-
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 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2023Occult breast cancer (OBC) is a rare malignant breast tumor. Because of the rare cases and limited clinical experience, a huge therapeutic difference has existed all...
OBJECTIVES
Occult breast cancer (OBC) is a rare malignant breast tumor. Because of the rare cases and limited clinical experience, a huge therapeutic difference has existed all over the world and standardized treatments have yet been established.
METHODS
A meta-analysis was conducted using MEDLINE and Embase databases to identify the choice of OBC surgical procedures in all studies: (1) patients undergoing axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) or sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) only; (2) patients undergoing ALND with radiotherapy (RT); (3) patients undergoing ALND with breast surgery (BS); (4) patients undergoing ALND with RT and BS; and (5) patients undergoing observation or RT only. The primary endpoints were mortality rates, the second endpoints were distant metastasis and locoregional recurrence.
RESULTS
Among the 3,476 patients, 493 (14.2%) undergo ALND or SLNB only; 632 (18.2%) undergo ALND with RT; 1483 (42.7%) undergo ALND with BS; 467 (13.4%) undergo ALND RT and BS, and 401 (11.5%) undergo observation or RT only. After comparing the multiple groups, both groups 1 and 3 have higher mortality rates than group 4 (30.7% vs. 18.6%, p < 0.0001; 25.1% vs. 18.6%, p = 0.007), and group 1 has higher mortality rates than groups 2 and 3 (30.7% vs.14.7%, p < 0.00001; 30.7 vs. 19.4%, p < 0.0001). Group (1 + 3) had a prognosis advantage over group 5 (21.4% vs. 31.0%, p < 0.00001). There was no significant difference both in the distant recurrence rates and locoregional rates between group (1 + 3) and group (2 + 4) (21.0% vs. 9.7%, p = 0.06; 12.3% vs. 6.5%, p = 0.26).
CONCLUSION
On the basis of this meta-analysis, our study indicates that BS including modified radical mastectomy (MRM) and breast-conserving surgery (BCS) combined RT may appear as the optimal surgical approach in patients with OBC. RT cannot prolong both the time of distant metastasis and the local recurrences.
PubMed: 37251927
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1051232 -
BJS Open Aug 2018The clinical effectiveness of treating ipsilateral multifocal (MF) and multicentric (MC) breast cancers using breast-conserving surgery (BCS) compared with the standard... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The clinical effectiveness of treating ipsilateral multifocal (MF) and multicentric (MC) breast cancers using breast-conserving surgery (BCS) compared with the standard of mastectomy is uncertain. Inconsistencies relate to definitions, incidence, staging and intertumoral heterogeneity. The primary aim of this systematic review was to compare clinical outcomes after BCS versus mastectomy for MF and MC cancers, collectively defined as multiple ipsilateral breast cancers (MIBC).
METHODS
Comprehensive electronic searches were undertaken to identify complete papers published in English between May 1988 and July 2015, primarily comparing clinical outcomes of BCS and mastectomy for MIBC. All study designs were included, and studies were appraised critically using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The characteristics and results of identified studies were summarized.
RESULTS
Twenty-four retrospective studies were included in the review: 17 comparative studies and seven case series. They included 3537 women with MIBC undergoing BCS; breast cancers were defined as MF in 2677 women, MC in 292, and reported as MIBC in 568. Six studies evaluated MIBC treated by BCS or mastectomy, with locoregional recurrence (LRR) rates of 2-23 per cent after BCS at median follow-up of 59·5 (i.q.r. 56-81) months. BCS and mastectomy showed apparently equivalent rates of LRR (risk ratio 0·94, 95 per cent c.i. 0·65 to 1·36). Thirteen studies compared BCS in women with MIBC versus those with unifocal cancers, reporting LRR rates of 2-40 per cent after BCS at a median follow-up of 64 (i.q.r. 57-73) months. One high-quality study reported 10-year actuarial LRR rates of 5·5 per cent for BCS in 300 women versus 6·5 per cent for mastectomy among 887 women.
CONCLUSION
The available studies were mainly of moderate quality, historical and underpowered, with limited follow-up and biased case selection favouring BCS rather than mastectomy for low-risk patients. The evidence was inconclusive, weakening support for the St Gallen consensus and supporting a future randomized trial.
PubMed: 30079385
DOI: 10.1002/bjs5.53 -
Breast Cancer (Dove Medical Press) 2021The aim of this systematic review is to update and synthesize new evidence on BREAST-Q questionnaire's ability to reflect patient-reported outcomes in women who have... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The aim of this systematic review is to update and synthesize new evidence on BREAST-Q questionnaire's ability to reflect patient-reported outcomes in women who have undergone breast reconstruction surgery (BRS) following mastectomy.
METHODS
PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Clincaltrial.gov were searched for relevant studies from January 2009 to September 2021. Any interventional or observational studies that used BREAST-Q to assess patient-reported outcomes in the assessment of BRS following mastectomy were included.
RESULTS
A total of 42 studies were eligible for inclusion in the review. Three were randomized controlled trials and 39 were observational studies. Compared with pre-operative scores, there was an improvement in all BREAST-Q outcome domains following BRS including 'satisfaction with breasts', "satisfaction with outcome" "psychosocial", "physical", and "sexual wellbeing". Sexual well-being had the lowest BREAST-Q score both pre-and post-operatively (37.8-80.0 and 39.0-78.0, respectively). Autologous BRS reports higher satisfaction and overall wellbeing compared to implant-based BRS. BREAST-Q has a higher and narrow internal consistency of 0.81 to 0.96 compared with other patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs; EORTC-QLQ, FACT-B, BR-23, BCTOS). The BREAST-Q questionnaire is the only PROM which allows patients to reflect on their care, surgical outcomes, and satisfaction collectively.
CONCLUSION
This review highlights the fact that BREAST-Q can effectively and reliably measure satisfaction and wellbeing of breast cancer patients after BRS. Comparatively, sexual wellbeing shows poorer outcomes following BRS and more longitudinal studies are necessary to understand the basis for these findings. Compared to other PROMs, BREAST-Q is reliable and specific to breast cancer surgery. Overall, BREAST-Q can help clinicians improve their quality of service, understand patient experiences, and may be used as an auditing tool for surgical outcomes.
PubMed: 34938118
DOI: 10.2147/BCTT.S256393 -
Breast Cancer (Dove Medical Press) 2016Mastectomy and breast-conserving surgery (BCS) are important treatment options for breast cancer patients. A previous meta-analysis demonstrated that the risk of certain... (Review)
Review
A systematic review and meta-analysis of Harmonic technology compared with conventional techniques in mastectomy and breast-conserving surgery with lymphadenectomy for breast cancer.
BACKGROUND
Mastectomy and breast-conserving surgery (BCS) are important treatment options for breast cancer patients. A previous meta-analysis demonstrated that the risk of certain complications can be reduced with the Harmonic technology compared with conventional methods in mastectomy. However, the meta-analysis did not include studies of BCS patients and focused on a subset of surgical complications. The objective of this study was to compare Harmonic technology and conventional techniques for a range of clinical outcomes and complications in both mastectomy and BCS patients, including axillary lymph node dissection.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was performed for randomized controlled trials comparing Harmonic technology and conventional methods in breast cancer surgery. Outcome measures included blood loss, drainage volume, total complications, seroma, necrosis, wound infections, ecchymosis, hematoma, hospital length of stay, and operating time. Risk of bias was analyzed for all studies. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effects models for mean differences of continuous variables and a fixed-effects model for risk ratios of dichotomous variables.
RESULTS
Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. Across surgery types, compared to conventional techniques, Harmonic technology reduced total complications by 52% (P=0.002), seroma by 46% (P<0.0001), necrosis by 49% (P=0.04), postoperative chest wall drainage by 46% (P=0.0005), blood loss by 38% (P=0.0005), and length of stay by 22% (P=0.007). Although benefits generally appeared greatest in mastectomy patients with lymph node dissection, Harmonic technology showed significant reductions in complications in the BCS study subgroup.
CONCLUSION
In this meta-analysis of both mastectomy and BCS procedures, the use of Harmonic technology reduced the risk of most complications by about half across breast cancer surgery patients. These benefits may be due to superior hemostatic capabilities of Harmonic technology and better dissection, particularly lymph node dissection. Reduction in complications and other resource outcomes may engender lower downstream health care costs.
PubMed: 27486342
DOI: 10.2147/BCTT.S110461 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2023Continual improvement in adjuvant therapies has resulted in a better prognosis for women diagnosed with breast cancer. A surrogate marker used to detect the spread of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Continual improvement in adjuvant therapies has resulted in a better prognosis for women diagnosed with breast cancer. A surrogate marker used to detect the spread of disease after treatment of breast cancer is local and regional recurrence. The risk of local and regional recurrence after mastectomy increases with the number of axillary lymph nodes affected by cancer. There is a consensus to use radiotherapy as an adjuvant treatment after mastectomy (postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT)) in women diagnosed with breast cancer and found to have disease in four or more positive axillary lymph nodes. Despite data showing almost double the risk of local and regional recurrence in women treated with mastectomy and found to have one to three positive lymph nodes, there is a lack of international consensus on the use of PMRT in this group.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of PMRT in women diagnosed with early breast cancer and found to have one to three positive axillary lymph nodes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov up to 24 September 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The inclusion criteria included women diagnosed with breast cancer treated with simple or modified radical mastectomy and axillary surgery (sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) alone or those undergoing axillary lymph node clearance with or without prior SLNB). We included only women receiving PMRT using X-rays (electron and photon radiation), and we defined the radiotherapy dose to reflect what is currently being recommended (i.e. 40 Gray (Gy) to 50 Gy in 15 to 25/28 fractions in 3 to 5 weeks. The included studies did not administer any boost to the tumour bed. In this review, we excluded studies using neoadjuvant chemotherapy as a supportive treatment before surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used Covidence to screen records. We collected data on tumour characteristics, adjuvant treatments and the outcomes of local and regional recurrence, overall survival, disease-free survival, time to progression, short- and long-term adverse events and quality of life. We reported on time-to-event outcome measures using the hazard ratio (HR) and subdistribution HR. We used Cochrane's risk of bias tool (RoB 1), and we presented overall certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
The RCTs included in this review were subgroup analyses of original RCTs conducted in the 1980s to assess the effectiveness of PMRT. Hence, the type and duration of adjuvant systemic treatments used in the studies included in this review were suboptimal compared to the current standard of care. The review involved three RCTs with a total of 829 women diagnosed with breast cancer and low-volume axillary disease. Amongst the included studies, only a single study pertained to the modern-day radiotherapy practice. The results from this one study showed a reduction of local and regional recurrence (HR 0.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 0.33, 1 study, 522 women; low-certainty evidence) and improvement in overall survival with PMRT (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.97, 1 study, 522 women; moderate-certainty evidence). One of the other studies using radiotherapy techniques that do not reflect modern-day practice reported on disease-free survival in women with low-volume axillary disease (subdistribution HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.96, 1 study, 173 women). None of the included studies reported on PMRT side effects or quality-of-life outcome measures.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on one study, the use of PMRT in women diagnosed with breast cancer and low-volume axillary disease indicated a reduction in locoregional recurrence and an improvement in survival. There is a need for more research to be conducted using modern-day radiotherapy equipment and methods to support and supplement the review findings.
Topics: Female; Humans; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Breast Neoplasms; Combined Modality Therapy; Mastectomy; Lymph Nodes
PubMed: 37327075
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014463.pub2 -
Cancer Oct 2022Oncological safety of different types and timings of PMBR after breast cancer remains controversial. Lack of stratified risk assessment in literature makes current... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Oncological safety of different types and timings of PMBR after breast cancer remains controversial. Lack of stratified risk assessment in literature makes current clinical and shared decision-making complex. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate differences in oncological outcomes after immediate versus delayed postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR) for autologous and implant-based PMBR separately.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase. The Cochrane Collaboration Handbook and Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist were followed for data abstraction. Variability in point estimates attributable to heterogeneity was assessed using I -statistic. (Loco)regional breast cancer recurrence rates, distant metastasis rates, and overall breast cancer recurrence rates were pooled in generalized linear mixed models using random effects.
RESULTS
Fifty-five studies, evaluating 14,217 patients, were included. When comparing immediate versus delayed autologous PMBR, weighted average proportions were: 0.03 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02-0.03) versus 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01-0.04), respectively, for local recurrences, 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01-0.03) versus 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01-0.03) for regional recurrences, and 0.04 (95% CI, 0.03-0.06) versus 0.01 (95% CI, 0.00-0.03) for locoregional recurrences. No statistically significant differences in weighted average proportions for local, regional and locoregional recurrence rates were observed between immediate and delayed autologous PMBR. Data did not allow comparing weighted average proportions of distant metastases and total breast cancer recurrences after autologous PMBR, and of all outcome measures after implant-based PMBR.
CONCLUSIONS
Delayed autologous PMBR leads to similar (loco)regional breast cancer recurrence rates compared to immediate autologous PMBR. This study highlights the paucity of strong evidence on breast cancer recurrence after specific types and timings of PMBR.
LAY SUMMERY
Oncologic safety of different types and timings of postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR) remains controversial. Lack of stratified risk assessment in literature makes clinical and shared decision-making complex. This meta-analysis showed that delayed autologous PMBR leads to similar (loco)regional recurrence rates as immediate autologous PMBR. Data did not allow comparing weighted average proportions of distant metastases and total breast cancer recurrence after autologous PMBR, and of all outcome measures after implant-based PMBR. Based on current evidence, oncological concerns do not seem a valid reason to withhold patients from certain reconstructive timings or techniques, and patients should equally be offered all reconstructive options they technically qualify for.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Mammaplasty; Mastectomy; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Transplantation, Autologous
PubMed: 35894936
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.34393 -
Journal of Perianesthesia Nursing :... Apr 2023To summarize and analyze available evidence on perioperative accelerated rehabilitation programs for patients diagnosed with breast cancer that have had a radical... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To summarize and analyze available evidence on perioperative accelerated rehabilitation programs for patients diagnosed with breast cancer that have had a radical mastectomy.
DESIGN
This article is a systematic review of literature based on evidence-based methodology.
METHODS
The '6S' evidence resource pyramid model was used to systematically search a range of databases.
FINDINGS
A total of 19 articles were extracted from the literature and used in this study, including 9 clinical decisions, 4 systematic evaluations, 4 expert consensuses, and 2 guidelines. We summarized a total of 47 lines of evidence with regard to various aspects, including preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative nursing measures.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, an evidence-based methodology was used to summarize and analyze the best suggestions for perioperative accelerated rehabilitation nursing programs for breast cancer inpatients undergoing radical mastectomy. We aimed to provide a good reference value and evidence-based guidelines for the continuous improvement and development of nursing practice for the breast cancer patient population.
Topics: Humans; Female; Breast Neoplasms; Mastectomy; Mastectomy, Radical
PubMed: 36464572
DOI: 10.1016/j.jopan.2022.06.008 -
Cancers Aug 2022(1) Background: Implant-based breast reconstruction following mastectomy helps to restore quality of life while aiming at providing optimal cosmetic outcomes. Both... (Review)
Review
(1) Background: Implant-based breast reconstruction following mastectomy helps to restore quality of life while aiming at providing optimal cosmetic outcomes. Both prepectoral (PP) and subpectoral (SP) breast implants are widely used to fulfill these objectives. It is, however, unclear which approach offers stronger postoperative benefits. (2) Methods: We performed a systematic review of the literature through PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ResearchGate, following the PRISMA guidelines. Quantitative analysis for postoperative pain as the primary outcome was conducted. Secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction and postoperative complications such as seroma, implant loss, skin necrosis, wound infection, and hematoma. (3) Results: Nine articles involving 1119 patients were retrieved. Our results suggested increased postoperative pain after SP implants and significantly higher rates of seroma following PP implants (p < 0.05). Patient satisfaction was found to be similar between the two groups; however, the heterogeneity of measurement tools did not allow us to pool these results. The rates of implant loss, skin necrosis, wound infection, and hematoma showed no significant differences between the two cohorts. (4) Conclusion: Our data suggest that both implant placements are safe and effective methods for breast reconstruction following mastectomy. However, homogeneity in outcome measurements would allow one to provide stronger statistical results.
PubMed: 36077760
DOI: 10.3390/cancers14174223 -
Translational Cancer Research Oct 2023We conducted a comprehensive systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of the oncologic outcomes of breast reconstruction (BR) after mastectomy and...
BACKGROUND
We conducted a comprehensive systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of the oncologic outcomes of breast reconstruction (BR) after mastectomy and mastectomy only. This study aimed to analyze the impact of BR on the prognosis of patients with breast cancer.
METHODS
A systematic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was performed using the following keywords: breast cancer, mastectomy, and BR. Inclusion criteria were studies reporting the survival data of patients after mastectomy only and mastectomy with BR. Event-free survival (EFS), breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS), and overall survival (OS) were considered the indicators of oncological outcomes. As all the included studies were non-randomized trials, we used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for risk of bias assessment. The effect of BR on survival was measured using the effect size of the hazard ratio (HR). Data from each study were analyzed using the Review Manager.
RESULTS
Fifteen studies with 20,948 cases of BR and 63,358 cases of mastectomy were included. The pooled HRs for EFS and BCSS were 1.07 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.78-1.47, P=0.65] and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.64-1.11, P=0.22), respectively. The patients who underwent BR after mastectomy had similar EFS and BCSS scores. Furthermore, patients who received BR had better OS (HR =0.73; 95% CI: 0.61-0.88, P=0.001) than those who underwent mastectomy only.
CONCLUSIONS
The data showed that BR after mastectomy had similar EFS and BCSS and better OS than mastectomy alone. Our meta-analysis suggests that BR is a practicable and safe treatment option for patients with breast cancer.
PubMed: 37969403
DOI: 10.21037/tcr-23-706