Search

Objective: Based on an updated review of the international literature covering the different surgical techniques and complications of risk reducing mastectomies (RRM) in non-genetic context, the Commission of Senology (CS) of the College National des Gynécologues Obstétriciens Français (CNGOF) aimed to establish recommendations on the techniques to be chosen and their implementation., Design: The CNGOF CS, composed of 24 experts, developed these recommendations. A policy of declaration and monitoring of links of interest was applied throughout the process of making the recommendations. Similarly, the development of these recommendations did not benefit from any funding from a company marketing a health product. The CS adhered to and followed the AGREE II (Advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in healthcare) criteria and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method to assess the quality of the evidence on which the recommendations were based. The potential drawbacks of making recommendations in the presence of poor quality or insufficient evidence were highlighted., Methods: The CS considered 6 questions in 4 thematic areas, focusing on oncologic safety, risk of complications, aesthetic satisfaction and psychological impact, and preoperative modalities., Results: The application of the GRADE method resulted in 7 recommendations, 6 with a high level of evidence (GRADE 1±) and 1 with a low level of evidence (GRADE 2±)., Conclusion: There was significant agreement among the CS members on recommendations for preferred surgical techniques and practical implementation., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To determine the value of performing a risk-reducting mastectomy (RRM) in the absence of a deleterious variant of a breast cancer susceptibility gene, in 4 clinical situations at risk of breast cancer., Design: The CNGOF Commission of Senology, composed of 26 experts, developed these recommendations. A policy of declaration and monitoring of links of interest was applied throughout the process of making the recommendations. Similarly, the development of these recommendations did not benefit from any funding from a company marketing a health product. The Commission of Senology adhered to the AGREE II (Advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in healthcare) criteria and followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method to assess the quality of the evidence on which the recommendations were based. The potential drawbacks of making recommendations in the presence of poor quality or insufficient evidence were highlighted., Methods: The Commission of Senology considered 8 questions on 4 topics, focusing on histological, familial (no identified genetic abnormality), radiological (of unrecognized cancer), and radiation (history of Hodgkin's disease) risk. For each situation, it was determined whether performing RRM compared with surveillance would decrease the risk of developing breast cancer and/or increase survival., Results: The Commission of Senology synthesis and application of the GRADE method resulted in 11 recommendations, 6 with a high level of evidence (GRADE 1±) and 5 with a low level of evidence (GRADE 2±)., Conclusion: There was significant agreement among the Commission of Senology members on recommendations to improve practice for performing or not performing RRM in the clinical setting., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Breast cancer is the primary female cancer. In cancerology, it is essential to give to the patient some support. The advent of outpatient surgery optimizes the care path. This need for support of patients raises the question of its compatibility with the day surgery. The purpose is to compare the satisfaction of outpatients with those who stay overnight after surgery of breast cancer. MéTHODS: Patients who underwent breast conservative surgery were included. It is a mixed study, a quantitative, observational and prospective one using a satisfaction survey and a qualitative one which consisted on semi - directive individual interviews. We compared the satisfaction rate (highest marks)., Results: There were 91 patientes, 38 in the ambulatory group and 53 in the overnight group. There was no significant difference in satisfaction between the two groups (P=0.18). The difficulties frequently highlighted by the patients during their stay were the organizational management, the lack of hospital comfort and the sometimes long wait. The need for human support was unanimous., Conclusion: The satisfaction was excellent in the study. The mode of hospitalization does not seem to play a role here on satisfaction. This hospitalization mode can only be envisaged by providing sufficient human and technical resources. Enhanced recovery after surgery appears to be an alternative to outpatient surgery., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)