-
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.... Oct 2023Breast-conserving therapy with oncoplastic reduction is a useful strategy for partial mastectomy defect reconstruction. The most recently published systematic review of...
BACKGROUND
Breast-conserving therapy with oncoplastic reduction is a useful strategy for partial mastectomy defect reconstruction. The most recently published systematic review of oncoplastic breast reduction outcomes from 2015 showed wound dehiscence in 4.3%, hematoma in 0.9%, infection in 2.8%, and nipple necrosis in 0.9% of patients. We performed a systematic review of oncoplastic breast reduction literature, comparing outcomes and complication rates reported over the past 8 years.
METHODS
Studies describing the use of oncoplastic breast reduction and discussion of postoperative complications were included. The primary outcome assessed was the postoperative complication rate; secondary outcomes analyzed were rates of margin expansion, completion mastectomy, and delays in adjuvant therapy due to complications.
RESULTS
Nine articles met inclusion criteria, resulting in 1715 oncoplastic breast reduction patients. The mean rate of hematoma was 3%, nipple necrosis was 2%, dehiscence was 4%, infection was 3%, and seroma was 2%. The need for re-excision of margins occurred in 8% of patients, and completion mastectomy in 2%. Finally, delay in adjuvant treatment due to a postoperative complication occurred in 4% of patients.
CONCLUSIONS
Oncoplastic breast reduction is an excellent option for many patients undergoing breast-conserving therapy; however, postoperative complications can delay adjuvant radiation therapy. Results of this systematic literature review over the past 8 years showed a slight increase in complication rate compared to the most recent systematic review from 2015. With increased popularity and surgeon familiarity, oncoplastic breast reduction remains a viable option for reconstruction of partial mastectomy defects despite a slight increase in complication rate.
PubMed: 37850204
DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000005355 -
Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) Feb 2022Meta-analysis of >87,000 patients demonstrates that patients with invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast are far less likely to achieve pCR of the breast or axilla... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Differences in sensitivity to neoadjuvant chemotherapy among invasive lobular and ductal carcinoma of the breast and implications on surgery-A systematic review and meta-analysis.
UNLABELLED
Meta-analysis of >87,000 patients demonstrates that patients with invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast are far less likely to achieve pCR of the breast or axilla compared to their ductal counterparts, receive less BCS and more frequently return positive margins.
BACKGROUND
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) facilitates tumour downstaging, increases breast conserving surgery (BCS) and assesses tumour chemosensitivity. Despite clinicopathological differences in Invasive Ductal Carcinoma (IDC) and Invasive Lobular Carcinoma (ILC), decision making surrounding the use NACT does not take account of histological differences.
AIM
To determine the impact NACT on pathological complete response (pCR), breast conserving surgery (BCS), margin status and axillary pCR in ILC and IDC.
METHODS
A systematic review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Studies reporting outcomes among ILC and IDCs following NACT were identified. Dichotomous variables were pooled as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals_(CI) using the Mantel-Haenszel method. P-values <0.05 were statistically significant.
RESULTS
40 studies including 87,303 (7596 ILC [8.7%]and 79,708 IDC [91.3%]) patients were available for analysis. Mean age at diagnosis was 54.9 vs. 50.9 years for ILC and IDC, respectively. IDCs were significantly more likely to achieve pCR (22.1% v 7.4%, OR: 3.03 [95% CI 2.5-3.68] p < 0.00001), axillary pCR (23.6% vs. 13.4%, OR: 2.01 [95% CI 1.77-2.28] p < 0.00001) and receive BCS (45.7% vs. 33.3%, OR 2.14 [95% CI 1.87-2.45] p < 0.00001) versus ILCs. ILCs were significantly more likely to have positive margins at the time of surgery (36% vs 13.5%, OR 4.84 [95% CI 2.88-8.15] p < 0.00001).
CONCLUSION
This is the largest study comparing the impact of NACT among ILC and IDC with respect to pCR and BCS. ILC has different outcomes to IDC following NACT and incorporate it into treatment decisions and future clinical guidelines.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast; Carcinoma, Lobular; Female; Humans; Mastectomy, Segmental; Neoadjuvant Therapy
PubMed: 34864494
DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2021.11.017 -
Journal of Robotic Surgery Apr 2022Breast cancer is worldwide the most common cause of cancer in women and causes the second most common cancer-related death. Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is commonly... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Breast cancer is worldwide the most common cause of cancer in women and causes the second most common cancer-related death. Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is commonly used in therapeutic and prophylactic settings. Furthermore, (preventive) mastectomies are, besides complications, also associated with psychological and cosmetic consequences. Robotic NSM (RNSM) allows for better visualization of the planes and reducing the invasiveness. The aim of this study was to compare the postoperative complication rate of RNSM to NSM. A systematic search was performed on all (R)NSM articles. The primary outcome was determining the overall postoperative complication rate of traditional NSM and RNSM. Secondary outcomes were comparing the specific postoperative complication rates: implant loss, hematoma, (flap)necrosis, infection, and seroma. Forty-nine studies containing 13,886 cases of (R)NSM were included. No statistically significant differences were found regarding postoperative complications (RNSM 3.9%, NSM 7.0%, p = 0.070), postoperative implant loss (RNSM 4.1%, NSM 3.2%, p = 0.523), hematomas (RNSM 4.3%, NSM 2.0%, p = 0.059), necrosis (RNSM 4.3%, NSM 7.4%, p = 0.230), infection (RNSM 8.3%, NSM 4.0%, p = 0.054) or seromas (RNSM 3.0%, NSM 2.0%, p = 0.421). Overall, there are no statistically significant differences in complication rates between NSM and RNSM.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Mastectomy; Nipples; Retrospective Studies; Robotic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 34128142
DOI: 10.1007/s11701-021-01265-w -
Journal of Medical Internet Research Feb 2024Virtual reality-based exercise rehabilitation (VRER) is a promising intervention for patients with cancer-related dysfunctions (CRDs). However, studies focusing on VRER... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Virtual reality-based exercise rehabilitation (VRER) is a promising intervention for patients with cancer-related dysfunctions (CRDs). However, studies focusing on VRER for CRDs are lacking, and the results are inconsistent.
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to review the application of VRER in patients with CRDs.
METHODS
This scoping review was conducted following the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist framework. Publications were included from the time of database establishment to October 14, 2023. The databases were PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, Web of Science, ProQuest, arXiv, IEEE Xplore, MedRxiv, CNKI, Wanfang Data, VIP, and SinoMed. The population included patients with cancer. A virtual reality (VR) system or device was required to be provided in exercise rehabilitation as an intervention. Eligible studies focused on VRER used for CRDs. Study selection and data extraction were performed by 2 reviewers independently. Extracted data included authors, year, country, study type, groups, sample size, participant age, cancer type, existing or potential CRDs, VR models and devices, intervention programs and durations, effectiveness, compliance, satisfaction, and safety.
RESULTS
We identified 25 articles, and among these, 12 (48%) were randomized clinical trials, 11 (44%) were other experimental studies, and 2 (8%) were observational studies. The total sample size was 1174 (range 6-136). Among the 25 studies, 22 (88%), 2 (8%), and 1 (4%) included nonimmersive VR, immersive VR, and augmented reality, respectively, which are models of VRER. Commercial game programs (17/25, 68%) were the most popular interventions of VRER, and their duration ranged from 3 to 12 weeks. Using these models and devices, VRER was mostly applied in patients with breast cancer (14/25, 56%), leukemia (8/25, 32%), and lung cancer (3/25, 12%). Furthermore, 6 CRDs were intervened by VRER, and among these, postmastectomy syndromes were the most common (10/25, 40%). Overall, 74% (17/23) of studies reported positive results, including significant improvements in limb function, joint range of motion, edema rates, cognition, respiratory disturbance index, apnea, activities of daily living, and quality of life. The compliance rate ranged from 56% to 100%. Overall, 32% (8/25) of studies reported on patient satisfaction, and of these, 88% (7/8) reported satisfaction with VRER. Moreover, 13% (1/8) reported mild sickness as an adverse event.
CONCLUSIONS
We found that around half of the studies reported using VRER in patients with breast cancer and postmastectomy dysfunctions through nonimmersive models and commercial game programs having durations of 3-12 weeks. In addition, most studies showed that VRER was effective owing to virtualization and interaction. Therefore, VRER may be an alternate intervention for patients with CRDs. However, as the conclusions were drawn from data with acknowledged inconsistencies and limited satisfaction reports, studies with larger sample sizes and more outcome indictors are required.
Topics: Humans; Female; Breast Neoplasms; Activities of Daily Living; Quality of Life; Mastectomy; Medicine
PubMed: 38407951
DOI: 10.2196/49312 -
BJS Open Nov 2021Therapeutic mammaplasty (TM) is an oncological procedure which combines tumour resection with breast reduction and mastopexy techniques. Previous systematic reviews have...
BACKGROUND
Therapeutic mammaplasty (TM) is an oncological procedure which combines tumour resection with breast reduction and mastopexy techniques. Previous systematic reviews have demonstrated the oncological safety of TM but reporting of critically important outcomes, such as quality of life, aesthetic and functional outcomes, are limited, piecemeal or inconsistent. This systematic review aimed to identify all outcomes reported in clinical studies of TM to facilitate development of a core outcome set.
METHODS
Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science were searched from inception to 5 August 2020. Included studies reported clinical outcomes following TM for adult women. Two authors screened articles independently for eligibility. Data were extracted regarding the outcome definition and classification type (for example, oncological, quality of life, etc.), time of outcome reporting and measurement tools.
RESULTS
Of 5709 de-duplicated records, 148 were included in the narrative synthesis. The majority of studies (n = 102, 68.9 per cent) reported measures of survival and/or recurrence; approximately three-quarters (n = 75, 73.5 per cent) had less than 5 years follow-up. Aesthetic outcome was reported in half of studies (n = 75, 50.7 per cent) using mainly subjective, non-validated measurement tools. The time point at which aesthetic assessment was conducted was highly variable, and only defined in 48 (64.0 per cent) studies and none included a preoperative baseline for comparison. Few studies reported quality of life (n = 30, 20.3 per cent), functional outcomes (n = 5, 3.4 per cent) or resource use (n = 28, 18.9 per cent).
CONCLUSION
Given the oncological equivalence of TM and mastectomy, treatment decisions are often driven by aesthetic and functional outcomes, which are infrequently and inconsistently reported with non-validated measurement tools.
Topics: Adult; Breast Neoplasms; Esthetics; Female; Humans; Mammaplasty; Mastectomy; Quality of Life
PubMed: 34894122
DOI: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrab126 -
Gland Surgery Feb 2017Nipple-areola complex (NAC) reconstruction transforms a mound of soft tissue into a breast and often marks the final stage of breast reconstruction after mastectomy.
BACKGROUND
Nipple-areola complex (NAC) reconstruction transforms a mound of soft tissue into a breast and often marks the final stage of breast reconstruction after mastectomy.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Articles were classified based on the nipple reconstructive technique-either composite nipple sharing or local flap with nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) used as a control. A standardized "Satisfaction Score" (SS) for "nipple appearance" and "nipple sensation" was calculated for each technique. A Fisher's exact test was used to compare the SS with local flap reconstruction with NSM.
RESULTS
Twenty-three studies met the systematic review inclusion criteria. Nine NSM articles were identified with patient satisfaction data from 473 patients. The weighted average SS for NSM was 80.5%. Fourteen local flap technique articles were identified with satisfaction data from 984 patients and a weighted average SS of 73.9%. This was a statistically significant difference (P=0.0079). C-V and badge local flap techniques were associated with the highest SS, 92.6% and 90.5%, respectively. C-V and modified C-V flap technique was associated with a higher SS when compared to those using one or more other flap techniques (P=0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS
While patient satisfaction with nipple reconstruction is high regardless of technique, it is higher with NSM. When NSM is not an option, local flap reconstruction with a C-V or modified C-V flap may be associated with higher satisfaction than alternative local flap techniques.
PubMed: 28210547
DOI: 10.21037/gs.2016.08.01 -
Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons... Jan 2022Oncoplastic breast conserving surgery allows higher volume excision to achieve oncological safety with minimal aesthetic compromise. The primary outcome of this study...
INTRODUCTION
Oncoplastic breast conserving surgery allows higher volume excision to achieve oncological safety with minimal aesthetic compromise. The primary outcome of this study was to assess the oncological safety in the setting of volume replacement oncoplastic breast conserving surgery. The secondary objective was to assess cosmetic outcome.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines to explore the oncological safety of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery, with particular focus on volume replacement. Resection margin rates, re-excision rates, conversion to mastectomy rates, local and distant disease recurrence, volume replacement techniques, cosmetic outcomes and patient-reported outcome measures were assessed.
FINDINGS
The search criteria identified 155 articles, of which 40 met the inclusion criteria. These studies included 2,497 patients with a mean age of 47.8 years (range 38.4-59.6 years), a body mass index of 24.3kg/m (22.1-28.0kg/m), with a mean follow-up of 37.1 months (6-125 months). A variety of volume replacement techniques were used, most commonly latissimus dorsi and chest wall perforator flaps. Whole mean pathological tumour size was 29.7mm (17-65mm) and mean specimen weight was 123.6g (46.5-220g). Mean re-excision rate was 7.2% and completion mastectomy rate was 2.3%. Locoregional and distant recurrence rate was 2.5% (0-8.1%) and 3.1% (0-14.6%), respectively. There were a variety of patient-reported outcome measures employed, with overall good to excellent outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
This review demonstrates that volume replacement oncoplastic breast conserving surgery is a safe option in terms of re-excision, completion mastectomy rates, and local and distant recurrence. Available patient-related outcome measures and cosmetic assessment tend towards better outcomes compared with wide local excision and mastectomy. However, data are significantly limited, with a paucity of high-level evidence, and it is therefore necessary to be cautious regarding the strength and interpretation of data in this review. Further prospective studies are required on this subject.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Esthetics; Female; Humans; Margins of Excision; Mastectomy; Mastectomy, Segmental; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Surgical Flaps
PubMed: 34767472
DOI: 10.1308/rcsann.2021.0012 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2014Antiepileptic drugs have been used in pain management since the 1960s; some have shown efficacy in treating different neuropathic pain conditions. The efficacy of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Antiepileptic drugs have been used in pain management since the 1960s; some have shown efficacy in treating different neuropathic pain conditions. The efficacy of levetiracetam for relief of neuropathic pain has not previously been reviewed.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of levetiracetam in chronic neuropathic pain conditions in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 6) (via the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and two clinical trials databases (ClinicalTrials.gov. and the World Health Organisation Clinical Trials Registry Platform) to 3 July 2014, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks duration or longer, comparing levetiracetam with placebo or another active treatment in adults with chronic neuropathic pain conditions. Studies had to have a minimum of 10 participants per treatments arm.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction; intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts; at least 200 participants in the comparison; 8 to 12 weeks duration; parallel design); second tier evidence from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and that we considered at some risk of bias but with at least 200 participants in the comparison; and third tier evidence from data involving fewer than 200 participants that was considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six studies: five small, cross-over studies with 174 participants, and one parallel group study with 170 participants. Participants were treated with levetiracetam (2000 mg to 3000 mg daily) or placebo for between four and 14 weeks. Each study included participants with a different type of neuropathic pain; central pain due to multiple sclerosis, pain following spinal cord injury, painful polyneuropathy, central post-stroke pain, postherpetic neuralgia, and post-mastectomy pain.None of the included studies provided first or second tier evidence. The evidence was very low quality, downgraded because of the small size of the treatment arms, and because studies reported results using last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation for withdrawals or using only participants who completed the study according to the protocol, where there were greater than 10% withdrawals. There were insufficient data for a pooled efficacy analysis in particular neuropathic pain conditions, but individual studies did not show any analgesic effect of levetiracetam compared with placebo. We did pool results for any outcome considered substantial pain relief (≥ 50% pain intensity reduction or 'complete' or 'good' responses on the verbal rating scale) for four studies with dichotomous data; response rates across different types of neuropathic pain was similar with levetiracetam (10%) and placebo (12%), with no statistical difference (risk ratio 0.9; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4 to1.7).We pooled data across different conditions for adverse events and withdrawals. Based on very limited data, significantly more participants experienced an adverse event with levetiracetam than with placebo (number needed to treat for an additional harmful event (NNH) 8.0 (95% CI 4.6 to 32)). There were significantly more adverse event withdrawals with levetiracetam (NNH 9.7 (6.7 to 18)).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The amount of evidence for levetiracetam in neuropathic pain conditions was very small and potentially biased because of the methods of analysis used in the studies. There was no indication that levetiracetam was effective in reducing neuropathic pain, but it was associated with an increase in participants who experienced adverse events and who withdrew due to adverse events.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics; Chronic Disease; Humans; Levetiracetam; Neuralgia; Piracetam; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25000215
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010943.pub2 -
Cancers Sep 2023Breast augmentation is considered safe, but rare cases of breast implant-associated squamous cell carcinoma (BIA-SCC) have been reported. This study aimed to... (Review)
Review
Breast augmentation is considered safe, but rare cases of breast implant-associated squamous cell carcinoma (BIA-SCC) have been reported. This study aimed to systematically review published cases of BIA-SCC, providing valuable clinical data. The review included 14 articles and 18 cases of BIA-SCC. An increasing trend in reported BIA-SCC cases was observed, with four cases in the 1990s and 14 cases since 2010. The mean age of affected patients was 56 years, and symptoms typically appeared around 21 years after breast augmentation. Silicone implants used in cosmetic procedures were most commonly associated with BIA-SCC. Implant removal was necessary in all cases, and some patients required a mastectomy. Treatment approaches varied, with the selective use of chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. The estimated 6-month mortality rate was 11.1%, while the 12-month mortality rate was 23.8%. The estimated 6-month mortality rate should be cautiously interpreted due to the limited sample size. It appears lower than the rate reported by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, without clear reasons for this discrepancy. This study highlights the importance of enhanced monitoring and information sharing to improve detection and management of BIA-SCC. Healthcare providers should maintain vigilance during the long-term follow-up of breast augmentation patients.
PubMed: 37760485
DOI: 10.3390/cancers15184516 -
Oncotarget Dec 2023To examine the risk factors for arm morbidity following breast cancer treatments, taking a broad view of all types of physical morbidity, including prolonged pain,...
PURPOSE
To examine the risk factors for arm morbidity following breast cancer treatments, taking a broad view of all types of physical morbidity, including prolonged pain, lymphedema, decreased range of motion, and functional limitations.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Guidelines. Studies exploring the risk factors for prolonged arm morbidity following breast cancer surgery and treatments were included. The studies were assessed independently according to pre-eligibility criteria, following data extraction and methodological quality assessment.
RESULTS
1,242 articles were identified. After removing duplicates, the full texts of 1,153 articles were examined. Sixty-nine of these articles met the criteria and were included in the review. These 69 articles identified 29 risk factors for arm morbidity following treatments for breast cancer. The risk of bias was evaluated using NIH study quality assessment tools. The studies reviewed were published between 2001 and 2021 and included a total of 22,886 patients who were followed up for between three months and 10 years.
CONCLUSIONS
The main risk factors for long-term morbidity are removal of lymph nodes from the axilla, body mass index >30, having undergone a mastectomy, the stage of the disease, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, infection and trauma to the affected arm after surgery. An understanding of the risk factors for prolonged arm morbidity after surgery can help doctors and therapists in making personalized decisions about the need and timing of rehabilitation treatments.
Topics: Female; Humans; Arm; Breast Neoplasms; Lymph Node Excision; Mastectomy; Morbidity; Risk Factors
PubMed: 38039404
DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.28539