Search

Background: Partial breast reconstruction with a pedicled chest wall perforator flap (CWPF) enables breast conservation in a higher tumour: breast volume ratio scenario. Since there is limited evidence, this retrospective cohort study aimed to ascertain immediate (30-days) and medium-term (follow-up duration) surgical outcomes., Methods: STROBE-compliant protocol ascertained CWPF outcomes between March 2011-March 2021. UK centres known to perform CWPF were invited to participate if they performed at least 10 cases. Data were retrospectively collected, including patient demographics, tumour and treatment characteristics, and surgical and oncological outcomes. Statistical analysis (R™) included multivariable logistic regression and sensitivity analysis., Results: Across 15 centres, 507 patients with median age (54 years, IQR; 48-62), body mass index (25.4 kg/m 2 , IQR; 22.5-29), tumour size (26 mm, IQR; 18-35), and specimen weight (62 g, IQR; 40-92) had following flap types: LiCAP (54.1%, n = 273), MiCAP/AiCAP (19.6%, n = 99), LiCAP + LTAP (19.8%, n = 100) and TDAP (2.2%, n = 11). 30-days complication rates were in 12%: haematoma (4.3%, n = 22), wound infection (4.3%, n = 22), delayed wound healing (2.8%, n = 14) and flap loss (0.6%, n = 3; 1 full) leading to readmissions (2.6%, n = 13) and re-operations (2.6%, n = 13). Positive margins (n = 88, 17.7%) led to 15.9% (n = 79) re-excisions, including 7.5% (n = 37) at the planned 2nd of 2-stage surgery and 1.8% (n = 9) mastectomy. At median 23 months (IQR; 11-39) follow-up, there were 1.2% (n = 6) symmetrisations; recurrences: local (1%), regional/nodal (0.6%) and distant (3.2%)., Conclusions: This large multicentre cohort study demonstrates acceptable complication and margin re-excision rates. CWPF extends the range of breast conservation techniques. Further studies are required for long-term oncological outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None of the authors or collaborators declared any conflict of interest related to this project., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Definition of the tumor bed (TB) is currently guided by intraoperatively placed metal clips. However, this traditional planning method may not be sufficient for tumor cavity defect refilled with modern oncoplastic breast surgery. We explored the impact of a close cooperation between surgeon and oncologist on the accuracy of TB contouring after partial breast reconstruction with chest wall perforator flaps (CWPF)., Patients and Methods: A retrospective review of patients who received radiotherapy after CWPF was performed. TB and boost volume were defined by the surgeon, considering clips and the typical radiologic appearance of the flap, and by a radiation oncologist, and results were compared with the surgical specimen volume (SPV). The boost volume was marked as 5 mm penumbral ring thickness of native breast tissue wall around the replaced flap (nonbreast tissue)., Results: There were no significant differences between SPV and surgeon-defined TB values. Conversely, the radiation oncologist-defined values were significantly smaller than the actual SPV. If a ring-shaped TB boost was delivered, this would have allowed a potential reduction of irradiated tissue of 127.6%., Conclusion: TB definition solely by surgical clips may be prone to inaccuracy in case of volume replacement oncoplastic breast surgery. Our approach of combining the clips with the redefinition of the flap on computed tomographic scan may provide more accurate TB definition. Although an ideal ring-shaped boost might be difficult to reproduce in practice, it introduces a new paradigm: a lower radiation dose inside TB is tolerable, if not desirable, at least in CWPF., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)