Search

Background: The effectiveness of different acellular dermal matrices (ADM) used for implant-based reconstruction immediately following mastectomy is an important clinical question. A prospective randomized clinical trial was performed to evaluate the superiority of DermACELL over Alloderm-RTU in reducing drain duration. Methods: Patients undergoing mastectomy with subpectoral immediate and permanent implant-based breast reconstruction were randomized to Alloderm-RTU or DermACELL. The primary outcome was seroma formation, measured by the duration of postoperative drain placement. Secondary outcomes included: post drain removal seroma aspiration, infection, redbreast syndrome, wound dehiscence, loss of the implant, and unplanned return to the operating room. Results: 62 patients were randomized for 81 mastectomies (41 Alloderm-RTU, 40 DermACELL). Baseline characteristics were similar. There was no statistically significant difference in mean drain duration (p = 0.16), with a trend towards longer duration in the Alloderm-RTU group (1.6 days; 95%CI, 0.7 to 3.9). The overall rate of minor and major complications were statistically similar between the two groups; although patients with Alloderm-RTU had 3 times as many infections requiring antibiotics (7.9% vs. 2.5%) with a risk difference of 5.4 (95%CI -4.5 to 15.2), and twice as many unplanned returns to the operating room(15.8% vs. 7.5%) with a risk difference of 8.3 (95% CI -5.9 to 22.5) as DermACELL. Conclusion: This is the first prospective randomized clinical trial comparing the two most commonly used human-derived ADMs. There was no statistically significant difference in drain duration, minor, or major complications between DermACELL over Alloderm-RTU in immediate subpectoral permanent implant-based breast reconstruction post-mastectomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Despite widespread use of fluorouracil, epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, docetaxel (FEC-D) chemotherapy in breast cancer, the optimal strategy for primary febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis remains unknown. A systematic review was therefore performed. Methods: Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and conference proceedings were searched from 1946 to April 2016 for trials that reported the effectiveness of primary FN prophylaxis with FEC-D chemotherapy. Outcome measures were incidence of FN; treatment-related hospitalizations; chemotherapy dose delays, reductions, and discontinuations; and adverse events from prophylaxis. Results: Of 2,205 identified citations, eight studies (n = 1,250) met our eligibility criteria. Three additional studies (n = 293) were identified from a prior systematic review. Three randomized controlled trials (n = 576), one phase IV single-arm trial (n = 69), one prospective observational study (n = 37), and six retrospective studies (n = 861) were identified. Agents investigated were pegfilgrastim (n = 108), filgrastim (n = 1,119), and ciprofloxacin (n = 89). The heterogeneity of studies meant that a narrative synthesis of results was performed. Median FN rates for patients who received FEC-D with and without primary prophylaxis were 10.1% (interquartile range [IQR], 3.9% to 22.6%) and 23.9% (IQR, 9.2% to 27.3%), respectively. In the absence of primary prophylaxis, FN was more common during docetaxel than during FEC. Data from six studies showed a median rate of dose reductions and delays of 6.1% (IQR, 3.1% to 14.3%) and 19.3% (IQR, 10.5% to 32.8%), respectively, that occurred as a consequence of FN. Toxicity from prophylaxis itself was rarely reported. Conclusion: Primary FN prophylaxis is effective in patients who receive FEC-D chemotherapy. The paucity of prospective data makes optimal recommendations about the choice and timing of prophylaxis challenging. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]