The iTOP trial: Comparing immediate techniques of oncoplastic surgery with conventional breast surgery in women with breast cance - A prospective, controlled, single-center study

Efficacy and safety of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery versus conventional breast-conserving surgery: An updated meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women. The surgical treatment of breast cancer has transitioned progressively from radical mastectomy to breast-conserving surgery. In this meta-analysis, we are aiming to compare oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OS) with conventional breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in terms of efficacy and safety.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane databases, Clinicaltrial.gov, and CNKI until April 30, 2024. Data from cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Outcomes included primary outcomes (re-excision, local recurrence, positive surgical margin, mastectomy), secondary outcomes and safety outcomes. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to evaluate the quality of outcomes.

RESULTS

Our study included 52 studies containing 46,835 patients. Primary outcomes comprise re-excision, local recurrence, positive surgical margin, and mastectomy, there were significant differences favoring OS over BCS (RR 0.68 [0.56, 0.82], RR 0.62 [0.47, 0.82], RR 0.76 [0.59, 0.98], RR 0.66 [0.44, 0.98] respectively), indicating superior efficacy of OS. Additionally, OS demonstrated significant aesthetic benefits (RR 1.17 [1.03, 1.33] and RR 1.34 [1.18, 1.52]). While total complications were significantly fewer in the OS group (RR 0.70 [0.53, 0.94]), the differences in specific complications were not significant. Furthermore, subgroup analyses were conducted based on nationality, sample size, quality, and type.

CONCLUSION

OS demonstrates either superior or at least comparable outcomes across various aspects when compared to BCS.

Patient Satisfaction, Esthetic Outcome, and Quality of Life in Oncoplastic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery: A Single Center Experience

Background

Oncoplastic surgery has become an important part of the surgical repertoire to offer both oncologically safe and aesthetically pleasing results in patients with breast cancer. Data comparing oncoplastic and reconstructive breast surgeries are limited. This study aimed to assess patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in our cohort of oncoplastic and reconstructively operated patients.

Methods

Patients who underwent oncoplastic surgery, including immediate reconstruction by a single surgeon, between 2010 and 2018 were contacted to participate in this study. In total, 157 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. 54 patient data sets were used for statistical evaluation. Body Image Scale (BIS) and BreastQ questionnaires were used to measure subjective PRO scores, and pictures were taken to objectively measure symmetry using the Breast Analyzing Tool (BAT). Patients were divided into three groups according to the Tübingen classification (group 1: Tübingen 3-4 (n = 16), group 2: Tübingen 5 (n = 26), group 3: Breast Reconstruction/Tübingen 6 (n = 12]).

Results

The mean age was 53.5 for group 1, 51.4 for group 2 and 46.8 for group 3. The mean follow-up was 62.9 ± 35.82 months. BIS was significantly better in group 3 (3.92 ± 1.73) than in group 1 and 2 (7.69 ± 4.48 and 4.81 ± 3.41, p = 0.016). Symmetry measured using BAT showed only a trend favoring reconstruction (p = 0.12). The BreastQ item "Sexual well-being" was significantly better in oncoplastic breast reduction surgery (p = 0.036).

Conclusion

BIS was better after reconstructive breast surgery than after oncoplastic surgery. Reconstructive breast surgery in experienced breast care units offers high patient satisfaction and a high quality of life.

Aesthetic results were more satisfactory after oncoplastic surgery than after total breast reconstruction according to patients and surgeons

INTRODUCTION

Patient satisfaction after breast cancer surgery has an impact on body image, sexual function, self-esteem, and quality of life and may differ from the perception of the attending physician. This study aimed to compare the aesthetic outcomes and satisfaction with conservative oncoplastic surgeries, mastectomies, and total breast reconstruction.

METHODS

We included 760 women diagnosed with invasive breast carcinoma or phyllodes tumors who returned at least 6 months after surgery or radiotherapy at two public hospitals and a private clinic between 2014 and 2022. Data was collected prospectively from patients and retrospectively from their medical records using a specific form after obtaining their informed consent. Aesthetic outcomes and quality of life were assessed using the BREAST-Q©, Harris Scale, and BCCT.core software. Data were evaluated using the SPSS statistical software. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. This study was approved by the hospital ethics committees.

RESULTS

A total of 405 (53.29%) partial and 355 (46.71%) total reconstructions were included. Patients who underwent partial reconstruction were older and had higher body mass index. Patients who underwent total reconstruction had larger tumors with advanced clinical and pathological stages. Clinical and surgical complications occurred more frequently in the total reconstruction group. A greater number of reparative surgeries and lipofilling procedures were required for total reconstruction. According to the BREAST-Q, the partial reconstruction group showed significantly higher levels of women's satisfaction with their breasts, the surgical outcomes, psychosocial and sexual well-being, provision of information, and the reconstructive surgeon. Only physical well-being was slightly higher in the total reconstruction group. In most cases, the results were rated good or excellent. Physicians considered partial reconstructions to have better results than total reconstructions, although this difference was not perceived by the BCCT.core software.

CONCLUSION

Women who underwent partial breast reconstruction had higher levels of satisfaction in several domains, lower frequency of complications, and required fewer surgeries to complete their reconstruction than women who underwent total reconstruction. Physicians were also more satisfied with the results of partial reconstructions.

A clinical perspective on oncoplastic breast conserving surgery

Breast conserving surgery (BCS) plus radiation treatment is the favored alternative for mastectomy in patients with breast cancer. To allow for breast conservation in patients with large invasive tumors and poor response to neoadjuvant systemic treatment (NST) or patients with extensive ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (OPBCS) techniques are introduced. OPBCS allows for breast conservation in a selective group of breast cancer patients who initially would have been treated with mastectomy due to the unfavorable tumor-to-breast ratio. With OPBCS, the oncological tumor excision is combined with plastic surgical breast conservation techniques without compromising oncological safety and maintaining aesthetic outcomes by preserving the shape of the breast. OPBCS should however not be applied to all breast cancer patients and the selection of patients who benefit from OPBCS and the timing of OPBCS are best discussed in a multidisciplinary team (MDT). Caution is required in patients with higher risk of positive margins [e.g., multifocal breast cancer, invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC), larger tumors and DCIS]. In these patients, delayed OPBCS is recommended to facilitate re-excision and maintain excellent breast conserving rates. Despite proven benefits in selected patients, the increase in the adoption of OPBCS is relatively low. This article provides a clinical perspective on OPBCS.

Sometimes it is better to just make it simple. De-escalation of oncoplastic and reconstructive procedures

Simple breast conservation surgery (sBCS) has technically advanced onto oncoplastic breast procedures (OBP) to avoid mastectomy and improve breast cancer patients' psychosocial well-being and cosmetic outcome. Although OBP are time-consuming and expensive, we are witnessing an increase in their use, even for cases that could be managed with sBCS. The choice between keeping it simple or opting for more complex oncoplastic procedures is difficult. This review proposes a pragmatic approach in assisting this decision. Medical literature suggests that OBP and sBCS might be similar regarding local recurrence and overall survival, and patients seem to have higher satisfaction levels with the aesthetic outcome of OBP when compared to sBCS. However, the lack of comprehensive high-quality research assessing their safety, efficacy, and patient-reported outcomes hinders these supposed conclusions. Postoperative complications after OBP may delay the initiation of adjuvant RT. In addition, precise displacement of the breast volume is not effectively recorded despite surgical clips placement, making accurate dose delivery tricky for radiation oncologists, and WBRT preferable to APBI in complex OBP cases. With a critical eye on financial toxicity, patient satisfaction, and oncological outcomes, OBP must be carefully integrated into clinical practice. The thoughtful provision of informed consent is essential for decision-making between sBCS and OBP. As we look into the future, machine learning and artificial intelligence can potentially help patients and doctors avoid postoperative regrets by setting realistic aesthetic expectations.

Leveraging diverse cell-death patterns to predict the prognosis and drug sensitivity of triple-negative breast cancer patients after surgery

BACKGROUND

Postoperative progression and chemotherapy resistance is the major cause of treatment failure in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Currently, there is a lack of an ideal predictive model for the progression and drug sensitivity of postoperative TNBC patients. Diverse programmed cell death (PCD) patterns play an important role in tumor progression, which has the potential to be a prognostic and drug sensitivity indicator for TNBC after surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twelve PCD patterns (apoptosis, necroptosis, pyroptosis, ferroptosis, cuproptosis, entotic cell death, netotic cell death, parthanatos, lysosome-dependent cell death, autophagy-dependent cell death, alkaliptosis, and oxeiptosis) were analyzed for model construction. Bulk transcriptome, single-cell transcriptome, genomics, and clinical information were collected from TCGA-BRCA, METABRIC, GSE58812, GSE21653, GSE176078, GSE75688, and KM-plotter cohorts to validate the model.

RESULTS

The machine learning algorithm established a cell death index (CDI) with a 12-gene signature. Validated in five independent datasets, TNBC patients with high CDI had a worse prognosis after surgery. Two molecular subtypes of TNBC with distinct vital biological processes were identified by an unsupervised clustering model. A nomogram with high predictive performance was constructed by incorporating CDI with clinical features. Furthermore, CDI was associated with immune checkpoint genes and key tumor microenvironment components by integrated analysis of bulk and single-cell transcriptome. TNBC patients with high CDI are resistant to standard adjuvant chemotherapy regimens (docetaxel, oxaliplatin, etc.); however, they might be sensitive to palbociclib (an FDA-approved drug for luminal breast cancer).

CONCLUSION

Generally, we established a novel CDI model by comprehensively analyzing diverse cell death patterns, which can accurately predict clinical prognosis and drug sensitivity of TNBC after surgery. A user-friendly website was created to facilitate the application of this prediction model (https://tnbc.shinyapps.io/CDI_Model/).