Breast reconstruction patterns from a Swedish nation-wide survey

Autologous and implant based immediate breast reconstructive trends following unilateral modified radical and radical mastectomy: a SEER database analysis

Longitudinal trends in breast reconstruction after modified radical mastectomy remain under described. This study aims to assess procedural trends in autologous reconstruction (AR) and implant-based reconstruction (IBR), to analyse demographic shifts in these patients, and to examine differences in oncologic management. This retrospective study utilizes the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database to investigate trends in immediate breast reconstruction from 2000 to 2020 following unilateral modified radical and radical mastectomy. Demographic and oncologic variables were collected, and reconstruction types were categorised as IBR, AR, or a combination. Subgroup analyses compared IBR and AR patients, and demographic changes between the 2000-2010 and 2010-2020 cohorts were examined. Chi-square tests in R studio were used for statistical analysis. Of the 25,649 patients, 51.8% underwent IBR and 48.2% AR. AR patients were typically younger, more frequently Black, had higher incomes, and were less likely to live in rural areas compared to IBR patients. A shift from AR to IBR was observed, with AR decreasing from 41.8% in 2000 to 24.5% in 2020. Significant demographic changes in AR patients included increased age, higher proportions of Black and Asian patients, reduced income, and increased non-marital status. Oncologic management differed, as AR patients were less likely to have received chemotherapy and radiation prior to their reconstruction, and experienced longer reconstruction times compared to IBR patients. This study highlights a decline in AR and rising IBR popularity, and reveals evolving patient characteristics. Understanding these trends is crucial for equitable access and informed decision-making in breast cancer reconstructive care.

Timing and type of breast reconstruction in SweBRO 3: long-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Breast reconstruction after mastectomy helps women with breast cancer feel better about their bodies and lives. There is debate about the best time and type of reconstruction (immediate versus delayed, and using own tissue versus implants). Long-term studies are rare.

AIM

This study looked at long-term results of different breast reconstruction methods and timings in Swedish women who had mastectomies in 2000, 2005 or 2010. It focused on how satisfied the women were with their surgeries and their quality of life.

METHOD

The study included 5853 women from the Swedish National Breast Cancer Registry who had mastectomies in 2000, 2005 or 2010. Of these, 2904 women answered the survey, and 895 had breast reconstruction. Satisfaction and quality of life were measured using two surveys: EORTC QLQ-BRECON23 and BREAST-Q.

RESULTS

Of the women who answered the survey, 895 (31%) had breast reconstruction. Of these, 176 (20%) had immediate reconstruction, and 719 (80%) had delayed reconstruction; 58% had implant-based reconstructions, 31% had reconstructions using their own tissue, 2% had both types and 9% did not report the type of reconstruction. There were no major differences in satisfaction between immediate and delayed reconstruction. Women who used their own tissue were more satisfied with their results and breast appearance than those with implants.

CONCLUSION

Autologous reconstruction leads to better satisfaction and outcomes than implants. The timing of reconstruction (immediate versus delayed) was less of an influence on quality of life.

Long-term Donor Site-related Quality of Life after Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap Breast Reconstruction

Background

Current knowledge about patients' perceptions of the donor site following abdominal-based breast reconstruction and its effect on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) several years after breast reconstruction is limited. This study aimed to assess the long-term effects of deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction on HRQoL, specifically focusing on the abdomen and donor site aspects.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study compared 66 women who underwent DIEP breast reconstruction between 2000 and 2007 with a matched control cohort of 114 women who underwent therapeutic mastectomies without reconstruction in the year 2005. The DIEP cohort of patients completed the BREAST-Q Reconstruction module during an outpatient visit in 2015-2016. The control cohort completed the same questionnaire online in 2016.

Results

The follow-up time was at least 8 years (mean 11.4 ± 1.6 years) postreconstruction for the DIEP cohort and 10 years postmastectomy (mean 11.0 ± 0.3 years) for the control cohort. In the DIEP cohort, 93% reported no donor site pain, 89% had no difficulty sitting up, and 91% had no activity limitations 2 weeks before completing the survey. Patients undergoing DIEP were more satisfied with their abdominal appearance than the control group (adjusted OR, 5.7; 95% confidence interval 1.8-17.6).

Conclusions

A decade postoperatively, DIEP breast reconstruction yields high abdominal donor site satisfaction, with comparable abdominal physical well-being to nonreconstructed women.

National long-term patient-reported outcomes following mastectomy with or without breast reconstruction: The Swedish Breast Reconstruction Outcome Study Part 2 (SweBRO 2)

BACKGROUND

The Swedish Breast Reconstruction Outcome Study (SweBRO) initiative is a nationwide study with the primary aim of assessing long-term outcomes after mastectomy with and without breast reconstruction (BR). The current part (SweBRO 2) is designed to evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQoL), with the hypothesis that BR has a positive impact on patient-reported HRQoL in the long-term.

METHODS

Women who underwent mastectomy in Sweden in 2000, 2005, or 2010 and were alive at the time of the survey were identified through the National Breast Cancer Registry. Eligible participants received formal invitation letters to take part in a survey evaluating their HRQoL at 5 , 10, or 15 years post-mastectomy. The EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-BR23, and EQ-5D-3L questionnaires were employed.

RESULTS

Of 2904 respondents (50% of 5853 invited), 895 (31%) had received BR. Among them, 516 (58%) were reconstructed with implants and 281 (31%) with autologous tissue. Women with BR scored significantly better in the EORCT QLQ-C30 physical functioning domain (mean 90 versus 81 points), fatigue (mean 21 versus 25), and dyspnoea (mean 16 versus 22) compared to non-reconstructed women. The EORTC QLQ-BR23 revealed that women with BR experienced favourable sexual functioning compared with non-reconstructed women (mean 26 versus 14). The EQ-5D-3L visual analogue scale score was similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

The current study underscores the benefits of BR for long-term well-being, for example, in terms of physical and sexual functioning. These underline the importance of informing women undergoing mastectomy about BR alternatives and its potential benefits in enhancing long-term well-being.

Expander prosthesis and DIEP flaps in delayed breast reconstruction: Sensibility, patient-reported outcome, and complications in a five-year randomised follow-up study

Breast reconstruction is a given choice for many women following mastectomy. There are a multitude of methods available today, and thus, comparative studies are essential to match patients with suitable methods. The aim of this study was to compare 5-year outcomes following delayed breast reconstruction with expander prosthesis (EP) and with deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps. Seventy-three patients, previously randomised to either a permanent EP or a DIEP flap breast reconstruction, were invited for a 5-year follow-up. Assessments included symmetry measurements, breast sensibility with Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments and patient-reported outcome (PRO) with the BREAST-Q. Complications within the first 5 postoperative years were recorded. Additionally, BREAST-Q questionnaires were collected from non-randomised patients with an EP breast reconstruction. Between 2019 and 2022, 65 patients completed the follow-ups. Symmetry and PRO were significantly higher in the DIEP flap group. However, EP-reconstructed breasts were significantly more sensate and demonstrated areas with protective sensibility, unlike the DIEP flap breasts. The overall complication rates were comparable between the two groups (p = 0.27). Regression analysis identified body mass index as a risk factor for reoperation in general anaesthesia and for wound infection. No significant differences were found in a comparison of the randomised and the non-randomised EP groups' BREAST-Q results. This randomised 5-year follow-up study found PRO to be favourable following a DIEP flap reconstruction and sensibility to be better in EP reconstructions. The complication rates were comparable; however, longer follow-ups are warranted to cover the complete lifespans of the two breast reconstruction methods.

The effect of implant loss after immediate breast reconstruction on patient satisfaction with outcome and quality of life after five years - a case-control study

Several advantages have been suggested for immediate breast reconstruction (IBR); however, there is little scientific high-quality evidence confirming those advantages. Disadvantages of IBR, compared to delayed breast reconstruction (DBR), include an increased risk for complications, such as implant loss (prevalence 5-10% vs. 1%). Little is known on how women experience implant loss and how it affects patients' long-term satisfaction and quality of life (QoL). The primary aim of our study was to compare patient satisfaction and QoL of women with implant loss after IBR, with that of women with a successful IBR. Breast-Q, Body Esteem Scale for Adults and Adolescents (BESAA) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) were sent to women who had experienced implant loss during the last 10 years. Women of a similar age who were reconstructed, without complications, during the same period were controls. The results suggest that there might be a more permanent negative effect on satisfaction and QoL following implant loss. The proportion of possible cases of depression was higher among patients who had experienced implant loss. The findings could indicate that in patients with an elevated risk for implant loss, the possible benefits with IBR should be carefully balanced against the effects of implant loss.