Search

Obesity is a disease rather than a state, and metabolic bariatric surgery (MBS) is its most effective treatment. Body contouring surgery (BCS) is an integral part of the continuum of care following MBS, provided that the body mass index (BMI) has stabilized for an adequate period. This study is an attempt to capture the current status of BCS following MBS in Greece, based on data from one of the country’s highest-volume hospitals. We recruited patients from the Bariatric and Plastic-Reconstructive Surgery registries who had undergone both MBS and BCS and invited them to answer a structured questionnaire with components on demographics, safety and effectiveness of previous operations, quality of life (QoL), body image, social activity, sexual activity, and doctor–patient communication. Twenty-four patients participated in the survey (response rate 88.1%). The mean BMI pre-MBS was 43.8 kg/m2 and that pre-BCS was 28.6 kg/m2. Based on the Bariatric sub-cohort, only 2.5% of post-bariatric patients underwent BCS. The mean interval between MBS and BCS was 2.9 years. The distribution of patients by MBS was as follows: sleeve gastrectomy 8 (33.3%), gastric band 7 (29.2%), gastric bypass 5 (20.8%), and gastric plication 2 (8.3%). The distribution of patients by BCS was as follows: abdominoplasty 23 (94.7%), breast contouring 8 (33.3%), thigh contouring 3 (12.5%), and arm contouring 5 (20.8%). Most positive components (70.6%) regarding QoL were appraised by >80% of the participants, indicating overall satisfaction after BCS. Conversely, only 12.5% of negative components were endorsed by >20% of patients. In conclusion, BCS has a low prevalence after MBS, although it is related to an improved quality of life and body image.

Treatment planning for breast cancer has been traditionally based on clinical landmarks. The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) published consensus guidelines on contouring target volumes (TV) for the breast/chest wall and draining lymphatics. The effect of these guidelines on dosimetric parameters in surrounding organs at risk (OAR) and TVs is unknown. Fourteen patients treated with clinically derived plans from 2007‐2011 (Group I) and fourteen patients treated with target volume‐based plans from 2011‐2012 were selected for comparison (Group II). Treatment plans were constructed based on clinical landmarks (Group I) or TVs (Group II) to a median dose of 50.4 Gy to the breast/chest wall, axilla (Ax), supraclavicular (SCV), and internal mammary (IMN) lymph nodes. The RTOG TVs were then contoured in Group I patients by a single investigator blinded to the dose distributions. Dose‐volume histograms (DVH) were computed for the RTOG TVs and OARs in both groups, and DVH parameters were compared. In Group II, coverage improved for the SCV (V90=78.0% versus 93.6%, p=0.02) and intact breast (V95=95.6% versus 99.3%, p=0.007). The dose to the cord, the lung (V20Gy and V30Gy), and contralateral breast (V5Gy) were the same. Finally, the low dose to the heart and lung was decreased in Group II (heart V5Gy=48.7% versus 27.3%, p=0.02, heart V10Gy=33.5% vs. 17.5%, p=0.01, and ipsilateral lung V5Gy=84.5% vs. 69.3%, p=0.001). Overall, our study supports that treatment planning using the RTOG consensus guidelines can improve coverage to certain target volumes compared to treatments based solely on clinical landmarks. Additionally, treatment planning using these target volumes does not increase dose to the contralateral breast, cord, heart, or lungs. Longer follow‐up is needed to determine if using these target volumes will affect clinical outcomes. PACS number: 87.55.dk

Background Whole breast irradiation after conserving surgery for breast cancer requires precise definition of the target volume. The standard approach uses computed tomography (CT) images. However, since fatty breast and non-breast tissues have similar electronic densities, difficulties in differentiating between them hamper breast volume delineation. To overcome this limitation the breast contour is defined by palpation and then radio-opaque wire is put around it before the CT scan. To optimize assessment of breast margins in the cranial, caudal, medial, lateral and posterior directions, the present study evaluated palpation and CT and determined whether ultrasound (US) provided any added value. Methods Twenty consecutive patients were enrolled after they had provided informed consent to participating in this prospective study which was approved by the Regional Public Health Ethics Committee. Palpation and US defined breast margins and each contour was marked and outlined with a fine plastic wire. Breasts were then contoured on axial CT images using the breast window width (WW) and window level (WL) (401 and 750 Hounsfield Units –HU- respectively), at which setting the plastic wires were invisible. Then, the lung window function (WW 1601 HU; WL −300 HU) was inserted to visualize the plastic wires which were used as guidelines to contour the palpable and US breast volumes. As each wire had a different diameter, both volumes were easily defined on CT slices. Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics, percentage overlap and reproducibility measures (agreement and reliability). Results Volumes: US gave the largest and palpation the smallest. Agreement was best between palpation and CT. Reliability was almost perfect in all correlations. Extensions: Cranial and posterior were highest with US and smallest with palpation. Agreement was best between palpation and CT in all extensions except the cranial. Since strong to almost perfect agreement emerged for all comparisons, reliability was high. Conclusions US may be useful in defining the cranial and posterior extensions, mainly when tumours are localized there. This study demonstrates that the now standard radio-opaque wires around the palpable breast may not be needed in breast contouring.