Multidisciplinary one-stage risk-reducing gynaecological and breast surgery with immediate reconstruction in BRCA-gene carrier women

Postoperative Outcomes After Staged Versus Coordinated Breast Surgery and Bilateral Salpingo-Oophorectomy

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to compare postoperative complication rates and healthcare charges between patients who underwent coordinated versus staged breast surgery and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The MarketScan administrative database was used to identify adult female patients with invasive breast cancer or BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations who underwent BSO and breast surgery (lumpectomy or mastectomy with or without reconstruction) between 2010 and 2015. Patients were assigned to the coordinated group if a breast operation and BSO were performed simultaneously or assigned to the staged group if BSO was performed separately. Primary outcomes were (1) incidence of 90-day postoperative complications and (2) 2-year aggregate perioperative healthcare charges. Fisher's exact tests, Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, and multivariable regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Of the 4228 patients who underwent breast surgery and BSO, 412 (9.7%) were in the coordinated group and 3816 (90.3%) were in the staged group. The coordinated group had a higher incidence of postoperative complications (24.0% vs. 17.7%, p < 0.01), higher risk-adjusted odds of postoperative complications [odds ratio (OR) 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06-1.76, p = 0.02], and similar aggregate healthcare charges before (median charges: $106,500 vs. $101,555, p = 0.96) and after risk-adjustment [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.00, 95% CI 0.93-1.07; p = 0.95]. In a subgroup analysis, incidence of postoperative complications (12.9% for coordinated operations vs. 11.7% for staged operation, p = 0.73) was similar in patients whose breast operation was a lumpectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

While costs were similar, coordinating breast surgery with BSO was associated with more complications in patients who underwent mastectomy, but not in patients who underwent lumpectomy. These data should inform shared decision-making in high-risk patients.

Does concurrent gynaecological surgery affect infectious complications rate after mastectomy with implant-based reconstruction?

BACKGROUND

Women who undergo breast cancer surgery often have an indication for gynaecological procedure. The aim of our study was to compare infectious complications rate after mastectomy with implant-based reconstruction in patients with and without concurrent gynaecological procedure.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed clinical records of 159 consecutively operated patients after mastectomy with implant-based reconstruction. The patients were divided in 2 groups: 102 patients without (Group1) and 57 with (Group 2) concurrent gynaecological procedure. Infectious complications rates between the groups were compared using χ²-test. Logistic regression was performed to test for association of different variables with infectious complications.

RESULTS

There were 240 breast reconstructions performed. Median follow-up time was 297 days (10-1061 days). Mean patient age was 47.2 years (95% CI 32.8-65.9); 48.2 years (95% CI 46.1-50.3) in Group 1 and 45.8 years (95% CI 43.2-48.3) in Group 2; p = 0.002). Infectious complications rate was 17.6% (17.6% vs. 17.5%, p = 0.987), implant loss occurred in 5.7% (4.9% vs. 7.0%, p = 0.58). Obesity (body mass index [BMI] > 30 kg/m²), age, previous breast conserving treatment (BCT) with radiotherapy (RT) were identified as risk factors for infectious complications in univariate analysis. Obesity (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.319, 95% CI 1.085-10.157, p = 0.036) and BCT with RT (aOR 7.481, 95% CI 2.230-25.101, p = 0.001) were independently associated with infectious complications in multivariate model.

CONCLUSIONS

Concurrent gynaecological procedure for patients undergoing mastectomy with implant-based reconstruction did not carry an increased risk for infectious complications.

Factors Associated With Increased Complications in Patients With BRCA Gene Mutations Undergoing Reconstructive Breast Surgery

Reconstructive breast surgery after bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in patients who carry a mutation of the breast cancer (BRCA) gene has been increasing. Undergoing risk-reducing breast surgery can be of great benefit to young patients who have a high risk of developing breast cancer. There is little available evidence about the rate of complications in these patients and which factors are related to increased complications. The objective of this study was to identify predictors of complications in BRCA gene mutation carriers who underwent reconstructive breast surgery. A single-center, retrospective cohort study was conducted that included all patients with a mutation of the BRCA gene who underwent a breast reconstructive procedure, either immediate or delayed, between January 2013 and March 2019 and received a minimum of 6 months' follow-up. The results of our study showed that smoking is the most important modifiable risk factor associated with an increased complication rate for reconstructive breast surgery in patients with BRCA gene mutation. Smoking cessation will reduce the patient's risk for postoperative complications by 50%; therefore, it should be encouraged in all surgical patients and enforced in patients undergoing prophylactic procedures.

Surgical decision making in premenopausal BRCA carriers considering risk-reducing early salpingectomy or salpingo-oophorectomy: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Acceptance of the role of the fallopian tube in 'ovarian' carcinogenesis and the detrimental sequelae of surgical menopause in premenopausal women following risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) has resulted in risk-reducing early-salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy (RRESDO) being proposed as an attractive alternative risk-reducing strategy in women who decline/delay oophorectomy. We present the results of a qualitative study evaluating the decision-making process among BRCA carriers considering prophylactic surgeries (RRSO/RRESDO) as part of the multicentre PROTECTOR trial (ISRCTN:25173360).

METHODS

In-depth semistructured 1:1 interviews conducted using a predeveloped topic-guide (development informed by literature review and expert consultation) until informational saturation reached. Wording and sequencing of questions were left open with probes used to elicit additional information. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, transcripts analysed using an inductive theoretical framework and data managed using NVIVO-v12.

RESULTS

Informational saturation was reached following 24 interviews. Seven interconnected themes integral to surgical decision making were identified: fertility/menopause/cancer risk reduction/surgical choices/surgical complications/sequence of ovarian-and-breast prophylactic surgeries/support/satisfaction. Women for whom maximising ovarian cancer risk reduction was relatively more important than early menopause/quality-of-life preferred RRSO, whereas those more concerned about detrimental impact of menopause chose RRESDO. Women managed in specialist familial cancer clinic settings compared with non-specialist settings felt they received better quality care, improved hormone replacement therapy access and were more satisfied.

CONCLUSION

Multiple contextual factors (medical, physical, psychological, social) influence timing of risk-reducing surgeries. RRESDO offers women delaying/declining premenopausal oophorectomy, particularly those concerned about menopausal effects, a degree of ovarian cancer risk reduction while avoiding early menopause. Care of high-risk women should be centralised to centres with specialist familial gynaecological cancer risk management services to provide a better-quality, streamlined, holistic multidisciplinary approach.

Concurrent risk-reduction surgery in patients with increased lifetime risk for breast and ovarian cancer: an analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database

BACKGROUND

Patients with genetic susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer are eligible for risk-reduction surgery. Surgical morbidity of risk-reduction mastectomy (RRM) with concurrent bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) is unknown. Outcomes in these patients were compared to patients undergoing RRM without BSO using a large multi-institutional database.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted using the American College of Surgeon's National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) 2007-2016 datasets, comparing postoperative morbidity between patients undergoing RRM with patients undergoing RRM with concurrent BSO. Patients with genetic susceptibility to breast/ovarian cancer undergoing risk-reduction surgery were identified. The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative major morbidity. Secondary outcomes included surgical site infections, reoperations, readmissions, length of stay, and venous thromboembolic events. A multivariate analysis was performed to determine predictors of postoperative morbidity and the adjusted effect of concurrent BSO on morbidity.

RESULTS

Of the 5470 patients undergoing RRM, 149 (2.7%) underwent concurrent BSO. The overall rate of major morbidity and postoperative infections was 4.5% and 4.6%, respectively. There was no significant difference in the rate of postoperative major morbidity (4.5% vs 4.7%, p = 0.91) or any of the secondary outcomes between patients undergoing RRM without BSO vs. those undergoing RRM with concurrent BSO. Multivariable analysis showed Body Mass Index (OR 1.05; p < 0.001) and smoking (OR 1.78; p = 0.003) to be the only predictors associated with major morbidity. Neither immediate breast reconstruction (OR 1.02; p = 0.93) nor concurrent BSO (OR 0.94; p = 0.89) were associated with increased postoperative major morbidity.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that RRM with concurrent BSO was not associated with significant additional morbidity when compared to RRM without BSO. Therefore, this joint approach may be considered for select patients at risk for both breast and ovarian cancer.