Search

Background:. Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) entered the market in the early 2000s and their use has increased thereafter. Several retrospective cohort studies and single surgeon series reported benefits with the use of ADMs. However, robust evidence supporting these advantages is lacking. There is the need to define the role for ADMs in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) after mastectomy. Methods:. A panel of world-renowned breast specialists was convened to evaluate evidence, express personal viewpoints, and establish recommendation for the use of ADMs for subpectoral one-/two-stage IBBR (compared with no ADM use) for adult women undergoing mastectomy for breast cancer treatment or risk reduction using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results:. Based on the voting outcome, the following recommendation emerged as a consensus statement: the panel members suggest subpectoral one- or two-stage IBBR either with ADMs or without ADMs for adult women undergoing mastectomy for breast cancer treatment or risk reduction (with very low certainty of evidence). Conclusions:. The systematic review has revealed a very low certainty of evidence for most of the important outcomes in ADM-assisted IBBR and the absence of standard tools for evaluating clinical outcomes. Forty-five percent of panel members expressed a conditional recommendation either in favor of or against the use of ADMs in subpectoral one- or two-stages IBBR for adult women undergoing mastectomy for breast cancer treatment or risk reduction. Future subgroup analyses could help identify relevant clinical and pathological factors to select patients for whom one technique could be preferable to another.

A national cohort ideal stage 2a/2b study comparing the safety and effectiveness of Wire- and RFID -guided localisation for impalpable breast lesions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Breast cancer is the most common cancer worldwide, with remarkable advances in early diagnosis, systemic treatments, and surgical techniques. Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy has been trialled; however, the complication rates, surgical outcomes, and oncological safety of this approach remain obscure. Methods: A systematic search of the literature was conducted from conception until September 2022. Studies examining complications and operative variables where robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy was compared with conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy were included. Primary study outcomes were complications (Clavien–Dindo grade III complications, skin or nipple necrosis, seroma, haematoma, infection, implant loss, and wound dehiscence) and oncological safety (recurrence and positive margins). The secondary outcomes included operative variables, length of stay, cost-effectiveness, learning curve, and aesthetic outcome. Results: A total of seven studies of overall fair quality, involving 1674 patients, were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Grade 3 complications were reduced in robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy without statistical significance (OR 0.60 (95 per cent c.i. 0.35 to 1.05)). Nipple necrosis was significantly reduced in robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy (OR 0.54 (95 per cent c.i. 0.30 to 0.96); P = 0.03; I2 = 15 per cent). Operating time (mean difference +58.81 min (95 per cent c.i. +28.19 to +89.44 min); P = 0.0002) and length of stay (mean difference +1.23 days (95 per cent c.i. +0.64 to +1.81 days); P < 0.0001) were significantly increased in robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy, whereas the opposite was true for blood loss (mean difference −53.18 ml (95 per cent c.i. −71.78 to −34.58 ml); P < 0.0001). Conclusion: Whilst still in its infancy, robotic breast surgery may become a viable option in breast surgery. Nonetheless, the oncological safety of this approach requires robust assessment. A total of seven studies of overall fair quality, involving 1674 patients, examining postoperative complications and operative variables that compared robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy versus conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Overall, complication events were notably reduced in robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy, albeit not reaching statistical significance, namely grade 3 complications, re-operation, skin necrosis, seroma, and haematoma; however, postoperative infection, implant loss, and positive margins were increased in robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy. Although associated with a higher cost, a steep learning curve and patient-reported outcome measures favour robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy. Lay Summary: Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy has been tried, but it is still not clear how often complications happen or how much better it is for cancer patients than conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy. The aim of this study was to compare robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy with conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy. A thorough search of all articles was performed from the start to September 2022. The studies that compared robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy with conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy in terms of problems and surgical factors were included. Complications and cancer outcomes (recurrence and positive margins) were the most important things that the study looked at. Surgical time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, cost-effectiveness, learning curve, and patient-reported outcome measures were some of the other things that were studied. This systematic review and meta-analysis looked at seven studies with fair quality and included 1674 patients. Even though there were fewer major problems with robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy, the difference was not significant. In robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy, there was less nipple necrosis, but the overall time it took to operate was much longer and the cost was higher. The average amount of bleeding was less in robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy. The robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy method had a better patient-reported outcome and a steep learning curve. Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy is a safe method, with fewer problems than other methods. Future studies should look into if it is safe for cancer patients in the long run. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The early identification of good responders to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) holds a significant potential in the optimal treatment of breast cancer. A recent Bayesian approach has been postulated to improve the accuracy of the intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) model for clinical translation. This study examined the prediction and early sensitivity of Bayesian IVIM to NACT response. Materials and methods: Seventeen female patients with breast cancer were scanned at baseline and 16 patients were scanned after Cycle 1. Tissue diffusion and perfusion from Bayesian IVIM were calculated at baseline with percentage change at Cycle 1 computed with reference to baseline. Cellular proliferative activity marker Ki-67 was obtained semi-quantitatively with percentage change at excision computed with reference to core biopsy. Results: The perfusion fraction showed a significant difference (p = 0.042) in percentage change between responder groups at Cycle 1, with a decrease in good responders [−7.98% (−19.47–1.73), n = 7] and an increase in poor responders [10.04% (5.09–28.93), n = 9]. There was a significant correlation between percentage change in perfusion fraction and percentage change in Ki 67 (p = 0.042). Tissue diffusion and pseudodiffusion showed no significant difference in percentage change between groups at Cycle 1, nor was there a significant correlation against percentage change in Ki-67. Perfusion fraction, tissue diffusion, and pseudodiffusion showed no significant difference between groups at baseline, nor was there a significant correlation against Ki-67 from core biopsy. Conclusion: The alteration in tumour perfusion fraction from the Bayesian IVIM model, in association with cellular proliferation, showed early sensitivity to good responders in NACT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Patients are increasingly turning to other sources for their health information. Social media has become mainstream, and the easy access to online communities, health professionals, and shared experiences of other patients has made social media a place where many patients turn to. Methods: In this qualitative report, 2 patients who have had breast cancer describe the reasons why they use social media, what they perceive the advantages and disadvantages are, and what the impact of social media has been through their cancer treatment and beyond. Results: The reasons why patients turn to social media are varied. These can include information gathering, peer support, shared experiences, and advocacy. There appear to be advantages and disadvantages; however, overall, the impact seems to be a positive one when used judiciously. Discussion: It is clear that social media has a role to play in healthcare, whether by providing meaningful social connections, delivery of information, or psychological support. Healthcare professionals perhaps should consider the importance of social media in their practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]