-
Cancer Treatment Reviews Apr 2022Adjuvant and neoadjuvant breast cancer treatments can reduce breast cancer mortality but may increase mortality from other causes. Information regarding treatment... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Adjuvant and neoadjuvant breast cancer treatments can reduce breast cancer mortality but may increase mortality from other causes. Information regarding treatment benefits and risks is scattered widely through the literature. To inform clinical practice we collated and reviewed the highest quality evidence.
METHODS
Guidelines were searched to identify adjuvant or neoadjuvant treatment options recommended in early invasive breast cancer. For each option, systematic literature searches identified the highest-ranking evidence. For radiotherapy risks, searches for dose-response relationships and modern organ doses were also undertaken.
RESULTS
Treatment options recommended in the USA and elsewhere included chemotherapy (anthracycline, taxane, platinum, capecitabine), anti-human epidermal growth factor 2 therapy (trastuzumab, pertuzumab, trastuzumab emtansine, neratinib), endocrine therapy (tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitor, ovarian ablation/suppression) and bisphosphonates. Radiotherapy options were after breast conserving surgery (whole breast, partial breast, tumour bed boost, regional nodes) and after mastectomy (chest wall, regional nodes). Treatment options were supported by randomised evidence, including > 10,000 women for eight treatment comparisons, 1,000-10,000 for fifteen and < 1,000 for one. Most treatment comparisons reduced breast cancer mortality or recurrence by 10-25%, with no increase in non-breast-cancer death. Anthracycline chemotherapy and radiotherapy increased overall non-breast-cancer mortality. Anthracycline risk was from heart disease and leukaemia. Radiation-risks were mainly from heart disease, lung cancer and oesophageal cancer, and increased with increasing heart, lung and oesophagus radiation doses respectively. Taxanes increased leukaemia risk.
CONCLUSIONS
These benefits and risks inform treatment decisions for individuals and recommendations for groups of women.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Female; Humans; Mastectomy; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Tamoxifen
PubMed: 35367784
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2022.102375 -
Journal of Cancer Survivorship :... Apr 2021Manual lymphatic drainage (MLD) massage is widely accepted as a conservative treatment for lymphedema. This systematic review aims to examine the methodologies used in... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Manual lymphatic drainage (MLD) massage is widely accepted as a conservative treatment for lymphedema. This systematic review aims to examine the methodologies used in recent research and evaluate the effectiveness of MLD for those at-risk of or living with lymphedema.
METHODS
The electronic databases Embase, PubMed, CINAHL Complete and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched using relevant terms. Studies comparing MLD with another intervention or control in patients at-risk of or with lymphedema were included. Studies were critically appraised with the PEDro scale.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies with a total of 867 female and two male participants were included. Only studies examining breast cancer-related lymphedema were identified. Some studies reported positive effects of MLD on volume reduction, quality of life and symptom-related outcomes compared with other treatments, while other studies reported no additional benefit of MLD as a component of complex decongestive therapy. In patients at-risk, MLD was reported to reduce incidence of lymphedema in some studies, while others reported no such benefits.
CONCLUSIONS
The reviewed articles reported conflicting findings and were often limited by methodological issues. This review highlights the need for further experimental studies on the effectiveness of MLD in lymphedema.
IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS
There is some evidence that MLD in early stages following breast cancer surgery may help prevent progression to clinical lymphedema. MLD may also provide additional benefits in volume reduction for mild lymphedema. However, in moderate to severe lymphedema, MLD may not provide additional benefit when combined with complex decongestive therapy.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Lymphedema; Male; Manual Lymphatic Drainage; Mastectomy; Quality of Life
PubMed: 32803533
DOI: 10.1007/s11764-020-00928-1 -
Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive &... Nov 2022Because of improved aesthetic results, immediate breast reconstruction has become the most widely used timing of reconstruction following mastectomy. Many studies report... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Because of improved aesthetic results, immediate breast reconstruction has become the most widely used timing of reconstruction following mastectomy. Many studies report complication rates between immediate and delayed reconstructions at certain medical institutions, but no systematic reviews exist to summarize the literature. This systematic review was conducted to assess the outcomes in women who underwent immediate versus delayed breast reconstruction following mastectomy for breast cancer.
METHODS
Cochrane, PubMed, and EMBASE electronic databases were screened, and data were extracted from included studies. The clinical outcomes assessed were surgical complications, length of postoperative hospital stay, and reoperation rate.
RESULTS
A total of 30 studies met the inclusion criteria for the review and provided enough data to be included in the meta-analysis (14,034 patients). Women receiving immediate breast reconstruction were significantly more likely to experience surgical complications (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.03, 1.65; p = 0.03). Sensitivity analysis showed that women receiving immediate reconstruction were also more likely to experience infection (OR 1.41, 95% 1.04, 1.92; p = 0.03) and hematoma/seroma (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.27-3.17; p = 0.003). Furthermore, a separate sensitivity analysis showed no significant differences in reported outcomes when comparing studies whose patient cohorts received post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT).
CONCLUSIONS
This study provides evidence that immediate breast reconstruction generally increases the risk of complications in comparison with delayed reconstruction. Additional prospective and observational studies are needed to determine the role of PMRT and reconstruction surgical technique in the incidence of complications between immediate and delayed reconstructions.
Topics: Humans; Female; Mastectomy; Breast Neoplasms; Prospective Studies; Mammaplasty; Seroma; Postoperative Complications; Radiotherapy, Adjuvant; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 36202732
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2022.08.029 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Sep 2022To determine if margin involvement is associated with distant recurrence and to determine the required margin to minimise both local recurrence and distant recurrence in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To determine if margin involvement is associated with distant recurrence and to determine the required margin to minimise both local recurrence and distant recurrence in early stage invasive breast cancer.
DESIGN
Prospectively registered systematic review and meta-analysis of literature.
DATA SOURCES
Medline (PubMed), Embase, and Proquest online databases. Unpublished data were sought from study authors.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Eligible studies reported on patients undergoing breast conserving surgery (for stages I-III breast cancer), allowed an estimation of outcomes in relation to margin status, and followed up patients for a minimum of 60 months. Patients with ductal carcinoma in situ only or treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy or by mastectomy were excluded. Where applicable, margins were categorised as tumour on ink (involved), close margins (no tumour on ink but <2 mm), and negative margins (≥2 mm).
RESULTS
68 studies from 1 January 1980 to 31 December 2021, comprising 112 140 patients with breast cancer, were included. Across all studies, 9.4% (95% confidence interval 6.8% to 12.8%) of patients had involved (tumour on ink) margins and 17.8% (13.0% to 23.9%) had tumour on ink or a close margin. The rate of distant recurrence was 25.4% (14.5% to 40.6%) in patients with tumour on ink, 8.4% (4.4% to 15.5%) in patients with tumour on ink or close, and 7.4% (3.9% to 13.6%) in patients with negative margins. Compared with negative margins, tumour on ink margins were associated with increased distant recurrence (hazard ratio 2.10, 95% confidence interval 1.65 to 2.69, P<0.001) and local recurrence (1.98, 1.66 to 2.36, P<0.001). Close margins were associated with increased distant recurrence (1.38, 1.13 to 1.69, P<0.001) and local recurrence (2.09, 1.39 to 3.13, P<0.001) compared with negative margins, after adjusting for receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy. In five studies published since 2010, tumour on ink margins were associated with increased distant recurrence (2.41, 1.81 to 3.21, P<0.001) as were tumour on ink and close margins (1.44, 1.22 to 1.71, P<0.001) compared with negative margins.
CONCLUSIONS
Involved or close pathological margins after breast conserving surgery for early stage, invasive breast cancer are associated with increased distant recurrence and local recurrence. Surgeons should aim to achieve a minimum clear margin of at least 1 mm. On the basis of current evidence, international guidelines should be revised.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
CRD42021232115.
Topics: Breast; Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Margins of Excision; Mastectomy; Mastectomy, Segmental; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local
PubMed: 36130770
DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2022-070346 -
Medicine Dec 2020Studies have shown that manual lymphatic drainage (MLD) has a beneficial effect on lymphedema related to breast cancer surgery. However, whether MLD reduces the risk of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Studies have shown that manual lymphatic drainage (MLD) has a beneficial effect on lymphedema related to breast cancer surgery. However, whether MLD reduces the risk of lymphedema is still debated. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize the current evidence to assess the effectiveness of MLD in preventing and treating lymphedema in patients after breast cancer surgery.
METHODS
From inception to May 2019, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched without language restriction. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the treatment and prevention effect of MLD with a control group on lymphedema in breast cancer patients. A random-effects model was used for all analyses.
RESULTS
A total of 17 RCTs involving 1911 patients were included. A meta-analysis of 8 RCTs, including 338 patients, revealed that MLD did not significantly reduce lymphedema compared with the control group (standardized mean difference (SMD): -0.09, 95% confidence interval (CI): [-0.85 to 0.67]). Subgroup analysis was basically consistent with the main analysis according to the research region, the publication year, the sample size, the type of surgery, the statistical analysis method, the mean age, and the intervention time. However, we found that MLD could significantly reduce lymphedema in patients under the age of 60 years (SMD: -1.77, 95% CI: [-2.23 to -1.31]) and an intervention time of 1 month (SMD: -1.77, 95% CI: [-2.23 to -1.30]). Meanwhile, 4 RCTs including, 1364 patients, revealed that MLD could not significantly prevent the risk of lymphedema (risk ratio (RR): 0.61, 95% CI: [0.29-1.26]) for patients having breast cancer surgery.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, this meta-analysis of 12 RCTs showed that MLD cannot significantly reduce or prevent lymphedema in patients after breast cancer surgery. However, well-designed RCTs with a larger sample size are required, especially in patients under the age of 60 years or an intervention time of 1 month.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Humans; Lymphedema; Manual Lymphatic Drainage; Mastectomy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33285693
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000023192 -
Journal of Clinical Oncology : Official... Jun 2020To develop recommendations concerning the management of male breast cancer.
PURPOSE
To develop recommendations concerning the management of male breast cancer.
METHODS
ASCO convened an Expert Panel to develop recommendations based on a systematic review and a formal consensus process.
RESULTS
Twenty-six descriptive reports or observational studies met eligibility criteria and formed the evidentiary basis for the recommendations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Many of the management approaches used for men with breast cancer are like those used for women. Men with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer who are candidates for adjuvant endocrine therapy should be offered tamoxifen for an initial duration of five years; those with a contraindication to tamoxifen may be offered a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist/antagonist plus aromatase inhibitor. Men who have completed five years of tamoxifen, have tolerated therapy, and still have a high risk of recurrence may be offered an additional five years of therapy. Men with early-stage disease should not be treated with bone-modifying agents to prevent recurrence, but could still receive these agents to prevent or treat osteoporosis. Men with advanced or metastatic disease should be offered endocrine therapy as first-line therapy, except in cases of visceral crisis or rapidly progressive disease. Targeted systemic therapy may be used to treat advanced or metastatic cancer using the same indications and combinations offered to women. Ipsilateral annual mammogram should be offered to men with a history of breast cancer treated with lumpectomy regardless of genetic predisposition; contralateral annual mammogram may be offered to men with a history of breast cancer and a genetic predisposing mutation. Breast magnetic resonance imaging is not recommended routinely. Genetic counseling and germline genetic testing of cancer predisposition genes should be offered to all men with breast cancer.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Breast Neoplasms, Male; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Consensus; Delphi Technique; Evidence-Based Medicine; Genetic Counseling; Genetic Testing; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Male; Mammography; Mastectomy; Medical Oncology; Predictive Value of Tests; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32058842
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.19.03120 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2021Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (O-BCS) involves removing the tumour in the breast and using plastic surgery techniques to reconstruct the breast. The adequacy of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (O-BCS) involves removing the tumour in the breast and using plastic surgery techniques to reconstruct the breast. The adequacy of published evidence on the safety and efficacy of O-BCS for the treatment of breast cancer compared to other surgical options for breast cancer is still debatable. It is estimated that the local recurrence rate is similar to standard breast-conserving surgery (S-BCS) and also mastectomy, but the aesthetic and patient-reported outcomes may be improved with oncoplastic techniques.
OBJECTIVES
Our primary objective was to assess oncological control outcomes following O-BCS compared with other surgical options for women with breast cancer. Our secondary objective was to assess surgical complications, recall rates, need for further surgery to achieve adequate oncological resection, patient satisfaction through patient-reported outcomes, and cosmetic outcomes through objective measures or clinician-reported outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (via OVID), Embase (via OVID), the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov on 7 August 2020. We did not apply any language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised comparative studies (cohort and case-control studies). Studies evaluated any O-BCS technique, including volume displacement techniques and partial breast volume replacement techniques compared to any other surgical treatment (partial resection or mastectomy) for the treatment of breast cancer.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Four review authors performed data extraction and resolved disagreements. We used ROBINS-I to assess the risk of bias by outcome. We performed descriptive data analysis and meta-analysis and evaluated the quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria. The outcomes included local recurrence, breast cancer-specific disease-free survival, re-excision rates, complications, recall rates, and patient-reported outcome measures.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 78 non-randomised cohort studies evaluating 178,813 women. Overall, we assessed the risk of bias per outcome as being at serious risk of bias due to confounding; where studies adjusted for confounding, we deemed these at moderate risk. Comparison 1: oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (O-BCS) versus standard-BCS (S-BCS) The evidence in the review found that O-BCS when compared to S-BCS, may make little or no difference to local recurrence; either when measured as local recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.34; 4 studies, 7600 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or local recurrence rate (HR 1.33, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.83; 4 studies, 2433 participants; low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain due to most studies not controlling for confounding clinicopathological factors. O-BCS compared to S-BCS may make little to no difference to disease-free survival (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.26; 7 studies, 5532 participants; low-certainty evidence). O-BCS may reduce the rate of re-excisions needed for oncological resection (risk ratio (RR) 0.76, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.85; 38 studies, 13,341 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. O-BCS may increase the number of women who have at least one complication (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.27; 20 studies, 118,005 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and increase the recall to biopsy rate (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.67 to 3.42; 6 studies, 715 participants; low-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis was not possible when assessing patient-reported outcomes or cosmetic evaluation; in general, O-BCS reported a similar or more favourable result, however, the evidence is very uncertain due to risk of bias in the measurement methods. Comparison 2: oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (O-BCS) versus mastectomy alone O-BCS may increase local recurrence-free survival compared to mastectomy but the evidence is very uncertain (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.91; 2 studies, 4713 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of O-BCS on disease-free survival as there were only data from one study. O-BCS may reduce complications compared to mastectomy, but the evidence is very uncertain due to high risk of bias mainly resulting from confounding (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.83; 4 studies, 4839 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Data on patient-reported outcome measures came from single studies; it was not possible to meta-analyse the data. Comparison 3: oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (O-BCS) versus mastectomy with reconstruction O-BCS may make little or no difference to local recurrence-free survival (HR 1.37, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.62; 1 study, 3785 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or disease-free survival (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.22; 1 study, 317 participants; very low-certainty evidence) when compared to mastectomy with reconstruction, but the evidence is very uncertain. O-BCS may reduce the complication rate compared to mastectomy with reconstruction (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.54; 5 studies, 4973 participants; very low-certainty evidence) but the evidence is very uncertain due to high risk of bias from confounding and inconsistency of results. The evidence is very uncertain for patient-reported outcome measures and cosmetic evaluation.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence is very uncertain regarding oncological outcomes following O-BCS compared to S-BCS, though O-BCS has not been shown to be inferior. O-BCS may result in less need for a second re-excision surgery but may result in more complications and a greater recall rate than S-BCS. It seems that O-BCS may give better patient satisfaction and surgeon rating for the look of the breast, but the evidence for this is of poor quality, and due to lack of numerical data, it was not possible to pool the results of different studies. It seems O-BCS results in fewer complications compared with surgeries involving mastectomy. Based on this review, no certain conclusions can be made to help inform policymakers. The surgical decision for what operation to proceed with should be made jointly between clinician and patient after an appropriate discussion about the risks and benefits of O-BCS personalised to the patient, taking into account clinicopathological factors. This review highlighted the deficiency of well-conducted studies to evaluate efficacy, safety and patient-reported outcomes following O-BCS.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Cohort Studies; Disease-Free Survival; Female; Humans; Mastectomy; Mastectomy, Segmental
PubMed: 34713449
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013658.pub2 -
Breast Cancer (Tokyo, Japan) Jul 2020The present review evaluated health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) outcomes in surgical breast cancer survivors who received breast reconstruction (BR),... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Health-related quality of life following breast reconstruction compared to total mastectomy and breast-conserving surgery among breast cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
The present review evaluated health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) outcomes in surgical breast cancer survivors who received breast reconstruction (BR), breast-conservation surgery (BCS) or mastectomy (M), and whether HR-QoL domains across generic and disease/surgery-specific questionnaires are compatible. Six electronic databases were searched for appropriate observational studies. Standardized scores for different HR-QoL domains in the BR, BCS, and M treatment groups were extracted from each study for the purpose of a meta-analysis. Using Stata version 14.0, a random-effects meta-analysis model was adopted for each outcome variable to estimate the effect size, 95% CI-confidence intervals, and statistical significance. Sixteen of the 18 eligible studies with BR (n = 1474) and BCS (n = 2612) or M (n = 1458) groups were included in the meta-analysis. The BR group exhibited a better physical health (k = 12; 0.1, 95% CI 0.04, 0.24) and body image (k = 12; 0.50, 95% CI 0.10, 0.89) than the M group. However, the two groups exhibited comparable social health (k = 13; 0.1, 95% CI -0.07, 0.37), emotional health (k = 13; -0.08, 95% CI - 0.41, 0.25), global health (k = 7; 0.1, 95% CI - 0.01, 0.27), and sexual health (k =11; 0.2, 95% CI - 0.02,0.57). There was no clear evidence of the superiority of BR to BCS for all the six domains. These results suggest that HR-QoL outcomes in BR and BCS groups are better than the M group. Therefore, women opting for BR or BCS are likely to report fairly better HR-QoL outcomes than M. However, due to the significant heterogeneity observed in most BR versus BCS outcomes, developing a unified questionnaire incorporating both breast/surgery-specific and generic HR-QoL domains is warranted.
Topics: Body Image; Breast; Breast Neoplasms; Cancer Survivors; Female; Humans; Mammaplasty; Mastectomy, Segmental; Mastectomy, Simple; Quality of Life; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 32162181
DOI: 10.1007/s12282-020-01076-1 -
Disability and Rehabilitation Dec 2020The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effect of immersive and non-immersive interactive virtual reality on pain perception in patients with a clinical...
The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effect of immersive and non-immersive interactive virtual reality on pain perception in patients with a clinical pain condition. The following databases were searched from inception: Medline (Ovid), PsychInfo, CINAHL, Cochrane library and Web of Science. Two reviewers screened reports and extracted the data. A third reviewer acted as an arbiter. Studies were eligible if they were randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized trials, and uncontrolled trials. Crossover and parallel-group designs were included. Risk of bias was assessed for all included studies. Thirteen clinical studies were included. The majority of studies investigated a sample of participants with chronic pain. Six were controlled trials and seven uncontrolled studies. Findings from controlled research suggest that interactive virtual reality may reduce pain associated with ankylosing spondylitis and post-mastectomy, but results are inconsistent for patients with neck pain. Findings from uncontrolled studies suggest that interactive virtual reality may reduce neuropathic limb pain, and phantom limb pain, but had no effect on nonspecific chronic back pain. There is a need for more rigorous randomized control trials in order to conclude on the effectiveness of the use of virtual reality for the management of pain.Implications for rehabilitationInteractive virtual reality has been increasingly used in the rehabilitation of painful conditions.Interactive virtual reality using exergames may promote distraction from painful exercises and reduce pain post-mastectomy and in patients with ankylosing spondylitis.Interactive virtual representation of limbs may reduce neuropathic and phantom limb pain.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Exercise Therapy; Female; Humans; Mastectomy; Pain Perception; Virtual Reality
PubMed: 31067135
DOI: 10.1080/09638288.2019.1610803