-
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Oct 2022No meta-analysis has examined whether contralateral prophylactic mastectomy increases complication risk for unilateral breast cancer patients undergoing unilateral... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
No meta-analysis has examined whether contralateral prophylactic mastectomy increases complication risk for unilateral breast cancer patients undergoing unilateral mastectomy.
METHODS
Fifteen studies on complications of unilateral mastectomy plus contralateral prophylactic mastectomy met inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses compared complications of (1) diseased versus contralateral breasts in unilateral plus contralateral prophylactic mastectomy patients and (2) patients undergoing unilateral plus contralateral prophylactic mastectomy versus unilateral alone when grouped by reconstructive method.
RESULTS
For all unilateral plus contralateral prophylactic mastectomy patients, the diseased breast was significantly more prone to complications versus the contralateral breast (relative risk, 1.24; p = 0.03). In studies that stratified by reconstructive method, the complication risk was significantly higher for unilateral plus contralateral prophylactic mastectomy versus unilateral mastectomy alone for patients with no reconstruction (relative risk, 2.03; p = 0.0003), prosthetic-based reconstruction (relative risk,1.42; p = 0.003), and autologous reconstruction (relative risk, 1.32; p = 0.005). The only prospective trial showed similar results, including for more severe complications. Smaller retrospective studies without stratification by reconstructive method showed similar complications for unilateral plus contralateral prophylactic mastectomy versus unilateral mastectomy alone (relative risk, 1.06; p = 0.70). These groups had similar incidences of complication-related delay in adjuvant therapy, as demonstrated by one study.
CONCLUSIONS
After unilateral plus contralateral prophylactic mastectomy, diseased breasts are at higher risk for complications. Stronger evidence supports higher complication risk for unilateral plus contralateral prophylactic mastectomy than unilateral alone. More work is needed to determine the effect of complications on timing of adjuvant therapy.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Mammaplasty; Mastectomy; Prophylactic Mastectomy; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 35943952
DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000009493 -
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Sep 2020We performed a systematic review to document the spatial location of local recurrences (LR) after mastectomy. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
We performed a systematic review to document the spatial location of local recurrences (LR) after mastectomy.
METHODS
A PubMed search was conducted in August 2019 for the following terms: breast [Title/Abstract] AND cancer [Title/Abstract] AND recurrence [Title/Abstract] AND mastectomy [Title/Abstract]. The search was filtered for English language. Exclusion criteria included studies that did not specify the LR location or studies reporting LR associated with inflammatory breast cancer, or other breast cancers such as phyllodes tumours, lymphoma or associated with sarcoma/angiosarcoma.
RESULTS
A total of 3922 titles were identified, of which 21 publications were eligible for inclusion in the final analysis. A total of 6901 mastectomy patients were included (range 25-1694). The mean LR proportion was 3.5%. Among the total of 351 LR lesions, 81.8% were in the subcutaneous tissue and the skin, while 16% were pectoral muscle recurrences.
CONCLUSION
Local recurrences are mostly located within the subcutaneous tissue and the skin, assumed to result from unrecognized/subclinical tumour foci left behind after mastectomy, surgical implantation of tumour cells in the wound/scar and/or tumour emboli within the subcutaneous lymphatics. Pectoral muscle recurrences are less frequent and may be attributed to residual disease along the posterior surgical margin and/or lymphatic involvement.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Mastectomy; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Neoplasm Staging; Neoplasms, Multiple Primary
PubMed: 32661665
DOI: 10.1007/s10549-020-05774-4 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Sep 2022: Lipofilling is a commonly performed procedure worldwide for breast augmentation and correction of breast contour deformities. In breast reconstruction, fat grafting... (Review)
Review
: Lipofilling is a commonly performed procedure worldwide for breast augmentation and correction of breast contour deformities. In breast reconstruction, fat grafting has been used as a single reconstructive technique, as well as in combination with other procedures. The aim of the present study is to systematically review available studies in the literature describing the combination of implant-based breast reconstruction and fat grafting, focusing on safety, complications rate, surgical sessions needed to reach a satisfying reconstruction, and patient-reported outcomes. : We adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) throughout the whole review protocol. A systematic review of the literature up to April 2022 was performed using Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Only studies dealing with implant-based breast reconstruction combined with fat grafting were included. : We screened 292 articles by title and abstract. Only 48 articles were assessed for full-text eligibility, and among those, 12 studies were eventually selected. We included a total of 753 breast reconstructions in 585 patients undergoing mastectomy or demolitive breast surgeries other than mastectomy (quadrantectomy, segmentectomy, or lumpectomy) due to breast cancer or genetic predisposition to breast cancer. Overall, the number of complications was 60 (7.9%). The mean volume of fat grafting per breast per session ranged from 59 to 313 mL. The mean number of lipofilling sessions per breast ranged from 1.3 to 3.2. : Hybrid breast reconstruction shows similar short-term complications to standard implant-based reconstruction but with the potential to significantly decrease the risk of long-term complications. Moreover, patient satisfaction was achieved with a reasonably low number of lipofilling sessions (1.7 on average).
Topics: Adipose Tissue; Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Mammaplasty; Mastectomy; Mastectomy, Segmental; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 36143908
DOI: 10.3390/medicina58091232 -
Patient Education and Counseling Dec 2017A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies, to describe patient satisfaction and regret associated with risk-reducing mastectomies (RRM), and the... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies, to describe patient satisfaction and regret associated with risk-reducing mastectomies (RRM), and the patient-reported factors associated with these among women at high risk of developing breast cancer.
METHODS
Studies were identified using Medline, CINAHL, Embase and PsycInfo databases (1995-2016). Data were extracted and crosschecked for accuracy. Article quality was assessed using standardised criteria.
RESULTS
Of the 1657 unique articles identified, 30 studies met the inclusion criteria (n=23 quantitative studies, n=3 qualitative studies, n=4 mixed-method studies). Studies included were cross-sectional (n=23) or retrospective (n=7). General satisfaction with RRM, decision satisfaction and aesthetic satisfaction were generally high, although some women expressed regret around their decision and dissatisfaction with their appearance. Factors associated with both patient satisfaction and regret included: post-operative complications, body image changes, psychological distress and perceived inadequacy of information.
CONCLUSION
While satisfaction with RRM was generally high, some women had regrets and expressed dissatisfaction. Future research is needed to further explore RRM, and to investigate current satisfaction trends given the ongoing improvements to surgical and clinical practice.
PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS
Offering pre-operative preparation, decisional support and continuous psychological input may help to facilitate satisfaction with this complex procedure.
Topics: Body Image; Breast Neoplasms; Decision Making; Emotions; Female; Humans; Mastectomy; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Patient Satisfaction; Personal Satisfaction
PubMed: 28732648
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2017.06.032 -
World Journal of Surgery Jul 2018To carry out a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to determine whether different type of surgery induces different depression occurrence in female... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
To carry out a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to determine whether different type of surgery induces different depression occurrence in female breast cancer at mean time more than 1-year term postoperatively.
METHODS
A systematic literature search of PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, OvidSP, EBSCO and PsycARTICLES was conducted. Observational clinical studies that compared the depression incidence in different surgery groups and presented empirical findings were selected.
RESULTS
Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria, including 5, 4, 2 and 5 studies compared depression between total mastectomy (TM) and breast conserving therapy (BCS), TM and breast reconstruction (BR), BCS and BR, or among all three groups (TM, BCS and BR), respectively. Only 1 of 5 studies, which subjected to multivariate analysis of depression in female breast cancer, reported a statistically significant effect of type of surgery on depression occurrence. Our meta-analysis showed no significant differences among the three types of surgery, with BCS patients versus TM patients (relative risk [RR] = 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.78-1.01; P = 0.06), BR patients versus TM patients (RR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.71-1.06; P = 0.16) and BCS patients versus BR patients (RR = 1.10; 95% CI 0.89-1.35; P = 0.37), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Our study showed that there were no statistically significant differences concerning the occurrence of depressive symptoms in breast cancer patients as a consequence of TM, BCS or BR at mean time more than 1-year term postoperatively.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Depression; Female; Humans; Mammaplasty; Mastectomy, Segmental; Mastectomy, Simple
PubMed: 29426972
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-018-4477-1 -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... Jul 2022The use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) and mesh reopened the possibility for the prepectoral single-stage breast reconstruction (PBR). The complications of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) and mesh reopened the possibility for the prepectoral single-stage breast reconstruction (PBR). The complications of single-stage breast reconstruction after PRB are controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of implant plane on single-stage breast reconstruction. Our aim was to evaluate the different postoperative complications between patients receiving prepectoral breast reconstruction and subpectoral breast reconstruction (SBR) on single-stage breast reconstruction.
METHODS
A comprehensive research on databases including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries was performed to retrieve literature evaluating the effect of implant plane on single-stage breast reconstruction from 2010 to 2020. All included studies were evaluated the complications after single-stage breast reconstruction. Only studies comparing patients who underwent prepectoral reconstruction with a control group who underwent subpectoral reconstruction were included.
RESULTS
A total of 13 studies were included in the meta-analysis, with a total of 1724 patients. In general, compared with SBR group, the PBR significantly reduced the risk of total complications (including seroma, hematoma, necrosis, wound dehiscence, infection, capsular contraction, implant loss/remove, and rippling) after single-stage breast reconstruction (OR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.44-0.67, p < 0.001). Compared with the SBR group, the PBR had remarkably decreased capsular contracture (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.27-0.58, p < 0.001) and postoperative infection (OR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.36-0.95, p = 0.03).
CONCLUSION
The PBR is a safe single-stage breast reconstruction with fewer postoperative complications. It is an alternative surgical method for SBR.
Topics: Breast Implantation; Breast Implants; Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Mammaplasty; Mastectomy; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 35182228
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-022-06919-5 -
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Jul 2023Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) has emerged as an alternative procedure for skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM), followed by immediate breast reconstruction. Because oncologic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) has emerged as an alternative procedure for skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM), followed by immediate breast reconstruction. Because oncologic safety appears similar, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and complication risks may guide decision-making in individual patients. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to compare PROs and complication rates after NSM and SSM.
METHODS
A systematic literature review evaluating NSM versus SSM was performed using the Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases. Methodologic quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Form for Cohort Studies. Primary outcomes were PROs and complications. Studies that evaluated BREAST-Q scores were used to perform meta-analyses on five BREAST-Q domains.
RESULTS
Thirteen comparative studies including 3895 patients were selected from 1202 articles found. Meta-analyses of the BREAST-Q domains showed a significant mean difference of 7.64 in the Sexual Well-being domain ( P = 0.01) and 4.71 in the Psychosocial Well-being domain ( P = 0.03), both in favor of NSM. Using the specifically designed questionnaires, no differences in overall satisfaction scores were found. There were no differences in overall complication rates between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Patient satisfaction scores were high after both NSM and SSM; however, NSM led to a higher sexual and psychosocial well-being. No differences in complication rates were found. In combination with other factors, such as oncologic treatments, complication risk profile, and fear of cancer recurrence, the decision for NSM or SSM has to be made on an individual basis and only if NSM is considered to be oncologically safe.
Topics: Humans; Female; Mastectomy; Nipples; Quality of Life; Breast Neoplasms; Mammaplasty; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 36728484
DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000010155 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2016The efficacy and safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy and areola-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of breast cancer are still questionable. It is estimated that the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The efficacy and safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy and areola-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of breast cancer are still questionable. It is estimated that the local recurrence rates following nipple-sparing mastectomy are very similar to breast-conserving surgery followed by radiotherapy.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy and areola-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer in women.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase (via OVID) and LILACS (via Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde [BVS]) using the search terms "nipple sparing mastectomy" and "areola-sparing mastectomy". Also, we searched the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov. All searches were conducted on 30th September 2014 and we did not apply any language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) however if there were no RCTs, we expanded our criteria to include non-randomised comparative studies (cohort and case-control studies). Studies evaluated nipple-sparing and areola-sparing mastectomy compared to modified radical mastectomy or skin-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive breast cancer.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (BS and RR) performed data extraction and resolved disagreements. We performed descriptive analyses and meta-analyses of the data using Review Manager software. We used Cochrane's risk of bias tool to assess studies, and adapted it for non-randomised studies, and we evaluated the quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 cohort studies, evaluating a total of 6502 participants undergoing 7018 procedures: 2529 underwent a nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM), 818 underwent skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) and 3671 underwent traditional mastectomy, also known as modified radical mastectomy (MRM). No participants underwent areola-sparing mastectomy. There was a high risk of confounding for all reported outcomes. For overall survival, the hazard ratio (HR) for NSM compared to SSM was 0.70 (95% CI 0.28 to 1.73; 2 studies; 781 participants) and the HR for NSM compared to MRM was 0.72 (95% CI 0.46 to 1.13; 2 studies, 1202 participants). Local recurrence was evaluated in two studies, the HR for NSM compared to MRM was 0.28 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.68; 2 studies, 1303 participants). The overall risk of complications was different in NSM when compared to other types of mastectomy in general (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.82, 2 studies, P = 0.03; 1067 participants). With respect to skin necrosis, there was no evidence of a difference with NSM compared to other types of mastectomy, but the confidence interval was wide (RR 4.22, 95% CI 0.59 to 30.03, P = 0.15; 4 studies, 1948 participants). We observed no difference among the three types of mastectomy with respect to the risk of local infection (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.09, P = 0.91, 2 studies; 496 participants). Meta-analysis was not possible when assessing cosmetic outcomes and quality of life, but in general the NSM studies reported a favourable aesthetic result and a gain in quality of life compared with the other types of mastectomy. The quality of evidence was considered very low for all outcomes due to the high risk of selection bias and wide confidence intervals.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The findings from these observational studies of very low-quality evidence were inconclusive for all outcomes due to the high risk of selection bias.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating; Cohort Studies; Female; Humans; Mastectomy; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Nipples; Organ Sparing Treatments; Postoperative Complications; Skin
PubMed: 27898991
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008932.pub3 -
Gland Surgery Jun 2021This study aimed to describe the locations of local recurrences based on the mastectomy and reconstruction type in breast cancer patients. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This study aimed to describe the locations of local recurrences based on the mastectomy and reconstruction type in breast cancer patients.
METHODS
In November 2020, a systematic literature review was performed through MEDLINE/PubMed and the Cochrane Centre Register of Controlled Trials. Publications that included skin-sparing or nipple-sparing mastectomy followed by breast reconstruction and described the location of local recurrences were analyzed. Exclusion criteria included salvage or prophylactic mastectomy, unclear distinction between local and regional recurrences, rare tumor types.
RESULTS
From 19 publications, 272 local recurrences lesions were reported in a total of 4,787 patients. After autologous reconstruction (n=2,465), local recurrences were located in the skin in 45 (1.8%) patients, in the chest wall in 18 (0.7%), and in the nipple-areolar complex in 9 (0.4%). After implant reconstruction (n=1,917), local recurrences sites included the skin in 91 (4.7%) patients, chest wall in 8 (0.4%), and nipple-areolar complex in 8 (0.4%). Of the 70 lesions with reported in-breast location, 57 (81.4%) relapsed in the original tumor location.
DISCUSSION
Although meta-analysis was not conducted, present analysis demonstrated that most local recurrences after skin-sparing or nipple-sparing mastectomy occurred within the skin or subcutaneous tissues. It was found that the original tumor location was the most frequent site of relapse. Therefore, special attention should be paid to the original tumor overlying the skin while planning postmastectomy radiation therapy.
PubMed: 34268088
DOI: 10.21037/gs-21-15 -
La Radiologia Medica Mar 2017To perform a meta-analysis to determine the effect of radiotherapy (RT) on nipple-areolar complex (NAC) and skin flap necrosis, and local recurrence in women who undergo... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To perform a meta-analysis to determine the effect of radiotherapy (RT) on nipple-areolar complex (NAC) and skin flap necrosis, and local recurrence in women who undergo nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) and immediate breast reconstruction.
METHODS
Medline, PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases were searched until October 16, 2015. Randomized-controlled-trials, prospective, retrospective, and cohort studies were included. The primary outcome was the NAC necrosis rate, and the secondary outcomes were the skin flap necrosis and local recurrence rates.
RESULTS
Of 186 studies identified, 2 prospective and 5 retrospective studies including a total of 3692 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Five, 3, and 2 studies reported data of NAC necrosis (3461 breasts), skin flap necrosis (2490 breasts), and local recurrence (988 breasts), respectively. Pooled results showed no difference in the odds of NAC necrosis [odds ratio (OR) = 1.250, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.481-3.247, P = 0.647], or local recurrence (OR = 0.564, 95% CI 0.056-5.710, P = 0.627) between patients who received and did not receive RT. Patients treated with RT had a higher likelihood of skin flap necrosis (OR = 2.534, 95% CI 1.720-3.735, P < 0.001). Significant heterogeneity, however, was noted in the analysis of NAC and local recurrence.
CONCLUSIONS
Because of the limitations of the small number of studies and heterogeneity in the analysis, this study does not allow drawing any definitive conclusions and highlights the need of well-controlled trials to determine the effect of RT in patients undergoing NSM.
Topics: Adult; Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Mammaplasty; Mastectomy; Middle Aged; Necrosis; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Nipples; Odds Ratio; Organ Sparing Treatments; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Radiation Injuries; Radiotherapy; Sensitivity and Specificity; Surgical Flaps
PubMed: 28000160
DOI: 10.1007/s11547-016-0702-x