Patient Reported Outcome and Quality of Life After Delayed Breast Reconstruction - An RCT Comparing Different Reconstructive Methods in Radiated and Non-radiated Patients

Patient-reported outcomes after immediate and delayed DIEP-flap breast reconstruction in the setting of post-mastectomy radiation therapy-results of the multicenter UMBRELLA breast cancer cohort

PURPOSE

Timing of Deep Inferior Epigastric artery Perforator (DIEP)-flap breast reconstruction in the context of post-mastectomy radiotherapy for breast cancer patients is topic of debate. We compared the impact of immediate (before radiotherapy) versus delayed (after radiotherapy) DIEP-flap breast reconstruction (IBR versus DBR) on short- and long-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

METHODS

Within the prospective, multicenter breast cancer cohort (UMBRELLA), we identified 88 women who underwent immediate or delayed DIEP-flap breast reconstruction and received PMRT. At 6 and 12 months post-mastectomy, as well as on long-term (≥ 12 months post-reconstruction) body image, breast symptoms, physical functioning, and pain were measured by EORTC-QLQ-30/BR23. Additionally, long-term evaluation included satisfaction with breast(s), physical well-being and self-reported adverse effects of radiation as measured by BREAST-Q, and late treatment toxicity. PROs were compared between groups using independent sample T-test.

RESULTS

IBR was performed in 56 patients (64%) and DBR in 32 patients (36%), with 15 months of median time to reconstruction. At 6 and 12 months post-mastectomy, better body image and physical functioning were observed after IBR. No statistically nor clinically relevant differences were observed in long-term EORTC and BREAST-Q outcomes (median follow-up 37-41 months for IBR vs. 42-46 months for DBR). Patients with IBR reported more fibrosis and movement restriction (median follow-up 29 vs. 61 months, resp.).

CONCLUSION

Long-term PROs were comparable for patients with IBR and DBR, despite more patient-reported fibrosis and movement restriction after IBR. Therefore, both treatment pathways can be considered when opting for autologous breast reconstruction in the setting of PMRT.

Beyond Surgery: Psychological Well-Being's Role in Breast Reconstruction Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Breast cancer is one of the most prevalent cancers worldwide, and following its treatment, many women turn to plastic surgery for reconstruction. A diagnosis of cancer is a heavy burden on patients. Yet, the effect of psychological/psychiatric comorbidities on patient satisfaction following their reconstruction remains unexplored. Thus, this paper aims to investigate how pre-existing psychological and psychiatric conditions impact patient-reported outcomes postreconstruction, compared to women without such conditions.

METHODS

A systematic review of PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane was completed. A qualitative synthesis of all included studies was then performed, and a subgroup analysis was then performed using a random effect model.

RESULTS

A total of 24 papers were included, encompassing a total population of 220,565 patients undergoing breast reconstruction between the ages of 18 and 84. The follow-up time ranged between 1.5 mo and 61 mo. In our study of breast reconstruction outcomes, the cohort with psychological/psychiatric comorbidities exhibited significant decreases in postoperative BREAST-Q scores compared to the control group: a 24-point [95% confidence interval (CI; -40, -8)] difference in satisfaction, a 20-point [95% CI (-57, -17)] difference in psychosocial well-being, an 18-point [95% CI (-28, 9)] difference in physical well-being, and a 33-point [95% CI (-51, -15)] difference in sexual well-being.

CONCLUSIONS

Ultimately, our analysis suggests that presurgical psychology status is a critical determinant of postsurgical patient-reported outcomes. These results encourage the development and inclusion of well-being screening and optimization prior to surgery as a mean to improve surgical outcomes.

Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction in Irradiated Patients: A 12-year follow-up of Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator and Latissimus Dorsi Flap Outcomes

The aim of the current study was to conduct a 12-year follow-up on the authors´ previously evaluated group of irradiated patients who underwent postmastectomy breast reconstruction with deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) and latissimus dorsi (LD)-flaps with implant. The follow-up involved 67% of the patients from the original cohort (17 DIEP and 13 LD). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) were measured using the BREAST-Q, SF-36, a satisfaction form, and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaires. Aesthetics were evaluated by a board of independent plastic surgeons. The average follow-up time was 12.6 years (DIEP) and 11.8 years (LD). Contralateral symmetry procedures were performed on 15 DIEP and 9 LD patients. Both groups underwent an average of 2.5 reconstructive procedures. The BREAST-Q and satisfaction questionnaires showed no group difference. SF-36 showed no group difference but had significantly higher values in both groups compared to the general population with regard to the physical role limitations (p=0.034 and p=0.004, respectively). The DASH scores showed minimal shoulder function impact in the LD group. Aesthetic evaluations revealed a discrepancy between the opinions of the patients and surgeons, with patients valuing the size (p=0.015) and overall aesthetic (p=0.012) of the reconstructed breast higher in the DIEP group. The weighted kappa analysis showed poor agreement between patients and surgeons. Over time, the patients´ preferences shifted from LD to DIEP flaps, possibly due to the more natural aging process associated with autologous reconstruction. This underscores the importance of long term follow-up studies.

A Meta-analysis Comparing Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flaps and Latissimus Dorsi Flaps in Breast Reconstruction

Background

Deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps and latissimus dorsi (LD) flaps are two widely used breast reconstruction techniques, each with distinct advantages and limitations. This meta-analysis aims to compare patient satisfaction and incidence of complications between these two techniques to inform clinical decision-making.

Methods

PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for relevant studies. We included studies with data comparing DIEP and LD flaps, BREAST-Q patient satisfaction, and complications. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.4.

Results

The search yielded 788 studies, of which 13 were included in the meta-analysis. A total of 2128 patients were analyzed, with 1378 undergoing DIEP flap reconstruction and 750 receiving LD flap reconstruction. The analysis showed greater improvement with DIEP flaps in breast satisfaction [mean difference (MD) = 9.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 6.90-12.05, P < 0.00001], physical well-being (MD = 5.95, 95% CI = 2.98-8.92, P < 0.0001), and satisfaction with outcome (MD = 9.36, 95% CI = 3.01-15.71, P = 0.004). Nonetheless, DIEP flaps had higher rates of skin flap necrosis [risk ratio (RR) = 4.27, 95% CI = 2.44 to 7.46, P < 0.00001], wound dehiscence (RR = 5.12, 95% CI = 2.53-10.35, P < 0.00001), and reoperation (RR = 2.24, 95% CI = 1.58 -3.16, P < 0.00001) but lower seroma rates (RR = 0.27, 95% CI = 0.10-0.74, P = 0.01).

Conclusions

DIEP flap reconstruction offers superior patient satisfaction compared with LD flap reconstruction, despite a higher incidence of certain complications.

The 100 Most-cited Articles in Autologous Breast Reconstruction: A Bibliometric Analysis

Background

Autologous breast reconstruction has continued to increase in popularity and witnessed significant advancements in aesthetic outcomes, patient satisfaction, and improved quality of life. We performed the first bibliometric analysis focused only on the 100 most-cited autologous breast reconstruction articles to characterize any emerging trends and assess the methodological quality of these studies.

Methods

The 100 most-cited articles in autologous breast reconstruction were identified on Web of Science, across all available journals and years. Study details, including the citation count, main subject, and outcome measures, were extracted from each article, and the level of evidence was also assessed.

Results

The 100 most-cited articles in autologous breast reconstruction were cited by a total of 21,194 articles. Citation per article ranged significantly from 112 to 1123 (mean, 211.9). Overall, most of the top-cited articles are case reports/series (n = 32, mean citations = 243.2) and cohort studies (n = 30, mean citations = 211.2). This is closely followed by case-control studies (n = 29, mean citations = 183.6). Only four studies achieved level 1 status, underscoring a lack of high-quality methodological research in the field. Most studies (n = 72) highlighted autologous breast reconstruction outcomes, whereas 12 focused on its indications. There were nine studies exploring surgical techniques, and seven studies addressing the autologous breast reconstruction surgical anatomy.

Conclusions

Overall, most of the influential articles in autologous breast reconstruction literature are of lower-level evidence. Contemporary research should focus on enhancing the study designs and measure clinical and patient-reported outcomes with validated tools, such as BREAST-Q.

Gothenburg Breast reconstruction (GoBreast) II protocol: a Swedish partially randomised patient preference, superiority trial comparing autologous and implant-based breast reconstruction

INTRODUCTION

Although breast reconstruction is an integral part of breast cancer treatment, there is little high-quality evidence to indicate which method is the most effective. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are generally thought to provide the most solid scientific evidence, but there are significant barriers to conducting RCTs in breast reconstruction, making both recruitment and achieving unbiased and generalisable results a challenge. The objective of this study is to compare implant-based and autologous breast reconstruction in non-irradiated patients. Moreover, the study aims to improve the evidence for trial decision-making in breast reconstruction.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The study design partially randomised patient preference trial might be a way to overcome the aforementioned challenges. In the present study, patients who consent to randomisation will be randomised to implant-based and autologous breast reconstruction, whereas patients with strong preferences will be able to choose the method. The study is designed as a superiority trial based on the patient-reported questionnaire BREAST-Q and 124 participants will be randomised. In the preference cohort, patients will be included until 62 participants have selected the least popular alternative. Follow-up will be 60 months. Embedded qualitative studies and within-trial economic evaluation will be performed. The primary outcome is patient-reported breast-specific quality of life/satisfaction, and the secondary outcomes are complications, factors affecting satisfaction and cost-effectiveness.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (2023-04754-01). Results will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presented at peer-reviewed scientific meetings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT06195865.

A systematic review of randomised controlled trials in breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

For preference sensitive treatments, such as breast reconstructions, there are barriers to conducting randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The primary aims of this systematic review were to investigate what type of research questions are explored by RCTs in breast reconstruction, where have they been performed and where have they been published, and to thematise the research questions and thus create an overview of the state of the research field.

METHODS

Randomised controlled trials investigating any aspect of breast reconstructions were included. The PubMed database was searched with a pre-defined search string. Inclusion and data abstraction was performed in a pre-defined standardised fashion. For the purpose of this study, we defined key issues as comparison of categories of breast reconstruction and comparison of immediate and delayed breast reconstruction, when the thematisation was done.

RESULTS

A total of 419 abstracts were retrieved from the search. Of the 419, 310 were excluded as they were not RCTs concerning some aspect of breast reconstruction, which left us with 110 abstracts to be included in the study. The research questions of the included studies could more or less be divided into seven different themes inclusive of 2 key issues: Other issues - comparison of different categories of breast reconstruction, comparison of immediate and delayed breast reconstruction, surgical details within a category of breast reconstruction, surgical details valid for several categories of breast reconstruction, donor site management, anaesthetics, and non-surgical details. Only five studies compared key issues, and they all illustrate the challenges with RCTs in breast reconstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

A total of 110 publications based on RCTs in breast reconstruction have been published. Seven themes of research questions could be identified. Only five studies have explored the key issues. Better scientific evidence is needed for the key issues in breast reconstruction, for example by implementing a new study design in the field.

Systematic review of cost-effectiveness in breast reconstruction: deep inferior epigastric perforator flap vs. implant-based breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

There are several techniques for reconstructing breasts after mastectomy, but little scientific evidence for which technique is superior. The aim of this systematic review was to compare the cost-effectiveness of implant-based and autologous reconstruction and to evaluate the overall certainty of evidence, as well as the quality of reporting of the included studies.

METHODS

Studies investigating the cost-effectiveness of breast reconstruction with a deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap compared to implant-based reconstruction, meeting criteria defined in a PICO (population, intervention, comparison, and outcome), were included. Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, CinahL, EconLit, and NHS EED databases were searched. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence, and the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standard (CHEERS) 2022 was used to evaluate the quality of reporting.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

A total of 256 abstracts were retrieved from the search, and after scrutiny, seven studies were included. The findings of this present systematic review should be interpreted with caution as the overall certainty of evidence is low (GRADE ƟƟОО). The included studies suggest that DIEP-flaps are cost-effective compared with implant-based breast reconstruction when the applied cost-effectiveness thresholds of $50,000 to $100,000 per quality-adjusted life years are used. It is noteworthy that no high level evidence exists regarding cost-effeciency, to support recommendations and decision in breast reconstruction. Methodological issues that can be improved in future studies are presented.

Immediate versus delayed breast reconstruction: Long-term follow-up on health-related quality of life and satisfaction with breasts

INTRODUCTION

Health-related quality of life (HRQL) can be improved by breast reconstruction following mastectomy. The optimal timing of the reconstruction remains unclear.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study on 338 women who had undergone immediate or delayed breast reconstruction between 08/2017 and 07/2019 was performed. The postoperative HRQL was assessed using the BREAST-Q Reconstruction Module and the 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36). Regression analysis was performed for group-wise comparison.

RESULTS

A total of 146 (43%) patients participated. Seventy-seven patients (53%) had undergone immediate, and 69 patients (47%) had delayed reconstruction. The median age was 55 years (interquartile ratio [IQR] 50-62) for the Immeda group te, and 60 years (IQR 54-65) for the delayed reconstruction group. The median follow-up time was 2.3 years (IQR 1.8-2.9). No difference between the groups was detected in satisfaction with breasts (median 61, IQR 53-71 vs. 62, IQR 46-71, p = 0.62), physical well-being of the chest (median 100, IQR 80-100 vs. 100, IQR 80-100, p = 0.95) or psychosocial well-being (median 69, IQR 54-83 vs. 62, IQR 54-74, p = 0.19). No difference was detected in the SF-36 domains either.

CONCLUSIONS

The timing of the breast reconstruction does not affect the postoperative HRQL. Patients with both immediate and delayed breast reconstruction reported high satisfaction with the breast and psychosocial well-being.