-
European Review For Medical and... Jun 2017Breast cancer is the most common female cancer in Western populations, affecting 12.5% of women, with 1.38 million patients per year. Breast-conserving surgery followed... (Review)
Review
Breast cancer is the most common female cancer in Western populations, affecting 12.5% of women, with 1.38 million patients per year. Breast-conserving surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy replaced the radical and modified-radical procedures of Halsted and Patey as the standard of care for early-stage breast cancer once the overall and disease-free survival rates of breast-conserving surgery were demonstrated to be equivalent to those of mastectomy. However, excision of >20% of breast tissue, low or centrally located cancer, and large-sized breasts with various grades of breast ptosis, result a in unacceptable cosmetic outcomes. Oncoplastic breast surgery evolved from the breast-conserving surgery by broadening its general indication to achieve wider excision margins without compromising on the cosmetic outcomes. Thus, oncoplastic breast surgery can be defined as a tumor-specific immediate breast reconstruction method that applies aesthetically derived breast reduction techniques to the field of breast cancer surgery and allows for higher volume excision with no aesthetic compromise. However, contralateral breast symmetrization should be regarded as an intrinsic component of the oncoplastic surgery. The main procedures involved are volume-displacement or volume-replacement techniques, which depend on breast size and cancer size/location. Volume-displacement or reshaping procedures apply the plastic surgery principles to transpose a dermo-glandular flap of breast tissue into the defect site, while volume-replacement techniques use autologous tissues to replace the volume loss that follows tumor resection. Furthermore, these procedures are more complex and time-consuming than those involved in breast-conserving surgery. Based on current literature, the authors analyze the different techniques and indications of the oncoplastic breast surgery, determining its complication rate, in order to help both surgeons and their patients in the decision-making stage of breast reconstruction.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Mammaplasty; Mastectomy, Segmental; Surgical Flaps
PubMed: 28678328
DOI: No ID Found -
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Nov 2017Postmastectomy immediate breast reconstruction in the U.S. continues to experience an upward trend owing to heightened awareness, innovations in reconstructive... (Review)
Review
Postmastectomy immediate breast reconstruction in the U.S. continues to experience an upward trend owing to heightened awareness, innovations in reconstructive technique, growing evidence of improved patient-reported outcomes, and shifts in mastectomy patterns. Women with unilateral breast cancer are increasingly electing to undergo contralateral prophylactic mastectomy, instead of unilateral mastectomy or opting for breast conservation. The ascent in prophylactic surgeries correlates temporally to a shift toward prosthetic methods of reconstruction as the most common technique. Factors associated with the choice for implants include younger age, quicker recovery time, along with documented safety and enhanced aesthetic outcomes with newer generations of devices. Despite advances in autologous transfer, its growth is constrained by the greater technical expertise required to complete microsurgical transfer and potential barriers such as poor relative reimbursement. The increased use of radiation as an adjuvant treatment for management of breast cancer has created additional challenges for plastic surgeons who need to consider the optimal timing and method of breast reconstruction to perform in these patients.
Topics: Adipose Tissue; Breast Implantation; Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Mammaplasty; Radiotherapy; Transplantation, Autologous
PubMed: 29064917
DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000003941 -
European Journal of Surgical Oncology :... Sep 2021Oncoplastic Breast Surgery has become standard of care in the management of Breast Cancer patients. These guidelines written by an Expert Advisory Group; convened by the... (Review)
Review
Oncoplastic Breast Surgery has become standard of care in the management of Breast Cancer patients. These guidelines written by an Expert Advisory Group; convened by the Association of Breast Surgery (ABS) and the British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons (BAPRAS), are designed to provide all members of the breast cancer multidisciplinary team (MDT) with guidance on the best breast surgical oncoplastic and reconstructive practice at each stage of a patient's journey, based on current evidence. It is hoped they will also be of benefit to the wide range of professionals and service commissioners who are involved in this area of clinical practice.
Topics: Breast Implants; Breast Neoplasms; Data Collection; Decision Making, Shared; Enhanced Recovery After Surgery; Female; Humans; Mammaplasty; Mastectomy; Patient Education as Topic; Patient Selection; United Kingdom
PubMed: 34001384
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2021.05.006 -
JAMA Surgery Oct 2018Previous outcome studies comparing implant and autologous breast reconstruction techniques have been limited by short-term follow-up, single-center design, and a lack of... (Clinical Trial)
Clinical Trial Comparative Study
IMPORTANCE
Previous outcome studies comparing implant and autologous breast reconstruction techniques have been limited by short-term follow-up, single-center design, and a lack of rigorous patient-reported outcome data. An understanding of the expected satisfaction and breast-related quality of life associated with each type of procedure is central to the decision-making process.
OBJECTIVE
To determine outcomes reported by patients undergoing postmastectomy breast reconstruction using implant or autologous techniques 2 years after surgery.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
Patients were recruited from 11 centers (57 plastic surgeons) across North America for the Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium study, a prospective, multicenter trial, from February 1, 2012, to July 31, 2015. Women undergoing immediate breast reconstruction using implant or autologous tissue reconstruction after mastectomy for cancer treatment or prophylaxis were eligible. Overall, 2013 women (1490 implant and 523 autologous tissue reconstruction) met the inclusion criteria. All patients included in this analysis had 2 years of follow-up.
EXPOSURES
Procedure type (ie, implant vs autologous tissue reconstruction).
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcomes of interest were scores on the BREAST-Q, a validated, condition-specific, patient-reported outcome instrument, which were collected prior to and at 2 years after surgery. The following 4 domains of the BREAST-Q reconstruction module were evaluated: satisfaction with breasts, psychosocial well-being, physical well-being, and sexual well-being. Responses from each scale were summed and transformed on a 0 to 100 scale, with higher numbers representing greater satisfaction or quality of life.
RESULTS
Of the 2013 women in the study (mean [SD] age, 48.1 [10.5] years for the group that underwent implant-based reconstruction and 51.6 [8.7] years for the group that underwent autologous reconstruction), 1217 (60.5%) completed questionnaires at 2 years after reconstruction. After controlling for baseline patient characteristics, patients who underwent autologous reconstruction had greater satisfaction with their breasts (difference, 7.94; 95% CI, 5.68-10.20; P < .001), psychosocial well-being (difference, 3.27; 95% CI, 1.25-5.29; P = .002), and sexual well-being (difference, 5.53; 95% CI, 2.95-8.11; P < .001) at 2 years compared with patients who underwent implant reconstruction.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
At 2 years, patients who underwent autologous reconstruction were more satisfied with their breasts and had greater psychosocial well-being and sexual well-being than did those who underwent implant reconstruction. These findings can inform patients and their clinicians about expected satisfaction and quality of life outcomes of autologous vs implant-based procedures and further support the adoption of shared decision making in clinical practice.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Mammaplasty; Mastectomy; Middle Aged; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Patient Satisfaction; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Transplantation, Autologous
PubMed: 29926096
DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2018.1677 -
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Jan 2019Breast cancer surgical techniques are evolving. Few studies have analyzed national trends for the multitude of surgical options that include partial mastectomy (PM),... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Breast cancer surgical techniques are evolving. Few studies have analyzed national trends for the multitude of surgical options that include partial mastectomy (PM), mastectomy without reconstruction (M), mastectomy with reconstruction (M+R), and PM with oncoplastic reconstruction (OS). We hypothesize that the use of M is declining and likely correlates with the rise of surgery with reconstructive options (M+R, OS).
METHODS
A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted using the ACS-NSQIP database from 2005 to 2016 and ICD codes for IBC and DCIS. Patients were then grouped together based on current procedural terminology (CPT) codes for PM, M, M+R, and OS. In each group, categories were sorted again based on additional reconstructive procedures. Data analysis was conducted via Pearson's chi-squared test for demographics, linear regression, and a non-parametric Mann- Kendall test to assess a temporal trend.
RESULTS
The patient cohort consisted of 256,398 patients from the NSQIP data base; 197,387 meet inclusion criteria diagnosed with IBC or DCIS. Annual breast surgery trends changed as follows: PM 46.3-46.1% (p = 0.21), M 35.8-26.4% (p = 0.001), M+R 15.9-23.0% (p = 0.03), and OS 1.8-4.42% (p = 0.001). Analyzing the patient cohort who underwent breast conservation, categorical analysis showed a decreased use of PM alone (96-91%) with an increased use of OS (4-9%). For the patient cohort undergoing mastectomy, M alone decreased (69-53%); M+R with muscular flap decreased (9-2%); and M+R with implant placement increased (20-40%)-all three trends p < 0.0001.
CONCLUSION
The modern era of breast surgery is identified by the increasing use of reconstruction for patients undergoing breast conservation (in the form of OS) and mastectomy (in the form of M+R). Our study provides data showing significant trends that will impact the future of both breast cancer surgery and breast training programs.
Topics: Breast; Breast Neoplasms; Databases, Factual; Female; Humans; Mammaplasty; Mastectomy
PubMed: 30361873
DOI: 10.1007/s10549-018-5018-1 -
The Medical Journal of Australia Sep 2022Breast cancer is the commonest human cancer globally and one in seven Australian women will develop it in their lifetime. Surgery is the mainstay of management both for... (Review)
Review
Breast cancer is the commonest human cancer globally and one in seven Australian women will develop it in their lifetime. Surgery is the mainstay of management both for women who are at high risk of breast cancer and for those who have been diagnosed. Increased understanding of how to predict who is most at risk of breast cancer is leading to the possibility of risk-based screening, allowing better and more targeted early detection for women at high risk, and contrast imaging techniques are proving more accurate in diagnosing and staging cancer. The evolution of surgical practice includes the widespread use of oncoplastic surgery, allowing better cosmetic and oncological outcomes; reconstructive surgical advances, using free flap techniques; and sequencing of systemic and local therapies to better tailor treatments to the patient's cancer and improve outcomes. Recognition of side effects of breast cancer treatment have led to improvement in the management of conditions such as chronic pain and lymphoedema, as well as addressing the psychosocial, body image and sexual complications caused by the cancer and its treatment.
Topics: Australia; Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Mammaplasty; Mastectomy; Mastectomy, Segmental; Neoplasm Staging
PubMed: 35988063
DOI: 10.5694/mja2.51678 -
Ugeskrift For Laeger Mar 2024Patients requesting breast reconstruction after mastectomy is an increasing group at plastic- and breast surgery departments in Denmark. This review summarises the... (Review)
Review
Patients requesting breast reconstruction after mastectomy is an increasing group at plastic- and breast surgery departments in Denmark. This review summarises the present surgical techniques for reconstruction with/without postoperative chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy. These surgical techniques are continuously updated. The most determining factor when selecting a reconstructive technique, is postoperative radiation therapy. Each patient is unique, and an individual assessment is made when planning surgery. The concept of a "babysitter implant" is currently being investigated in Denmark and might be an option for selected patients.
Topics: Female; Humans; Breast Neoplasms; Mammaplasty; Mastectomy; Denmark
PubMed: 38533872
DOI: 10.61409/V12220745 -
Cancer Control : Journal of the Moffitt... 2018The optimal approach to the integration of postmastectomy reconstruction and radiation therapy is not well-established. This review will summarize current literature... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The optimal approach to the integration of postmastectomy reconstruction and radiation therapy is not well-established. This review will summarize current literature pertaining to the most common types of reconstruction in the setting of postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT).
DATA SOURCES
Literature from PubMed was reviewed from 2000 to 2016.
STUDY SELECTION
Studies were selected with relevance to "postmastectomy breast reconstruction," "breast reconstruction," and "breast reconstructive methods and PMRT." Surgical outcomes, patient satisfaction, and cost-effectiveness were examined.
DATA EXTRACTION
Data from publications was extracted, summarized, and converted to a table.
RESULTS OF DATA SYNTHESIS
Implant-based techniques are on the rise, in the setting of PMRT. Implant-based methods are more affordable in the short term and result in immediate breast-mound formation compared to autologous methods. When compared to implant-based reconstruction with PMRT, autologous reconstruction with PMRT results in better quality of life (QoL) and sensory recovery as well as fewer complications and failures. Among autologous flaps, deep inferior epigastric perforator flaps are considered superior to transverse rectus abdominal muscle (TRAM) pedicled flaps and may be more suitable for PMRT. Latissimus dorsi and muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps are also viable options. In delayed autologous, which may be advantageous for high-risk patients, the optimal timing to delay surgery after radiation therapy is unknown. Reconstruction with a 2-stage tissue expander-implant technique offers good to excellent cosmetic outcomes in the setting of PMRT, although there may be complications in this 2-stage process.
CONCLUSION
Surgical, cosmetic, quality of life, and life expectancy must be taken into account when selecting the way to integrate breast reconstruction and PMRT.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Mammaplasty; Mastectomy; Patient Satisfaction; Postoperative Complications; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Quality of Life; Radiotherapy, Adjuvant; Risk Factors; Surgical Flaps; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30132338
DOI: 10.1177/1073274818795489 -
The Breast Journal 2022Less than 1% of all breast cancers are diagnosed in males. In females, postmastectomy breast reconstruction is associated with increased patient satisfaction. However,... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Less than 1% of all breast cancers are diagnosed in males. In females, postmastectomy breast reconstruction is associated with increased patient satisfaction. However, there is a paucity of literature describing reconstructive options for postmastectomy deformity in the male chest. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate postmastectomy reconstruction outcomes in males with breast cancer.
METHODS
A systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science were queried for records pertaining to the study question using medical subject heading (MeSH) terms such as "male breast cancer," "mastectomy," and "reconstruction." No limitations were placed on the year of publication, country of origin, or study size. Study characteristics and patient demographics were collected. Primary outcomes of interest included postoperative complications, recurrence rate, and mortality rate.
RESULTS
A total of 11 articles examining 29 male patients with breast cancer who underwent postmastectomy reconstruction were included for analysis. Literature was most commonly available in the form of case reports. The average age was 59.6 +/-11.4 years. Reconstruction methods included fat grafting ( = 1, 3.4%), silicone implants ( = 1, 3.4%), and autologous chest wall reconstruction with local flaps ( = 26, 89.7%). Postoperative complications occurred in two patients (6.8%), including partial nipple necrosis ( = 1) and hypertrophic scarring ( = 1). Of the studies reporting patient satisfaction, all patients were pleased with the aesthetic appearance of their chest.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review revealed the limited availability of research regarding postmastectomy chest reconstruction in males with breast cancer. Nevertheless, the evidence available suggests that reconstruction can restore a patient's body image and, thus, should be regularly considered and discussed with male patients. Larger studies are warranted to further shed light on this population.
Topics: Aged; Breast Implants; Breast Neoplasms; Breast Neoplasms, Male; Female; Humans; Male; Mammaplasty; Mastectomy; Middle Aged; Postoperative Complications; Surgical Flaps
PubMed: 35711890
DOI: 10.1155/2022/5482261 -
Archives of Pathology & Laboratory... Mar 2018
Topics: Mammaplasty; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 29494221
DOI: 10.5858/arpa.2017-0458-LE