Ten-year trend analysis of breast cancer, oncoplastic, and reconstructive breast surgery in a single institution (2010-2019), what has not changed?

PURPOSE

There has been a UK national directive to ensure that patients are offered reconstructive surgical options. We aimed to assess any change in oncoplastic practice over a 10-year period.

METHODS

The surgical management of 7019 breast cancers was retrospectively assessed at Nightingale Breast Centre, Manchester University UK, from 2010 to 2019. The procedures were categorised into breast conservative surgery (BCS) and mastectomy ± immediate reconstruction. The data were analysed using inclusion and exclusion criteria.

RESULTS

The overall rates of BCS and mastectomy were 60.1% and 39.9% respectively. No statistically significant change in the overall rates of BCS or mastectomy was observed over the last decade (p = 0.08). The rate of simple wide local excision (WLE) decreased from 98.7% to 89.3% (p < 0.001), whilst the rate of therapeutic mammoplasty (TM) increased from 1.3% to 8% (p < 0.01). The rate of chest wall perforator flaps (CWPF) changed from zero to account for 2.7% of all BCS by 2019. The overall rate of immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) did not significantly change over the study period, but it consistently remained above the national average of 27%. The rate of implant-based IBR increased from 61.3% to 76.5% (p = 0.012), whilst the rate of Latissimus Dorsi (LD) reconstruction decreased from 26.7% to 5.1% (p < 0.05). Additionally, the rate of nipple-sparing mastectomy significantly increased from 5.2% to 24%.

CONCLUSION

No significant changes in the overall rates of BCS was observed, the rates of advanced breast conservation techniques, nipple-sparing mastectomy, and implant-based IBR all have increased, whilst the use of LD reconstruction decreased.

Transaxillary Single-Port Endoscopic Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy with Immediate Implant-based Breast Reconstruction in Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy or Not: A Comparative Study with Analysis of Surgical Complications and Patient-Reported Outcomes

BACKGROUND

In most cases, transaxillary single-port endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (E-NSM-IIBR) is conducted in patients with early-stage breast cancer, ensuring surgical safety while achieving improved breast aesthetics. However, whether E-NSM-IIBR is appropriate in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is still unclear. The aim of this study was to report the surgical safety and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of breast cancer patients who underwent E-NSM-IIBR with NAC in comparison to those who did not receive NAC.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients who underwent E-NSM-IIBR with or without NAC at a single center between January 2021 and July 2022. Patient demographics, postoperative complications, and PROs evaluated using the BREAST-Q version 2.0 questionnaire were compared between the two groups. Factors associated with PROs at 9 months after surgery were assessed with linear regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 92 patients who underwent E-NSM-IIBR were included in the study, with 27 patients receiving NAC and 65 patients not receiving NAC. There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between the two groups. The BREAST-Q version 2.0 questionnaire was completed by 24 out of 27 patients (88.9%) in the NAC group and 59 out of 65 patients (90.8%) in the non-NAC group at 9 months after surgery. The patient-reported outcomes in various domains of the BREAST-Q did not show a significant difference between the two cohorts. The results of the multiple linear regression analysis indicated that in the both groups age (β = - 0.985, 95% CI - 1.598 to - 0.371, p = 0.003 in the NAC group; β = - 0.510, - 1.011 to - 0.009, p = 0.046 in the non-NAC group) and rippling (β = - 21.862, - 36.768 to - 6.955, p = 0.006 in the NAC group; β = - 7.787, - 15.151 to - 0.423, p = 0.039 in the non-NAC group) significantly impacted the patients' satisfaction with breasts, and PMRT was negatively associated with patients' physical well-being of chest (β = - 13.813, - 26.962 to - 0.664, p = 0.040 in the NAC group; β = - 18.574, - 30.661 to - 6.487, p = 0.003 in the non-NAC group). Our findings revealed that patients with larger implant volumes had higher scores in psychosocial well-being (β = 0.082, 0.001 to 0.162, p = 0.047), whereas implant displacement (β = - 14.937, - 28.175 to - 1.700, p=0.028) had a negative impact on patients' psychological well-being in the non-NAC group. However, our results did not demonstrate any significant influencing factors on patients' psychosocial well-being within the NAC group.

CONCLUSION

Our preliminary experiences confirm that E-NSM-IIBR is a safe option for selected patients even after NAC, with favorable patient-reported outcomes comparable with those in the primary surgery setting. The postoperative long-term outcomes of patients who undergo radiation therapy after NAC merit further investigation 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 .