-
Journal of Clinical Medicine Jun 2024Research advancing effective treatments for breast cancer is crucial for eradicating the disease, reducing recurrence, and improving survival rates. Nipple-sparing... (Review)
Review
Research advancing effective treatments for breast cancer is crucial for eradicating the disease, reducing recurrence, and improving survival rates. Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM), a common method for treating breast cancer, often leads to complications requiring re-operation. Despite advancements, the use of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) for treating these complications remains underexplored. Therefore, we analyze the efficacy of HBOT in the post-operative care of patients undergoing NSM. A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library. Studies were assessed for eligibility using the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) framework and classified based on American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) levels of evidence. Seven studies, totaling a pool of 63 female patients, met the inclusion criteria. Among these studies, four were categorized as Level III (57.1%), one as Level IV (14.3%), and two as Level V (28.6%). These studies focused on HBOT's role in wound healing, the successful salvage of breast reconstruction, and the optimal timing for HBOT. This review revealed that HBOT indeed has potential for improving tissue oxygenation, vascularization, and, consequently, wound healing. It is noted that HBOT is efficacious for mitigating post-NMS complications, including infections, re-operation, flap loss, seroma, and hematoma. Overall, HBOT could be beneficial in standard post-surgical care protocols for patients undergoing NSM due to its role in mitigating common adverse effects that occur after mastectomy. Despite promising outcomes, the recent literature lacks rigorous clinical trials and well-defined control groups, underscoring the need for further research to establish standardized HBOT protocols.
PubMed: 38930063
DOI: 10.3390/jcm13123535 -
Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) May 2024Breast cancer is the fifth-ranked cancer globally. Despite early diagnosis and advances in treatment, breast cancer mortality is increasing. This meta-analysis aims to... (Review)
Review
Breast cancer is the fifth-ranked cancer globally. Despite early diagnosis and advances in treatment, breast cancer mortality is increasing. This meta-analysis aims to examine all possible prognostic factors that improve/deteriorate breast cancer-specific survival. MEDLINE, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Ovid, and Google Scholar were systematically searched until September 16, 2023. The retrieved studies from 1995 to 2022 accumulated 1,386,663 cases from 30 countries. A total of 13 out of 22 prognostic factors were significantly associated with breast cancer-specific survival. A random-effects model provided a pooled estimate of the top five poorest prognostic factors, including Stage 4 (HR = 12.12; 95% CI: 5.70, 25.76), followed by Stage 3 (HR = 3.42, 95% CI: 2.51, 4.67), a comorbidity index ≥ 3 (HR = 3.29; 95% CI: 4.52, 7.35), the poor differentiation of cancer cell histology (HR = 2.43; 95% CI: 1.79, 3.30), and undifferentiated cancer cell histology (HR = 2.24; 95% CI: 1.66, 3.01). Other survival-reducing factors include positive nodes, age, race, HER2-receptor positivity, and overweight/obesity. The top five best prognostic factors include different types of mastectomies and breast-conserving therapies (HR = 0.56; 95% CI: 0.44, 0.70), medullary histology (HR = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.53, 0.72), higher education (HR = 0.72; 95% CI: 0.68, 0.77), and a positive estrogen receptor status (HR = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.65, 0.94). Heterogeneity was observed in most studies. Data from developing countries are still scarce.
PubMed: 38920543
DOI: 10.3390/diseases12060111 -
Cureus May 2024Novel hybrid approaches for chest wall irradiation show promising outcomes regarding target coverage and sparing organs at risk (OARs). In this systematic review, we... (Review)
Review
Hybrid Treatment Planning for Chest Wall Irradiation Utilizing Three-Dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy (3DCRT), Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT), and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT): A Systematic Review.
Novel hybrid approaches for chest wall irradiation show promising outcomes regarding target coverage and sparing organs at risk (OARs). In this systematic review, we compared hybrid volumetric modulated arc therapy (H-VMAT) or hybrid intensity-modulated radiotherapy (H-IMRT) techniques with non-hybrid techniques, such as three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT), field-in-field (FIF), intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMRT), and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), for breast cancer patients with mastectomy. Our focus was the plan quality and dose distribution to the OARs. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist, we performed a systematic review and quality appraisal of primary studies evaluating hybrid therapy to the chest wall and the OARs. An extensive online search of PubMed and Scopus databases was conducted using appropriate keywords. The dose to the OARs (lung, heart, and contralateral breast), planning target volume (PTV), homogeneity index (HI), and conformity index (CI) were extracted. The data were then tabulated and compared for the outcomes between modalities among the studies. Nine studies that met the search criteria were selected to evaluate the PTV coverage and dosimetric results of hybrid and non-hybrid techniques. In terms of 95% PTV coverage, among nine reviewed studies, the largest difference between the two techniques was between VMAT (47.6 Gy) and H-VMAT (48.4 Gy); for the conformity index, the largest difference was noted between 3DCRT (0.58) and H-VMAT (0.79). In both cases, differences were statistically significant ( < 0.005). Two studies showed dose homogeneity improvement within the treatment target in H-VMAT (0.15 and 0.07) compared with 3DCRT (0.41 and 0.12), with a value of <0.001. Two studies did not report on the homogeneity index, and three others observed no statistical difference. Regarding OARs, in the comparison of H-VMAT and VMAT, the largest significant change was in the volume receiving 5 Gy (V) of the ipsilateral lung and the V of the contralateral lung. For the ipsilateral lung, V was 90.7% with VMAT versus 51.45% with H-VMAT. For the contralateral lung, V was 54.9% with VMAT versus 50.5% with H-VMAT. In six studies, the mean dose of the contralateral breast was lower in hybrid techniques than in single modalities: VMAT (4.2%, 6.0%, 1.9%, 7.1%, 4.57%) versus H-VMAT (1.4%, 3.4%, 1.8%, 3.5%, 2.34%) and IMRT (9.1%) versus H-IMRT (4.69%). Although most studies did not report on monitor units and treatment time, those that included them showed that hybrids had lower monitor units and shorter treatment times. Hybrid techniques in radiotherapy, such as combining two modalities, can indeed facilitate lower doses to OARs for patients with a high risk of toxicities. Prospective clinical studies are needed to determine the outcomes of breast cancer treated with hybrid techniques.
PubMed: 38832195
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.59583 -
Systematic Reviews May 2024Different guideline panels, and individuals, may make different decisions based in part on their preferences. Preferences for or against an intervention are viewed as a...
BACKGROUND
Different guideline panels, and individuals, may make different decisions based in part on their preferences. Preferences for or against an intervention are viewed as a consequence of the relative importance people place on the expected or experienced health outcomes it incurs. These findings can then be considered as patient input when balancing effect estimates on benefits and harms reported by empirical evidence on the clinical effectiveness of screening programs. This systematic review update examined the relative importance placed by patients on the potential benefits and harms of mammography-based breast cancer screening to inform an update to the 2018 Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care's guideline on screening.
METHODS
We screened all articles from our previous review (search December 2017) and updated our searches to June 19, 2023 in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. We also screened grey literature, submissions by stakeholders, and reference lists. The target population was cisgender women and other adults assigned female at birth (including transgender men and nonbinary persons) aged ≥ 35 years and at average or moderately increased risk for breast cancer. Studies of patients with breast cancer were eligible for health-state utility data for relevant outcomes. We sought three types of data, directly through (i) disutilities of screening and curative treatment health states (measuring the impact of the outcome on one's health-related quality of life; utilities measured on a scale of 0 [death] to 1 [perfect health]), and (ii) other preference-based data, such as outcome trade-offs, and indirectly through (iii) the relative importance of benefits versus harms inferred from attitudes, intentions, and behaviors towards screening among patients provided with estimates of the magnitudes of benefit(s) and harms(s). For screening, we used machine learning as one of the reviewers after at least 50% of studies had been reviewed in duplicate by humans; full-text selection used independent review by two humans. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments used a single reviewer with verification. Our main analysis for utilities used data from utility-based health-related quality of life tools (e.g., EQ-5D) in patients; a disutility value of about 0.04 can be considered a minimally important value for the Canadian public. When suitable, we pooled utilities and explored heterogeneity. Disutilities were calculated for screening health states and between different treatment states. Non-utility data were grouped into categories, based on outcomes compared (e.g. for trade-off data), participant age, and our judgements of the net benefit of screening portrayed by the studies. Thereafter, we compared and contrasted findings while considering sample sizes, risk of bias, subgroup findings and data on knowledge scores, and created summary statements for each data set. Certainty assessments followed GRADE guidance for patient preferences and used consensus among at least two reviewers.
FINDINGS
Eighty-two studies (38 on utilities) were included. The estimated disutilities were 0.07 for a positive screening result (moderate certainty), 0.03-0.04 for a false positive (FP; "additional testing" resolved as negative for cancer) (low certainty), and 0.08 for untreated screen-detected cancer (moderate certainty) or (low certainty) an interval cancer. At ≤12 months, disutilities of mastectomy (vs. breast-conserving therapy), chemotherapy (vs. none) (low certainty), and radiation therapy (vs. none) (moderate certainty) were 0.02-0.03, 0.02-0.04, and little-to-none, respectively, though in each case findings were somewhat limited in their applicability. Over the longer term, there was moderate certainty for little-to-no disutility from mastectomy versus breast-conserving surgery/lumpectomy with radiation and from radiation. There was moderate certainty that a majority (>50%) and possibly a large majority (>75%) of women probably accept up to six cases of overdiagnosis to prevent one breast-cancer death; there was some uncertainty because of an indication that overdiagnosis was not fully understood by participants in some cases. Low certainty evidence suggested that a large majority may accept that screening may reduce breast-cancer but not all-cause mortality, at least when presented with relatively high rates of breast-cancer mortality reductions (n = 2; 2 and 5 fewer per 1000 screened), and at least a majority accept that to prevent one breast-cancer death at least a few hundred patients will receive a FP result and 10-15 will have a FP resolved through biopsy. An upper limit for an acceptable number of FPs was not evaluated. When using data from studies assessing attitudes, intentions, and screening behaviors, across all age groups but most evident for women in their 40s, preferences reduced as the net benefit presented by study authors decreased in magnitude. In a relatively low net-benefit scenario, a majority of patients in their 40s may not weigh the benefits as greater than the harms from screening whereas for women in their 50s a large majority may prefer screening (low certainty evidence for both ages). There was moderate certainty that a large majority of women 50 years of age and 50 to 69 years of age, who have usually experienced screening, weigh the benefits as greater than the harms from screening in a high net-benefit scenario. A large majority of patients aged 70-71 years who have recently screened probably think the benefits outweigh the harms of continuing to screen. A majority of women in their mid-70s to early 80s may prefer to continue screening.
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence across a range of data sources on how informed patients value the potential outcomes from breast-cancer screening will be useful during decision-making for recommendations. The evidence suggests that all of the outcomes examined have importance to women of any age, that there is at least some and possibly substantial (among those in their 40s) variability across and within age groups about the acceptable magnitude of effects across outcomes, and that provision of easily understandable information on the likelihood of the outcomes may be necessary to enable informed decision making. Although studies came from a wide range of countries, there were limited data from Canada and about whether findings applied well across an ethnographically and socioeconomically diverse population.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
Protocol available at Open Science Framework https://osf.io/xngsu/ .
Topics: Humans; Breast Neoplasms; Early Detection of Cancer; Female; Canada; Patient Preference; Mammography; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Preventive Health Services; Advisory Committees; Quality of Life
PubMed: 38807191
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-024-02539-8 -
Journal of Medical Internet Research May 2024Web-based decision aids have been shown to have a positive effect when used to improve the quality of decision-making for women facing postmastectomy breast... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Web-based decision aids have been shown to have a positive effect when used to improve the quality of decision-making for women facing postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR). However, the existing findings regarding these interventions are still incongruent, and the overall effect is unclear.
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to assess the content of web-based decision aids and its impact on decision-related outcomes (ie, decision conflict, decision regret, informed choice, and knowledge), psychological-related outcomes (ie, satisfaction and anxiety), and surgical decision-making in women facing PMBR.
METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. A total of 6 databases, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science Core Collection, were searched starting at the time of establishment of the databases to May 2023, and an updated search was conducted on April 1, 2024. MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms and text words were used. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for randomized controlled trials was used to assess the risk of bias. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.
RESULTS
In total, 7 studies included 579 women and were published between 2008 and 2023, and the sample size in each study ranged from 26 to 222. The results showed that web-based decision aids used audio and video to present the pros and cons of PMBR versus no PMBR, implants versus flaps, and immediate versus delayed PMBR and the appearance and feel of the PMBR results and the expected recovery time with photographs of actual patients. Web-based decision aids help improve PMBR knowledge, decisional conflict (mean difference [MD]=-5.43, 95% CI -8.87 to -1.99; P=.002), and satisfaction (standardized MD=0.48, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.95; P=.05) but have no effect on informed choice (MD=-2.80, 95% CI -8.54 to 2.94; P=.34), decision regret (MD=-1.55, 95% CI -6.00 to 2.90 P=.49), or anxiety (standardized MD=0.04, 95% CI -0.50 to 0.58; P=.88). The overall Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation quality of the evidence was low.
CONCLUSIONS
The findings suggest that the web-based decision aids provide a modern, low-cost, and high dissemination rate effective method to promote the improved quality of decision-making in women undergoing PMBR.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42023450496; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=450496.
Topics: Female; Humans; Decision Making; Decision Support Techniques; Internet; Mammaplasty; Mastectomy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38801766
DOI: 10.2196/53872 -
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.... May 2024Nipple adenomas (NAs) are rare benign proliferative tumors presenting as palpable nodules, erosive lesions, or nipple discharge, mimicking other conditions. This...
BACKGROUND
Nipple adenomas (NAs) are rare benign proliferative tumors presenting as palpable nodules, erosive lesions, or nipple discharge, mimicking other conditions. This systematic review categorizes cases into sole NA (ONA) or co-diagnoses with other conditions (CONA) to enhance clinical recognition, diagnosis, and treatment efficacy.
METHODS
Following PRISMA guidelines, a PubMed search was conducted for NA. Inclusion criteria covered original research, excluding reviews or other breast diseases. Bias risk was assessed through a thorough search, authors independently evaluated studies, and data were synthesized using varied measures. Subgroups ONA and CONA were formed. Analyses were conducted in Excel and R, complemented by a qualitative review due to case report predominance. Biases in case reports were transparently addressed.
RESULTS
Of the 86 studies, 387 cases were analyzed, showing 10.34% with co-diagnoses of malignant or premalignant conditions. Mean age was 44, with a female predominance (97%). ONA (347 cases) and CONA (40 cases) subgroups exhibited variations in symptoms, physical findings, and imaging. Treatment modalities included excision (51.39%), biopsy alone (11.1%), and mastectomy (8.6%). Mean follow-up of 56.73 months revealed recurrence (2.87%) and malignancy development (1.79%), notably in CONA cases (33.33%).
CONCLUSIONS
This study provides insights into the broader age range of NA and its associations. Higher co-diagnosis rates were correlated with older age, highlighting the necessity for thorough investigation, with excision as the primary treatment. Follow-up emphasizes the significance of identifying and monitoring CONA cases, which pose a higher malignancy risk. Recurrence is presumed to be linked to proper lesion excision and co-diagnosis.
PubMed: 38798941
DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000005827 -
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.... May 2024Breast reconstruction is a standard procedure in postmastectomy plastic surgery. The necessity of routine histological examinations for mastectomy scars during delayed...
BACKGROUND
Breast reconstruction is a standard procedure in postmastectomy plastic surgery. The necessity of routine histological examinations for mastectomy scars during delayed reconstruction remains a topic of debate. We evaluated the need for histological examination of scars during delayed breast reconstruction.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review using PubMed, TDnet, and Cochrane Central in August 2023. Inclusion criteria involved delayed breast reconstruction with histological scar analysis and malignancy reporting. Exclusion criteria encompassed noncancerous breast diseases, prophylactic mastectomies, articles lacking relevant information, case reports, technique descriptions, and reviews. We independently assessed articles. Differences in recurrence rates were determined using a Z-test for proportions. A linear regression model explored the relationship between reconstruction timing and pathological results. The number needed to treat was calculated based on the literature. The Wilcoxon test was used to compare mean reconstruction times and postreconstruction follow-up between groups.
RESULTS
Our analysis covered 11 retrospective observational studies published between 2003 and 2018, including 3754 mastectomy scars. The malignancy recurrence rate was 0.19%, consistent with previous reports, with a number needed to treat of 144.93-188.68 patients. The timing of breast reconstruction postmastectomy averaged 19.9 months, without statistically significant association between reconstruction timing and recurrence rates. Postreconstruction follow-up periods ranged from 60 to 87 months. The postreconstruction adverse outcomes ratio was 2.21%.
CONCLUSIONS
Assessing the necessity of histological examination in breast reconstruction is complex. Based on the literature and this study, we do not recommend routine histological examination of mastectomy scars during delayed reconstruction. A selective approach based on risk factors may be beneficial, warranting further research.
PubMed: 38798931
DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000005847 -
BJS Open May 2024Breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy and mastectomy are currently offered as equivalent surgical options for early-stage breast cancer based on RCTs from... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy and mastectomy are currently offered as equivalent surgical options for early-stage breast cancer based on RCTs from the 1970s and 1980s. However, the treatment of breast cancer has evolved and recent observational studies suggest a survival advantage for breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy. A systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to summarize the contemporary evidence regarding survival after breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy versus mastectomy for women with early-stage breast cancer.
METHODS
A systematic search of MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Embase that identified studies published between 1 January 2000 and 18 December 2023 comparing overall survival after breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy versus mastectomy for patients with unilateral stage 1-3 breast cancer was undertaken. The main exclusion criteria were studies evaluating neoadjuvant chemotherapy, rare breast cancer subtypes, and specific breast cancer populations. The ROBINS-I tool was used to assess risk of bias, with the overall certainty of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. Studies without critical risk of bias were included in a quantitative meta-analysis.
RESULTS
From 11 750 abstracts, 108 eligible articles were identified, with one article including two studies; 29 studies were excluded from the meta-analysis due to an overall critical risk of bias, 42 studies were excluded due to overlapping study populations, and three studies were excluded due to reporting incompatible results. A total of 35 observational studies reported survival outcomes for 909 077 patients (362 390 patients undergoing mastectomy and 546 687 patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy). The pooled HR was 0.72 (95% c.i. 0.68 to 0.75, P < 0.001), demonstrating improved overall survival for patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy. The overall certainty of the evidence was very low.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis provides evidence suggesting a survival advantage for women undergoing breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy for early-stage breast cancer compared with mastectomy. Although these results should be interpreted with caution, they should be shared with patients to support informed surgical decision-making.
Topics: Humans; Radiotherapy, Adjuvant; Female; Mastectomy, Segmental; Breast Neoplasms; Neoplasm Staging; Mastectomy
PubMed: 38758563
DOI: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrae040 -
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.... May 2024Implant-based breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) presents unique benefits and challenges. The literature has compared outcomes among total...
BACKGROUND
Implant-based breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) presents unique benefits and challenges. The literature has compared outcomes among total submuscular (TSM), dual-plane (DP), and prepectoral (PP) planes; however, a dedicated meta-analysis relevant to NSM is lacking.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of studies on immediate breast reconstruction after NSM using TSM, DP, or PP prosthesis placement in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. In total, 1317 unique articles were identified, of which 49 were included in the systematic review and six met inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. Pooled descriptive outcomes were analyzed for each cohort for all 49 studies. Fixed-effects meta-analytic methods were used to compare PP with subpectoral (TSM and DP) reconstructions.
RESULTS
A total of 1432 TSM, 1546 DP, and 1668 PP reconstructions were identified for descriptive analysis. Demographics were similar between cohorts. Pooled descriptive outcomes demonstrated overall similar rates of reconstructive failure (3.3%-5.1%) as well as capsular contracture (0%-3.9%) among cohorts. Fixed-effects meta-analysis of six comparative studies demonstrated a significantly lower rate of mastectomy flap necrosis in the PP cohort compared with the subpectoral cohort (relative risk 0.24, 95% confidence interval [0.08-0.74]). All other consistently reported outcomes, including, hematoma, seroma, infection, mastectomy flap necrosis, nipple -areola complex necrosis, and explantation were comparable.
CONCLUSIONS
A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis demonstrated the safety of immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction after NSM, compared with submuscular techniques. Submuscular reconstruction had a higher risk of mastectomy flap necrosis, though potentially influenced by selection bias.
PubMed: 38746948
DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000005808 -
Cureus Mar 2024This study aims to investigate the relationship between mammographic breast density and the surgical outcomes of breast cancer. PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Science... (Review)
Review
This study aims to investigate the relationship between mammographic breast density and the surgical outcomes of breast cancer. PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Science Direct, and the Wiley Library were systematically searched for relevant literature. Rayyan QRCI was employed throughout this comprehensive process. Our results included ten studies with a total of 5017 women diagnosed with breast cancer. The follow-up duration ranged from 1 year to 15.1 years. Eight out of the twelve included studies reported that low mammographic breast density was significantly associated with no local recurrence, metachronous contralateral breast cancer, and fewer challenges in the preoperative and intraoperative phases. On the other hand, four studies reported that mammographic breast density is not linked to disease recurrence, survival, re-excision, or an incomplete clinical and pathological response. There is a significant association between low mammographic breast density and reduced challenges in the preoperative and intraoperative phases, as well as no local recurrence and fewer mastectomy cases. However, the link between mammographic breast density and disease recurrence, survival, re-excision, and incomplete clinical and pathological response is less clear, with some studies reporting no significant association. The findings suggest that mammographic breast density may play a role in certain aspects of breast cancer outcomes, but further research is needed to fully understand its impact.
PubMed: 38686256
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.57265