Search

Background: Women who have a mastectomy for breast cancer treatment or risk reduction may be offered different options for breast reconstruction, including use of implants or the woman's own tissue (autologous tissue flaps). The choice of technique depends on factors such as the woman's preferences, breast characteristics, preoperative imaging, comorbidities, smoking habits, prior chest or breast irradiation, and planned adjuvant therapies., Objectives: To assess the effects of implants versus autologous tissue flaps for postmastectomy breast reconstruction on women's quality of life, satisfaction, and short- and long-term surgical complications., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registries in July 2022., Selection Criteria: We included studies that compared implant-based reconstruction with autologous tissue-based reconstruction following mastectomy for breast cancer treatment or risk reduction. The minimum eligible sample size was 100 participants., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data using standard Cochrane procedures. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence., Main Results: Thirty-five non-randomised studies with 57,555 participants met our inclusion criteria. There were nine prospective cohort studies and 26 retrospective cohort studies. We judged 26 studies at serious overall risk of bias and the remaining studies at moderate overall risk of bias. Some studies measured quality of life and satisfaction using the BREAST-Q (scale of 0 to 100, higher is better). Implants may reduce postoperative psychosocial well-being compared with autologous tissue flaps (mean difference (MD) -4.26 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.91 to -3.61; I² = 0%; 6 studies, 3335 participants; low-certainty evidence). Implants may reduce or have little to no effect on postoperative physical well-being compared with autologous tissue flaps, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD -1.92 points, 95% CI -4.44 to 0.60; I² = 87%; 6 studies, 3335 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Implants may reduce postoperative sexual well-being compared with autologous reconstruction (MD -6.63 points, 95% CI -7.55 to -5.72; I² = 0; 6 studies, 3335 participants; low-certainty evidence). Women who undergo breast reconstruction with implants versus autologous tissue flaps may be less satisfied with the breast, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD -8.17 points, 95% CI -11.41 to -4.92; I² = 90%; 6 studies, 3335 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This outcome refers to a woman's satisfaction with breast size, bra fit, appearance in the mirror (clothed or unclothed), and how the breast feels to touch. Women who undergo breast reconstruction with implants versus autologous tissue flaps may be less satisfied with the reconstruction (MD -5.96 points, 95% CI -10.24 to -1.68; I² = 62%; 4 studies, 1196 participants; low-certainty evidence). This outcome refers to whether the aesthetic outcome has met the woman's expectations, the impact surgery has had on her life, and whether she thinks she made the right decision to have the reconstruction. Implants may reduce or have little to no effect on the risk of short-term complications compared with autologous tissue flaps, but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.03; I² = 91%; 22 studies, 34,244 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Implants may increase long-term complications compared with autologous tissue flaps, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.22; I² = 94%; 17 studies, 26,930 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Implants may have little to no effect on the need for reintervention compared with autologous tissue flaps, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.68; I² = 93%; 15 studies, 14,171 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Implants may reduce the duration of surgery compared with autologous tissue flaps, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD -125.04 minutes, 95% CI -131.41 to -118.67; I² = 0; 2 studies, 836 participants; very low-certainty evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: The findings of this review show that autologous tissue-based reconstruction compared with implant-based reconstruction may improve participant-reported outcomes such as psychosocial well-being, sexual well-being, and satisfaction with the reconstruction. There is also very uncertain evidence to suggest that autologous tissue-based reconstruction increases satisfaction with the breast and reduces the risk of long-term complications compared with implants. Implant-based reconstruction may be a shorter procedure, but the evidence is very uncertain. Despite the growing demand for breast reconstruction, the best technique has not been adequately studied in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and the evidence provided by non-randomised studies is often unsatisfactory. There is no superior breast reconstruction technique for all women. Future research should focus on the definition of decisional drivers to guide an evidence-based shared decision-making process in reconstructive breast surgery., (Copyright © 2024 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Growing numbers of asymptomatic women who become aware of carrying a breast cancer gene mutation (BRCA) mutation are choosing to undergo risk-reducing bilateral mastectomies with immediate breast reconstruction. We reviewed the literature with the aim of assessing the oncological safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) as a risk-reduction procedure in BRCA-mutated patients. Nine studies reporting on the incidence of primary breast cancer post NSM in asymptomatic BRCA mutated patients undergoing risk-reducing bilateral procedures met the inclusion criteria. NSM appears to be a safe option for BRCA mutation carriers from an oncological point of view, with low reported rates of new breast cancers, low rates of postoperative complications, and high levels of satisfaction and postoperative quality of life. However, larger multi-institutional studies with longer follow-up are needed to establish this procedure as the best surgical option in this setting.

Introduction: The rapid spread of COVID-19 across the globe is forcing surgical oncologists to change their daily practice. We sought to evaluate how breast surgeons are adapting their surgical activity to limit viral spread and spare hospital resources., Methods: A panel of 12 breast surgeons from the most affected regions of the world convened a virtual meeting on April 7, 2020, to discuss the changes in their local surgical practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Similarly, a Web-based poll based was created to evaluate changes in surgical practice among breast surgeons from several countries., Results: The virtual meeting showed that distinct countries and regions were experiencing different phases of the pandemic. Surgical priority was given to patients with aggressive disease not candidate for primary systemic therapy, those with progressive disease under neoadjuvant systemic therapy, and patients who have finished neoadjuvant therapy. One hundred breast surgeons filled out the poll. The trend showed reductions in operating room schedules, indications for surgery, and consultations, with an increasingly restrictive approach to elective surgery with worsening of the pandemic., Conclusion: The COVID-19 emergency should not compromise treatment of a potentially lethal disease such as breast cancer. Our results reveal that physicians are instinctively reluctant to abandon conventional standards of care when possible. However, as the situation deteriorates, alternative strategies of de-escalation are being adopted., Implications for Practice: This study aimed to characterize how the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting breast cancer surgery and which strategies are being adopted to cope with the situation., (© 2020 AlphaMed Press.)

Background: Conflicting evidence challenges clinical decision-making when breast reconstruction is considered in the context of radiotherapy. Current literature was evaluated and key statements on topical issues were generated and discussed by an expert panel at the International Oncoplastic Breast Surgery Meeting in Milan 2017., Methods: Studies on radiotherapy and breast reconstruction (1985 to September 2017) were screened using MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL. The literature review yielded 30 controversial key questions. A set of key statements was derived and the highest levels of clinical evidence (LoE) for each of these were summarized. Nineteen panellists convened for dedicated discussions at the International Oncoplastic Breast Surgery Meeting to express agreement, disagreement or abstention for the generated key statements., Results: The literature review identified 1522 peer-reviewed publications. A list of 22 key statements was produced, with the highest LoE recorded for each statement. These ranged from II to IV, with most statements (11 of 22, 50 per cent) supported by LoE III. There was full consensus for nine (41 per cent) of the 22 key statements, and more than 75 per cent agreement was reached for half (11 of 22)., Conclusion: Poor evidence exists on which to base patient-informed consent. Low-quality studies are conflicting with wide-ranging treatment options, precluding expert consensus regarding optimal type and timing of breast reconstruction in the context of radiotherapy. There is a need for high-quality evidence from prospective registries and randomized trials in this field., (© 2019 BJS Society Ltd Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Oncoplastic breast surgery has evolved the surgical treatment of breast cancer over the past two decades. This practice still lacks validation and poses several dilemmas in terms of safety, local and systemic control, timing of adjuvant treatments and cost-effectiveness. Our case series investigates the effects of a reduced surgical complexity on cosmetic results and quality of life., Methods: We treated 76 consecutive patients affected by early stage breast cancer from January 2016 to April 2017. We employed a decision support system to assist the final shared decision making. The communication process before surgery included new specific information on recent evidence about local control of disease and outcomes after multimodality treatment. In order to estimate the oncoplastic complexity, we created a new score based on scars, bilateral procedures and type and timing of reconstructions. We compared the outcomes of this series to that of a previous one from the same institution., Results: The medium complexity score (CS) in the current series was significantly lower compared to that of the previous series (medium CS cohort 1 = 3.1 vs medium CS cohort 2 = 1.51; p = 0.001). Complications according to Clavien-Dindo classification did not vary significantly between the two series (p = 0.7). The increased use of primary systemic treatment did not translate into a significantly lower mastectomy rate (cohort 1 = 20% vs cohort 2 = 16%; p = n.s.). There was no significant difference in breast deformities after breast conserving surgery (p = 0.2). The BCCT.Core demonstrated a 67.1% occurrence of "good" results. Quality of life in patients who underwent breast-conserving surgery measured using the Breast-Q demonstrated similar results in the pre-post-op assessment., Conclusions: This study hypothesizes that a proper information may impact on patient's decisions and may reduce surgical complexity. This reduction likely has no effects on the main surgical outcomes estimated using standard tools. More investigations should be performed on a larger multi-institutional scale to confirm these conclusions., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Breast shape is defined utilizing mainly qualitative assessment (full, flat, ptotic) or estimates, such as volume or distances between reference points, that cannot describe it reliably., Objectives: The authors quantitatively described breast shape with two parameters derived from a statistical methodology denominated by principal component analysis (PCA)., Methods: The authors created a heterogeneous dataset of breast shapes acquired with a commercial infrared 3-dimensional scanner on which PCA was performed. The authors plotted on a Cartesian plane the two highest values of PCA for each breast (principal components 1 and 2). Testing of the methodology on a preoperative and posttreatment surgical case and test-retest was performed by two operators., Results: The first two principal components derived from PCA characterize the shape of the breast included in the dataset. The test-retest demonstrated that different operators obtain very similar values of PCA. The system is also able to identify major changes in the preoperative and posttreatment stages of a two-stage reconstruction. Even minor changes were correctly detected by the system., Conclusions: This methodology can reliably describe the shape of a breast. An expert operator and a newly trained operator can reach similar results in a test/re-testing validation. Once developed and after further validation, this methodology could be employed as a good tool for outcome evaluation, auditing, and benchmarking.

Introduction: The demand for reconstructive breast surgery after mastectomy is increasing among women and the two-stage option remains the most commonly performed technique. We conducted a self-controlled prospective clinical trial comparing the use of the serratus anterior fascia with the serratus anterior detached fibers to cover the inferolateral aspect of the expander in immediate two-stage breast reconstruction following conservative mastectomies as oncological or risk-reducing procedures., Patients and Methods: We analyzed the surgical outcome of 29 bilateral mastectomies and immediate reconstruction with the positioning of a tissue expander in a pocket beneath the pectoralis major and serratus anterior muscle on one side and in a pocket beneath the pectoralis major and a serratus anterior fascia flap on the other side. We considered all complications presenting in the first month after surgery and patient-reported early post-operative pain., Results: Complication rates in the two groups did not significantly differ (p = 0.237). The total amount of drainage and the time of drainage permanence were significantly lower for the subfascial group (p < 0.05). Patient-reported early post-operative pain was significantly different between the two groups both at 24 h (p < 0.05) and at 5 days (p < 0.05) with significantly lower pain scores reported by the patients in the subfascial group., Discussion: Our self-controlled prospective trial demonstrated an advantage in performing an implant-based two-stage breast reconstruction using a serratus anterior fascia flap when compared with the serratus muscle fibers use for inferolateral implant coverage following mastectomy. The use of the anterior serratus fascia flap for inferolateral implant coverage in two-stage breast reconstructions following mastectomy could be considered as a safe and effective technique, presenting lower morbidity for the patient when compared with the serratus muscle fibers use and lower costs when compared with biological and synthetic meshes use, achieving good outcomes in terms of post-operative complications and women's quality of life and satisfaction levels., Level of Evidence Iii: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Background: The increased complexity of the decisional process in breast cancer surgery is well documented. With this study we aimed to create a software tool able to assist patients and surgeons in taking proper decisions., Methodology: We hypothesized that the endpoints of breast cancer surgery could be addressed combining a set of decisional drivers. We created a decision support system software tool (DSS) and an interactive decision tree. A formal analysis estimated the information gain derived from each feature in the process. We tested the DSS on 52 patients and we analyzed the concordance of decisions obtained by different users and between the DSS suggestions and the actual surgery. We also tested the ability of the system to prevent post breast conservation deformities., Results: The information gain revealed that patients preferences are the root of our decision tree. An observed concordance respectively of 0.98 and 0.88 was reported when the DSS was used twice by an expert operator or by a newly trained operator vs. an expert one. The observed concordance between the DSS suggestion and the actual decision was 0.69. A significantly higher incidence of post breast conservation defects was reported among patients who did not follow the DSS decision (Type III of Fitoussi, N = 4; 33.3%, p = 0.004)., Conclusion: The DSS decisions can be reproduced by operators with different experience. The concordance between suggestions and actual decision is quite low, however the DSS is able to prevent post- breast conservation deformities., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly used for staging women with breast cancer, including screening for occult ipsilateral or contralateral cancer. If breast-conserving surgery is planned, a MRI examination should be performed in all ages women with suspected breast cancer, especially those exhibiting dense or heterogeneously dense breast parenchyma, for which the sensitivity of both ultrasonography and mammography is low. MRI staging causes more extensive breast surgery in a significative proportion of women by identifying additional cancer. If the ability to find additional occult cancer is the true value of MRI, this is not influenced by patients' ages. For this reason, preoperative MRI should be counseled to all women with breast cancer by clinicians, independently from the age, as the age alone does not preclude additional findings., (Copyright © 2014 Surgical Associates Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)