-
Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) Apr 2021The non-inferiority of combined breast conservation surgery (BCS) and radiotherapy (breast conservation therapy or BCT) compared to mastectomy in sporadic breast cancer... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The non-inferiority of combined breast conservation surgery (BCS) and radiotherapy (breast conservation therapy or BCT) compared to mastectomy in sporadic breast cancer cases is well recognised. Uncertainty remains regarding optimal surgical practice in BRCA mutation carriers.
AIMS
To evaluate the oncological safety of combined BCT versus mastectomy in BRCA mutation carriers following breast cancer diagnosis.
METHODS
A systematic review was performed as per PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. Observational studies comparing BCS and mastectomy in BRCA carriers were identified. Dichotomous variables were pooled as odds ratios (OR) using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Log hazard ratios (lnHR) for locoregional recurrence (LRR), contralateral breast cancer, disease-free and overall survival and their standard errors were calculated from Kaplan-Meier or cox-regression analyses and pooled using the inverse variance method.
RESULTS
Twenty three studies of 3807 patients met inclusion criteria; 2200 (57.7%) were BRCA1 and 1212 (31.8%) were BRCA2 carriers. Median age at diagnosis was 41 years with 96 months follow up. BCS was performed on 2157 (56.7%) while 1408 (41.5%) underwent mastectomy. An increased risk of LRR was observed in patients treated with BCS (HR:4.54, 95% Confidence Interval: 2.77-7.42, P < 0.001, heterogeneity (I) = 0%). However, the risks of contralateral breast cancer (HR:1.51, 95%CI: 0.44-5.11, P = 0.510, I = 80%), disease recurrence (HR:1.16, 95%CI: 0.78-1.72, P = 0.470, I = 44%), disease-specific recurrence (HR:1.58, 95%CI: 0.79-3.15, P = 0.200, I = 38%) and death (HR:1.10, 95%CI: 0.72-1.69, P = 0.660, I = 38%) were equivalent for combined BCT and mastectomy.
CONCLUSIONS
Survival outcomes following combined BCT is comparable to mastectomy in BRCA carriers. However, the risk of LRR is increased. Patient counselling should be tailored to incorporate these findings.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Female; Genes, BRCA2; Humans; Mastectomy; Mastectomy, Segmental; Mutation; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Radiotherapy, Adjuvant
PubMed: 33582622
DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2021.02.001 -
American Journal of Surgery Apr 2016Breast cancer is the 2nd leading cause of cancer deaths among women in the United States. Breast cancer surgeries can be performed on either an inpatient or ambulatory... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Breast cancer is the 2nd leading cause of cancer deaths among women in the United States. Breast cancer surgeries can be performed on either an inpatient or ambulatory basis. This systematic review of literature on outpatient mastectomy examines what is known about the factors that influence the use of this procedure, existing public policies, and strategies to promote the appropriate use of outpatient mastectomy.
METHODS
Factors associated with the utilization of outpatient mastectomy were categorized and discussed under the following headings: "patient level," "physician level," and "system level."
RESULTS
Potential contributing factors to the use of outpatient mastectomy at the patient level were race, educational level, comorbid conditions, cancer stage, and health insurance. Contributing factors at the provider level were demographics, surgeon specialty, and whether physician is an American or international graduate. The associated factors at the system level were state policy and legislation and hospital characteristics.
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence in the research literature suggests that the use of outpatient mastectomy is a function of interactions between patient and physician characteristics, managed care influences, and the state policies and laws.
Topics: Ambulatory Surgical Procedures; Breast Neoplasms; Comorbidity; Educational Status; Female; Humans; Insurance Coverage; Mastectomy; Neoplasm Staging; Physician-Patient Relations; Practice Patterns, Physicians'; State Government; United States
PubMed: 26792275
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2015.10.021 -
The Breast Journal 2022To assess determinants associated with late local radiation toxicity in patients treated for breast cancer. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To assess determinants associated with late local radiation toxicity in patients treated for breast cancer.
METHODS
A systematic review was performed. All studies reporting ≥2 variables associated with late local radiation toxicity after treatment with postoperative whole breast irradiation were included. Cohort studies, randomized controlled trials, and cross-sectional studies were eligible designs. Study characteristics and definitions of determinants and outcome measures were extracted. If possible, the measure of association was extracted.
RESULTS
Twenty-one studies were included in this review. Six out of seven studies focused on the association between radiotherapy (boost) dose or irradiated breast volume and late radiation toxicity found significant results. Tumor bed boost was associated with late radiation toxicity, fibrosis, and/or edema in six out of twelve studies. Lower age was associated with late breast toxicity in one study, while in another study, higher age was significantly associated with breast fibrosis. Also, no association between age and late radiation toxicity was found in eight out of twelve studies. Similar inconsistent results were found in the association between late radiation toxicity and other patient-related factors (i.e., breast size, diabetes mellitus) and surgical and systemic treatment-related factors (i.e., complications after surgery, chemotherapy, and time between surgery and radiotherapy).
CONCLUSION
In modern 3D radiotherapy, radiotherapy (boost) dose and volume are-like in 2D radiotherapy-associated with late local radiation toxicity, such as breast fibrosis and edema. Treatment de-escalation, for example, partial breast irradiation in selected patients might be important to decrease late local toxicity without compromising locoregional control and survival.
Topics: Breast; Breast Neoplasms; Cross-Sectional Studies; Female; Fibrosis; Humans; Mastectomy, Segmental; Radiation Injuries
PubMed: 35711897
DOI: 10.1155/2022/6745954 -
Asian Journal of Surgery Jan 2022Breast cancer screening has seen an increase in the detection of non-palpable breast lesions. Wire guided localisation (WGL) and Radio-guided occult lesion localisation... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Breast cancer screening has seen an increase in the detection of non-palpable breast lesions. Wire guided localisation (WGL) and Radio-guided occult lesion localisation (ROLL) are well established modalities of localisation of non-palpable breast lesions in the UK. We aimed to compare the outcomes of WGL and ROLL in this updated meta-analysis. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and LILACS using free text search words as well as relevant MESH-terms. We also searched Medline (02/03/2021), Embase and registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field. Outcomes considered were re-excision rates, margin involvement, specimen volume and weight, accurate localisation of lesions and operative time. We assessed the risk of bias in included studies and performed random effects meta-analyses using Review Manager (version 5.3). Heterogeneity was estimated using the I-statistic. Nine included studies enrolled 1096 patients undergoing localization in breast surgery (534 in WGL and 562 in ROLL). There was a statistically significant benefit in favour of ROLL for non-involved resection margins (OR 0.60; 95% CI, 0.44-0.97); based on seven studies. Nine trials assessed operative time favouring ROLL (OR 1.95; 95% CI, 0.27-3.63). No significant difference in re-excision rates was reported (OR 1.42; 95% CI, 0.83-2.43) based on seven studies. Current evidence favourably supports ROLL, compared to WGL, with respect to margin involvement, localisation and operative time in the treatment of non-palpable breast lesions.
Topics: Breast; Breast Neoplasms; Early Detection of Cancer; Female; Humans; Mastectomy; Mastectomy, Segmental; Radiopharmaceuticals
PubMed: 34479779
DOI: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2021.06.055 -
International Journal of Surgery... Feb 2016Mastectomy is commonly performed for breast cancer. However, a dog ear may arise at the lateral aspect of the mastectomy scar. This dog ear is not only unsightly but can... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Mastectomy is commonly performed for breast cancer. However, a dog ear may arise at the lateral aspect of the mastectomy scar. This dog ear is not only unsightly but can also be a source of discomfort. While various surgical techniques have been reported to tackle this lateral dog ear, there is no standardized technique. We hence conduct the first systematic review of these surgical techniques with the aim of comparing the merits and limitations of each technique.
METHODS
A systematic literature search using the search terms "mastectomy scar", "mastectomy dog ear", "mastectomy lateral fold" and "mastectomy cosmesis" was performed. All relevant articles written in English and involving human subjects were included.
RESULTS
There were 2503 potentially relevant articles but only 12 articles met the inclusion criteria. The 'fish-shaped' incision or Y closure and its variations were the most commonly described techniques. Other techniques include the 'tear-drop' incision, 'L' scar technique etc. 'Fish-shaped' incision or Y closure is safe and provides good exposure to the axilla but its limitations are that of an additional scar and risk of skin necrosis at the apex of the Y incision. The other techniques attempt to eliminate the lateral dog ear while avoiding the complications associated with the 'fish-shaped' incision or Y closure.
CONCLUSION
Various surgical techniques to tackle lateral dog ear of the mastectomy scar have been described, each with its own merits and limitations. 'Fish-shaped' incision or Y closure is the most commonly described technique that has been prospectively assessed and was concluded to be safe.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Esthetics; Female; Humans; Mastectomy
PubMed: 26776364
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2015.12.068 -
Annals of Surgical Oncology Jan 2021Breast reconstruction (BR) is performed to improve outcomes for patients undergoing mastectomy. A recently developed core outcome set for BR includes six...
BACKGROUND
Breast reconstruction (BR) is performed to improve outcomes for patients undergoing mastectomy. A recently developed core outcome set for BR includes six patient-reported outcomes that should be measured and reported in all future studies. It is vital that any instrument used to measure these outcomes as part of a core measurement set be robustly developed and validated so data are reliable and accurate. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the development and measurement properties of existing BR patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to inform instrument selection for future studies.
METHODS
A PRISMA-compliant systematic review of development and validation studies of BR PROMs was conducted to assess their measurement properties. PROMs with adequate content validity were assessed using three steps: (1) the methodological quality of each identified study was assessed using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist; (2) criteria were applied for assessing good measurement properties; and (3) evidence was summarized and the quality of evidence assessed using a modified GRADE approach.
RESULTS
Fourteen articles reported the development and measurement properties of six PROMs. Of these, only three (BREAST-Q, BRECON-31, and EORTC QLQ-BRECON-23) were considered to have adequate content validity and proceeded to full evaluation. This showed that all three PROMs had been robustly developed and validated and demonstrated adequate quality.
CONCLUSIONS
BREAST-Q, BRECON-31, and EORTC QLQ-BRECON-23 have been well-developed and demonstrate adequate measurement properties. Work with key stakeholders is now needed to generate consensus regarding which PROM should be recommended for inclusion in a core measurement set.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Cross-Sectional Studies; Humans; Mammaplasty; Mastectomy; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Reproducibility of Results; Retrospective Studies; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 32602063
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-020-08736-8 -
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Sep 2015Adjuvant chemotherapy is often needed to achieve adequate breast cancer control. The increasing popularity of immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) raises concerns that... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Adjuvant chemotherapy is often needed to achieve adequate breast cancer control. The increasing popularity of immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) raises concerns that this procedure may delay the time to adjuvant chemotherapy (TTC), which may negatively impact oncological outcome. The current systematic review aims to investigate this effect. During October 2014, a systematic search for clinical studies was performed in six databases with keywords related to breast reconstruction and chemotherapy. Eligible studies met the following inclusion criteria: (1) research population consisted of women receiving therapeutic mastectomy, (2) comparison of IBR with mastectomy only groups, (3) TTC was clearly presented and mentioned as outcome measure, and (4) original studies only (e.g., cohort study, randomized controlled trial, case-control). Fourteen studies were included, representing 5270 patients who had received adjuvant chemotherapy, of whom 1942 had undergone IBR and 3328 mastectomy only. One study found a significantly shorter mean TTC of 12.6 days after IBR, four studies found a significant delay after IBR averaging 6.6-16.8 days, seven studies found no significant difference in TTC between IBR and mastectomy only, and two studies did not perform statistical analyses for comparison. In studies that measured TTC from surgery, mean TTC varied from 29 to 61 days for IBR and from 21 to 60 days for mastectomy only. This systematic review of the current literature showed that IBR does not necessarily delay the start of adjuvant chemotherapy to a clinically relevant extent, suggesting that in general IBR is a valid option for non-metastatic breast cancer patients.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Breast Neoplasms; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Female; Humans; Mammaplasty; Mastectomy; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26285643
DOI: 10.1007/s10549-015-3539-4 -
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.... Mar 2022For women undergoing breast reconstruction after mastectomy, the comparative benefits and harms of implant-based reconstruction (IBR) and autologous reconstruction (AR)...
UNLABELLED
For women undergoing breast reconstruction after mastectomy, the comparative benefits and harms of implant-based reconstruction (IBR) and autologous reconstruction (AR) are not well known. We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis of IBR versus AR after mastectomy for breast cancer.
METHODS
We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies from inception to March 23, 2021. We assessed the risk of bias of individual studies and strength of evidence (SoE) of our findings using standard methods.
RESULTS
We screened 15,936 citations and included 40 studies (two randomized controlled trials and 38 adjusted nonrandomized comparative studies). Compared with patients who undergo IBR, those who undergo AR experience clinically significant better sexual well-being [summary adjusted mean difference (adjMD) 5.8, 95% CI 3.4-8.2; three studies] and satisfaction with breasts (summary adjMD 8.1, 95% CI 6.1-10.1; three studies) (moderate SoE for both outcomes). AR was associated with a greater risk of venous thromboembolism (moderate SoE), but IBR was associated with a greater risk of reconstructive failure (moderate SoE) and seroma (low SoE) in long-term follow-up (1.5-4 years). Other outcomes were comparable between groups, or the evidence was insufficient to merit conclusions.
CONCLUSIONS
Most evidence regarding IBR versus AR is of low or moderate SoE. AR is probably associated with better sexual well-being and satisfaction with breasts and lower risks of seroma and long-term reconstructive failure but a higher risk of thromboembolic events. New high-quality research is needed to address the important research gaps.
PubMed: 35291333
DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000004180 -
Journal of the National Cancer Institute Sep 2023Early-stage breast cancer is among the most common cancer diagnoses. Adjuvant radiotherapy is an essential component of breast-conserving therapy, and several options... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Early-stage breast cancer is among the most common cancer diagnoses. Adjuvant radiotherapy is an essential component of breast-conserving therapy, and several options exist for tailoring its extent and duration. This study assesses the comparative effectiveness of partial-breast irradiation (PBI) compared with whole-breast irradiation (WBI).
METHODS
A systematic review was completed to identify relevant randomized clinical trials and comparative observational studies. Independent reviewers working in pairs selected studies and extracted data. Randomized trial results were pooled using a random effects model. Prespecified main outcomes were ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR), cosmesis, and adverse events (AEs).
RESULTS
Fourteen randomized clinical trials and 6 comparative observational studies with 17 234 patients evaluated the comparative effectiveness of PBI. PBI was not statistically significantly different from WBI for IBR at 5 years (RR = 1.34, 95% CI = 0.83 to 2.18; high strength of evidence [SOE]) and 10 years (RR = 1.29, 95% CI = 0.87 to 1.91; high SOE). Evidence for cosmetic outcomes was insufficient. Statistically significantly fewer acute AEs were reported with PBI compared with WBI, with no statistically significant difference in late AEs. Data from subgroups according to patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics were insufficient. Intraoperative radiotherapy was associated with higher IBR at 5, 10, and over than 10 years (high SOE) compared with WBI.
CONCLUSIONS
Ipsilateral breast recurrence was not statistically significantly different between PBI and WBI. Acute AEs were less frequent with PBI. This evidence supports the effectiveness of PBI among selected patients with early-stage, favorable-risk breast cancer who are similar to those represented in the included studies.
Topics: Humans; Female; Breast; Breast Neoplasms; Mastectomy, Segmental; Radiotherapy, Adjuvant
PubMed: 37289549
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djad100 -
Gland Surgery Aug 2019The cornerstone of reconstructive surgery following mastectomy is to restore cosmesis and improve physical and psychological health. Consequently, it has become... (Review)
Review
The cornerstone of reconstructive surgery following mastectomy is to restore cosmesis and improve physical and psychological health. Consequently, it has become essential for instruments that measure surgical outcomes to include the direct perspective of patients. Many reviews have failed to show significant improvements in quality of life domains following breast reconstruction compared to mastectomy alone. However, with advances in surgical techniques and patient reported outcome measure (PROM) assessment tools designed precisely for breast reconstruction patients, a modern systematic review is warranted. An electronic literature review was performed using CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Medline (using PubMed) comparing patient reported outcome measures of patients undergoing versus patients undergoing . Studies in the English and Portuguese languages since the year 2000 were included. The review was undertaken adhering to PRISMA guidelines with last entry on the 31/5/2018. Full text review yield 42 articles of relevance to the inclusion criteria. The most widely used PROM instruments such as Breast-Q, EORTC-Q30/Q23, Short Form 36, FACT-B and others are explored. The specific difficulties conducting such studies and biases identified are investigated further. Studies comparing mastectomy alone against mastectomy with reconstruction show difficulties forming groups with similar clinical and epidemiological characteristics. There are inherent limitations to performing a randomised controlled trial on this topic, including matching patient groups in terms of age, socioeconomical background and cancer staging, and this affects the results of the PROM instruments. Within these limitations, the literature suggests that PROM support the use of breast reconstruction following mastectomy but care must be made selecting patients. The finding is supported by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines which state that breast reconstruction should be offered to all women undergoing breast cancer surgery.
PubMed: 31538070
DOI: 10.21037/gs.2019.07.02