-
Handchirurgie, Mikrochirurgie,... Aug 2023Breast implant-associated squamous cell carcinoma (BIA-SCC) is being discussed as a distinct malignant tumour entity originating from the implant capsule. The FDA and...
BACKGROUND
Breast implant-associated squamous cell carcinoma (BIA-SCC) is being discussed as a distinct malignant tumour entity originating from the implant capsule. The FDA and the ASPS published a safety communication on BIA-SCC in 2022, with a first case report of BIA-SCC having been published in the 1990s. This manuscript summarises the current scientific data on this rare tumour entity.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
This systematic literature review from two independent databases includes all publications of cases with histopathologically confirmed BIA-SCC. Data extraction included study design, demographic data, implant information and details regarding diagnosis and treatment.
RESULTS
Nineteen cases of BIA-SCC with a mean age of 57±10 years were reported in 16 publications. In most cases, the indication was aesthetic augmentation (n=13). Both silicone (n=11) and saline (n=7) implants with different surfaces (smooth n=3, textured n=3, polyurethane n=1) were used. Symptoms such as unilateral swelling (n=18), pain (n=14) and erythema (n=5) occurred on an average of 23±9 years after implantation. Imaging showed fluid collection (n=8) or a tumour mass (n=4) around the breast implant. The most common surgical treatment was explantation with capsulectomy. Metastasis was described in 6 cases.
CONCLUSIONS
BIA-SCC is a malignant tumour entity associated with breast implant capsules. Based on current low-quality data (level of evidence class V), no definitive conclusion regarding correlation and causality of SCC in patients with breast implants can be drawn. There is an urgent need for national and international breast implant and breast cancer registries to obtain valid data on the incidence, pathogenesis and clinical presentation of rare tumour entities.
Topics: Humans; Middle Aged; Aged; Female; Breast Implants; Breast Neoplasms; Breast Implantation; Device Removal; Carcinoma, Squamous Cell
PubMed: 37473774
DOI: 10.1055/a-2108-9111 -
Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) Oct 2023Radiation dermatitis (RD) is the most common side effect of adjuvant whole-breast or chest wall irradiation, majorly impacting quality of life in numerous patients. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Radiation dermatitis (RD) is the most common side effect of adjuvant whole-breast or chest wall irradiation, majorly impacting quality of life in numerous patients. The use of barrier films (polyurethane dressings such as Hydrofilm® and Mepitel® film remaining on the skin for the duration of the radiation treatment) has been investigated as a prophylactic measure in several prospective trials. Here, we critically appraise the available evidence behind preventive barrier film application in the context of breast cancer treatment.
METHODS
International literature was reviewed and high-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this meta-analysis.
RESULTS
The results of 5 RCTs (663 patients; >90% Caucasian) were analysed. Overall, barrier films lead to improved clinician- and patient-reported outcomes: fewer grade ≥2 RD (11% vs. 42%; OR = 0.16; p < 0.001) and moist desquamation (2% vs. 16%; OR = 0.12; p = 0.006), as well as less patient-reported pain (standardised mean difference [SMD] -0.51; p < 0.001), itching (SMD -0.52; p = 0.001), burning (SMD -0.41; p = 0.011), and limitations in daily activities (SMD -0.20; p = 0.007). Furthermore, barrier films have a high acceptance rate among patients, as well as a favourable cost-benefit ratio. Possible side effects due to its application are mild and mostly self-limiting. Overall, there was a lack of information on the radiation treatment techniques used.
CONCLUSION
The evidence presented in this meta-analysis suggests that barrier films are an excellent tool in the prevention of RD among Caucasian patients receiving whole-breast or chest wall irradiation. Its use should therefore be considered routinely in these patients.
Topics: Humans; Female; Breast Neoplasms; Radiodermatitis; Skin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37473629
DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2023.07.001 -
International Journal of Molecular... Feb 2019The aim of this PRISMA review was to assess whether the CMI and Actifit scaffolds, when used in clinical practice, improve clinical outcomes and demonstrate the ideal...
The aim of this PRISMA review was to assess whether the CMI and Actifit scaffolds, when used in clinical practice, improve clinical outcomes and demonstrate the ideal biological and biomechanical properties of scaffolds: being chondroprotective, porous, resorbable, able to mature and promote regeneration of tissue. This was done by only including studies that assessed clinical outcome and used a scale to assess both integrity of the scaffold and its effects on articular cartilage via MRI. A search was performed on PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and clinicaltrials.gov. 2457 articles were screened, from which eight studies were selected: four used Actifit, three used CMI and one compared the two. All studies reported significant improvement in at least one clinical outcome compared to baseline. Some studies suggested that the scaffolds appeared to show porosity, mature, resorb and/or have possible chondroprotective effects, as assessed by MRI. The evidence for clinical translation is limited by differences in study methodology and small sample sizes, but is promising in terms of improving clinical outcomes in the short to mid-term. Higher level evidence, with MRI and histological evaluation of the scaffold and articular cartilage, is now needed to further determine whether these scaffolds exhibit these useful properties.
Topics: Absorbable Implants; Adult; Arthroscopy; Biomechanical Phenomena; Collagen; Female; Humans; Knee Injuries; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Male; Menisci, Tibial; Polyesters; Polyurethanes; Porosity; Research Design; Tibial Meniscus Injuries; Tissue Scaffolds; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30717200
DOI: 10.3390/ijms20030632 -
Medicine Apr 2019The purpose of our study is to carry out a Bayesian network meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of different antimicrobial dressings for prevention of catheter-related... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
The purpose of our study is to carry out a Bayesian network meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of different antimicrobial dressings for prevention of catheter-related blood infections (CRBSI) and rank these antimicrobial dressings for practical consideration.
METHODS
We searched the PubMed, Cochrane library, Embase, earlier relevant meta-analysis and reference lists of included studies for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared dressings for prevention of CRBSI. Two authors independently extracted data from each included RCT according to a predesigned Excel spreadsheet and assessed the methodological quality of included RCTs using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Data was analyzed using the WinBUGS (V.1.4.3) and the Stata (V.15.0).
RESULTS
Finally, 35 RCTs involving 8494 patients and evaluating 13 dressings were included. Network meta-analysis showed that transparent dressing may be the best way to prevent CRBSI. Suture and bordered polyurethane dressing might have the lowest risk of CRBSI rate per 1000 catheter-days, and sutureless securement device might lead to the lowest incidence of catheter failure.
CONCLUSIONS
This network meta-analysis indicated that transparent dressings may be selected for the prevention of CRBSI in patients with central venous catheters, which is of importance in future research. Although evidence is scant, more attention should be paid to head-to-head comparisons of the most commonly used dressings in this field.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacteremia; Bandages; Catheter-Related Infections; Catheterization, Central Venous; Central Venous Catheters; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Polyurethanes; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30946317
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000014940