast cancer patients with a previous immediate implant-based breast reconstruction. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2020; 184:977-984. [PMID: 32920741 PMCID: PMC7655578 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-020-05911-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/07/2020] [Accepted: 09/01/2020] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
Purpose The aim of the current study was to evaluate risk factors and timing of revision surgery following immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR). Methods This retrospective cohort included women with a previous therapeutic mastectomy and implant-based IBR who had undergone implant revision surgery between 2005 and 2015. Data were collected by medical chart review and registered in the Stockholm Breast Reconstruction Database. The primary endpoint was implant removal due to surgical complications, i.e. implant failure. Results The cohort consisted of 475 women with 707 revisions in 542 breasts. Overall, 33 implants were removed due to complications. The implant failure rate (4.7%) was lower without RT (2.4%) compared to RT administered after mastectomy (7.5%) and prior to IBR (6.5%) (p = 0.007). While post-mastectomy RT (OR 3.39, 95% CI 1.53–7.53), smoking (OR 3.90, 95% CI 1.76–8.65) and diabetes (OR 5.40, 95% CI 1.05–27.85) were confirmed as risk factors, time from completion of RT (> 9 months, 6–9 months, < 6 months) was not (OR 3.17, 95% CI 0.78–12.80, and OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.20–2.71). Additional risk factors were a previous axillary clearance (OR 4.91, 95% CI 2.09–11.53) and a history of a post-IBR infection (OR 15.52, 95% CI 4.15–58.01, and OR 12.93, 95% CI 3.04–55.12, for oral and intravenous antibiotics, respectively). Conclusions Previous axillary clearance and a history of post-IBR infection emerged as novel risk factors for implant failure after revision surgery. While known risk factors were confirmed, time elapsed from RT completion to revision surgery did not influence the outcome in this analysis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A Frisell
- Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77, Solna, Stockholm, Sweden.
| | - J Lagergren
- Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77, Solna, Stockholm, Sweden.,Department of Surgery, Capio St. Göran's Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - M Halle
- Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77, Solna, Stockholm, Sweden.,Reconstructive Plastic Surgery, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - J de Boniface
- Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77, Solna, Stockholm, Sweden.,Department of Surgery, Capio St. Göran's Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Shumway DA, Momoh AO, Sabel MS, Jagsi R. Integration of Breast Reconstruction and Postmastectomy Radiotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2020; 38:2329-2340. [PMID: 32442071 DOI: 10.1200/jco.19.02850] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Dean A Shumway
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Adeyiza O Momoh
- Section of Plastic Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Michael S Sabel
- Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Reshma Jagsi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Fuertes V, Francés M, Casarrubios JM, Fernández-Palacios J, González JM, Loro-Ferrer JF. Implant-based immediate breast reconstruction: failure rate when radiating the tissue expander or the permanent implant-a meta-analysis. Gland Surg 2020; 9:209-218. [PMID: 32420244 DOI: 10.21037/gs.2020.01.20] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
Background Implant-based immediate approach remains to be a first line option for reconstruction of mastectomy defects. When combined with post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) two different schemas are possible: radiating the temporary tissue expander (TTE) or the permanent implant (PI). The present article intends to be the biggest cohort meta-analysis to the date comparing reconstructive failure (RF) rate in these two scenarios: PMRT to TE compared with PMRT to PI. Methods A systematic search of the literature was performed on PUBMED/MEDLINE. The following key words were chosen: Breast Reconstruction AND Implant based AND Immediate. The time limit applied was from January 2008 to January 2019. We selected ten articles (n=1,130) to perform a meta-analysis due to the similarity of their approaches. Secondly, we did a simple literature review in order to identify some variables possibly working as predicting factors for RF. Results Previous meta-analysis are analysed. Some variables possibly working as risk factors for RF are summarized. We performed a meta-analysis in two scenarios: a fixed-effect model and a random effect model. For the random effect model an OR of 1.85 was obtained (0.96, 3.57; P=0.067). A funnel plot is performed showing no publication bias exists. Conclusions There is a tendency towards a higher RF rate when the TTE is irradiated compared with the irradiation of the PI. Further studies trying to elucidate the influence of the suggested risk factors for RF have to be performed to stablish a consensus about the indications and contraindications of this reconstructive modality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Víctor Fuertes
- Department of Plastic Surgery, Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, Canada
| | - Mónica Francés
- Department of Plastic Surgery, University Hospital Dr. Negrín, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain
| | - José M Casarrubios
- Department of Plastic Surgery, University Hospital Dr. Negrín, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain
| | | | - Jesús María González
- Research Department, University Hospital Dr. Negrín, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain
| | - Juan Francisco Loro-Ferrer
- Clinical Pharmacology, Medicine School-University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Post-mastectomy immediate breast reconstruction and adjuvant radiotherapy: long term results of a mono institutional experience. Radiol Med 2020; 125:887-893. [DOI: 10.1007/s11547-020-01161-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/18/2019] [Accepted: 03/02/2020] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
|
26
|
Long-Term Results and Reconstruction Failure in Patients Receiving Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy with a Temporary Expander or Permanent Implant in Place. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020; 145:317-327. [DOI: 10.1097/prs.0000000000006441] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
|
27
|
Nava MB, Benson JR, Audretsch W, Blondeel P, Catanuto G, Clemens MW, Cordeiro PG, De Vita R, Hammond DC, Jassem J, Lozza L, Orecchia R, Pusic AL, Rancati A, Rezai M, Scaperrotta G, Spano A, Winters ZE, Rocco N. International multidisciplinary expert panel consensus on breast reconstruction and radiotherapy. Br J Surg 2019; 106:1327-1340. [PMID: 31318456 DOI: 10.1002/bjs.11256] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/18/2018] [Revised: 12/11/2018] [Accepted: 05/06/2019] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Conflicting evidence challenges clinical decision-making when breast reconstruction is considered in the context of radiotherapy. Current literature was evaluated and key statements on topical issues were generated and discussed by an expert panel at the International Oncoplastic Breast Surgery Meeting in Milan 2017. METHODS Studies on radiotherapy and breast reconstruction (1985 to September 2017) were screened using MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL. The literature review yielded 30 controversial key questions. A set of key statements was derived and the highest levels of clinical evidence (LoE) for each of these were summarized. Nineteen panellists convened for dedicated discussions at the International Oncoplastic Breast Surgery Meeting to express agreement, disagreement or abstention for the generated key statements. RESULTS The literature review identified 1522 peer-reviewed publications. A list of 22 key statements was produced, with the highest LoE recorded for each statement. These ranged from II to IV, with most statements (11 of 22, 50 per cent) supported by LoE III. There was full consensus for nine (41 per cent) of the 22 key statements, and more than 75 per cent agreement was reached for half (11 of 22). CONCLUSION Poor evidence exists on which to base patient-informed consent. Low-quality studies are conflicting with wide-ranging treatment options, precluding expert consensus regarding optimal type and timing of breast reconstruction in the context of radiotherapy. There is a need for high-quality evidence from prospective registries and randomized trials in this field.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M B Nava
- Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - J R Benson
- Cambridge Breast Unit, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.,School of Medicine, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge and Chelmsford, UK
| | - W Audretsch
- Department of Senology and Breast Surgery, Heinrich Heine University, Dusseldorf, Germany
| | - P Blondeel
- Department of Plastic Surgery, University Hospital Ghent, Ghent, Belgium
| | - G Catanuto
- Multidisciplinary Breast Unit, Azienda Ospedaliera Cannizzaro, Catania, Italy
| | - M W Clemens
- Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Unit, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - P G Cordeiro
- Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Weill Cornell Medicine and.,Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| | - R De Vita
- Department of Plastic Surgery, National Cancer Institute 'Regina Elena', Rome, Italy
| | - D C Hammond
- Partners in Plastic Surgery of West Michigan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
| | - J Jassem
- Department of Oncology and Radiotherapy, Medical University of Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland
| | - L Lozza
- Radiotherapy Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - R Orecchia
- Department of Radiotherapy, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy
| | - A L Pusic
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - A Rancati
- Oncoplastic Surgery, Instituto Henry Moore, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - M Rezai
- European Breast Centre, Dusseldorf, Germany
| | - G Scaperrotta
- Radiology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - A Spano
- Plastic Surgery Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - Z E Winters
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - N Rocco
- Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, University of Naples 'Federico II', Naples, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy (PMRT) before and after 2-Stage Expander-Implant Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2019; 55:medicina55060226. [PMID: 31146506 PMCID: PMC6630203 DOI: 10.3390/medicina55060226] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/22/2019] [Revised: 04/26/2019] [Accepted: 05/21/2019] [Indexed: 01/12/2023]
Abstract
Background: In those undergoing treatment for breast cancer, evidence has demonstrated a significant improvement in survival, and a reduction in the risk of local recurrence in patients who undergo postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). There is uncertainty about the optimal timing of PMRT, whether it should be before or after tissue expander or permanent implant placement. This study aimed to summarize the data reported in the literature on the effect of the timing of PMRT, both preceding and following 2-stage expander-implant breast reconstruction (IBR), and to statistically analyze the impact of timing on infection rates and the need for explantation. Methods: A comprehensive systematic review of the literature was conducted using the PubMed/Medline, Ovid, and Cochrane databases without timeframe limitations. Articles included in the analysis were those reporting outcomes data of PMRT in IBR published from 2009 to 2017. Chi-square statistical analysis was performed to compare infection and explantation rates between the two subgroups at p < 0.05. Results: A total of 11 studies met the inclusion criteria for this study. These studies reported outcomes data for 1565 total 2-stage expander-IBR procedures, where PMRT was used (1145 before, and 420 after, implant placement). There was a statistically significant higher likelihood of infection following pre-implant placement PMRT (21.03%, p = 0.000079), compared to PMRT after implant placement (9.69%). There was no difference in the rate of explantation between pre-implant placement PMRT (12.93%) and postimplant placement PMRT (11.43%). Conclusion: This study suggests that patients receiving PMRT before implant placement in 2-stage expander–implant based reconstruction may have a higher risk of developing an infection.
Collapse
|
29
|
De Rose F, Fogliata A, Franceschini D, Cozzi S, Iftode C, Stravato A, Tomatis S, Masci G, Torrisi R, Testori A, Tinterri C, Lisa AVE, Maione L, Vinci V, Klinger M, Santoro A, Scorsetti M. Postmastectomy radiation therapy using VMAT technique for breast cancer patients with expander reconstruction. Med Oncol 2019; 36:48. [PMID: 31028487 DOI: 10.1007/s12032-019-1275-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/01/2019] [Accepted: 04/19/2019] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
Postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) following immediate breast reconstruction is increasingly adopted in the management of breast cancer patients. We retrospectively evaluate the complication rates of PMRT using VMAT technique to immediate tissue expander-based reconstructions and the possible impact of tissue expander volume on radiotherapy planning. We reviewed the data of patients who underwent immediate expander breast reconstruction and received PMRT with VMAT (50 Gy in 25 fractions) on the reconstructed breast and axillary levels III-IV. Neoadjuvant or adjuvant systemic therapy was administered in most of the patients. Autologous fat grafting was routinely performed at the time of second-stage reconstruction. Between 2015 and 2017, PMRT was delivered to 46 consecutive patients (median age 50 years) with expander reconstruction. Median follow-up was 27 months (range 10-41). Two patients (4.3%) had a reconstruction failure, as expander rupture and infection, following the first- and the second-stage reconstruction, respectively. In most cases expanders were completely inflated before PMRT (65.2%). Median expander volume before PMRT was 425 cm3 (range 150-700 cm3). The amount of expander inflation did not significantly affect dosimetry, except for skin dose, with a surface receiving more than 30 Gy of 36.6 ± 0.9 cm2 and 47.0 ± 2.5 cm2 for a volume expander below or above the median, respectively. However, this variable was not predictor for complications. Disease progression was recorded in 15.2% of patients. PMRT using VMAT technique for breast cancer patients with expander reconstruction is associated with a very low complication rate. The expander volume before PMRT does not significantly compromise radiotherapy dose distribution.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fiorenza De Rose
- Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery Department, Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Rozzano, Italy
| | - Antonella Fogliata
- Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery Department, Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Rozzano, Italy.
| | - Davide Franceschini
- Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery Department, Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Rozzano, Italy
| | - Salvatore Cozzi
- Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery Department, Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Rozzano, Italy
| | - Cristina Iftode
- Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery Department, Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Rozzano, Italy
| | - Antonella Stravato
- Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery Department, Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Rozzano, Italy
| | - Stefano Tomatis
- Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery Department, Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Rozzano, Italy
| | - Giovanna Masci
- Medical Oncology Department, Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Rozzano, Italy
| | - Rosalba Torrisi
- Medical Oncology Department, Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Rozzano, Italy
| | - Alberto Testori
- Breast Surgery Department, Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Rozzano, Italy
| | - Corrado Tinterri
- Breast Surgery Department, Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Rozzano, Italy
| | - Andrea V E Lisa
- Plastic Surgery Department, Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Rozzano, Italy
| | - Luca Maione
- Plastic Surgery Department, Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Rozzano, Italy
| | - Valeriano Vinci
- Plastic Surgery Department, Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Rozzano, Italy
| | - Marco Klinger
- Plastic Surgery Department, Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Rozzano, Italy
| | - Armando Santoro
- Medical Oncology Department, Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Rozzano, Italy.,Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Rozzano, Italy
| | - Marta Scorsetti
- Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery Department, Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Rozzano, Italy.,Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Rozzano, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Ho AY, Hu ZI, Mehrara BJ, Wilkins EG. Radiotherapy in the setting of breast reconstruction: types, techniques, and timing. Lancet Oncol 2017; 18:e742-e753. [DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(17)30617-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 107] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/24/2017] [Revised: 07/06/2017] [Accepted: 07/17/2017] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
|
31
|
Abstract
With the indications for radiation therapy in the treatment of breast cancer continuing to expand, many patients present for reconstruction having previously had radiation or having a high likelihood of requiring radiation following mastectomy. Both situations are challenging for the plastic surgeon, with different variables impacting the surgical outcome. To date, multiple studies have been performed examining prosthetic and autologous reconstruction in this setting. The purpose of this article was to provide a general platform for understanding the literature as it relates to reconstruction and radiation through an examination of recent systematic reviews and relevant recent publications. We examined this with a focus on the timing of the radiation, and within this context, examined the data from the traditional surgical outcomes standpoint as well as from a patient-reported outcomes perspective. The data provided within will aid in patient counseling and the informed consent process.
Collapse
|