Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy on Permanent Implants or Tissue Expanders: Which is Better?

Predictive Modeling of Human Skin Deformation and Growth During Tissue Expansion in Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction

Breast reconstruction using tissue expanders is the primary treatment option following mastectomy. Although skin growth in response to chronic supra-physiological stretch is well-established, individual patient factors such as breast shape, volume, skin prestrain, and mechanical properties, create unique deformation and growth patterns. The inability to predict skin growth and deformation prior to treatment often leads to complications and suboptimal esthetic outcomes. Personalized predictive simulations offer a promising solution to these challenges. We present a pipeline for predictive computational models of skin growth in tissue expansion. At the start of treatment, we collect three-dimensional (3D) photos and create an initial finite element model. Our framework accounts for uncertainties in treatment protocols, mechanical properties, and biological parameters. These uncertainties are informed by surgeon input, existing literature on mechanical properties, and prior research on porcine models for biological parameters. By collecting 3D photos longitudinally during treatment, and integrating the data through a Bayesian framework, we can systematically reduce uncertainty in the predictions. Calibrated personalized models are sampled using Monte Carlo methods, which require thousands of model evaluations. To overcome the computational limitations of directly evaluating the finite element model, we use Gaussian process surrogate models. We anticipate that this pipeline can be used to guide patient treatment in the near future.

Single-Stage Latissimus-Implant Breast Reconstruction Is Safe and Reliable: A Single Surgeon Series of 207 Flaps

BACKGROUND

The latissimus dorsi flap (LDF) is a historical workhorse and contemporary salvage mainstay for breast reconstruction. There is still debate regarding timing and staging, with some authors advocating for staged reconstruction using tissue expanders. We present a single-surgeon experience with LDF breast reconstruction and compare the results of single-stage reconstruction versus staged approaches.

METHODS

Patients undergoing LDF breast reconstruction from 2008 to 2021 with a single surgeon (R.S.) were included. Charts were reviewed for demographics, indications, number and type of planned stages, and outcomes. Acute and chronic complications and revisions were compared between indication and staging groups.

RESULTS

A total of 156 patients underwent LDF breast reconstruction, of which 111 flaps (53.1%) were bilateral. One hundred seventy-nine (85.6%) flaps were for primary reconstruction, and 30 (14.4%) flaps were for salvage of a previous breast reconstruction. Fourteen (6.7%) flaps were 1-stage LDF alone, 189 (90.4%) were 1-stage LDF with implant, 1 (0.5%) was 2-stage LDF with implant, and 5 (2.4%) were 2-stage LDF with tissue expander then implant. The mean follow-up was 44.9 months (range, 1-164 months). The most common complication was capsular contracture (29%). Overall complication rates were similar between primary and salvage reconstruction (35.8% vs 43.3%, P = 0.426), as was needed for revision (39.1% vs 40.0%, P = 0.926). There was a significant difference in complication rate (P = 0.021) but not revision rate (P = 0.133) between staging groups: 1-stage LDF alone, 7.1%, 14.3%; 1-stage LDF with implant, 40.2%, 41.8%; 2-stage LDF with implant, 0.0%, 0.0%; and 2-stage LDF with expander then implant, 0.0%, 20.0%. After removing capsular contracture, there was no difference in complication rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-staged LDF/implant reconstruction remains a safe and reliable surgical option for both primary and salvage breast reconstruction. High rates of capsular contracture should prompt the deployment of techniques to reduce its incidence.

Advances in Etiology and Prevention of Capsular Contracture After Breast Implantation

Capsular contracture (CC) is one of the most common complications of breast implant usage in breast augmentation or reconstruction. The CC approach can cause breast hardening, pain, and varying degrees of deformity, affecting the quality of life of patients. Considerably, it has become one of the most common reasons for frequent surgeries. Nonetheless, the etiology and pathogenesis of CC remain unclear. Moreover, there exist still a lot of uncertainties regarding prevention and treatment measures. In this article, we present discussions on the research status of the etiology, pathogenesis, prevention, and treatment measures of CC. In summary, this study provides a reference for further research on CC and clinical use.Level of Evidence V This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Acellular Dermal Matrix-Assisted, Prosthesis-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Comparison of SurgiMend PRS, AlloDerm, and DermACELL

BACKGROUND

Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) are frequently employed in immediate prosthesis-based breast reconstruction (iPBR) to provide structural support. Despite differences in ADM derivatives, few studies directly compare their outcomes in the setting of iPBR. We sought to conduct a large head-to-head study comparing 3 ADMs used across our institution.

METHODS

A multicenter retrospective review of patients undergoing iPBR with SurgiMend PRS (fetal bovine-derived; Integra Lifesciences, Princeton, NJ), AlloDerm (human-derived; LifeCell Corp, Bridgewater, NJ), or DermACELL (human-derived; Stryker Corp, Kalamazoo, MI) between January 2014 to July 2022 was performed. Primary outcomes included rates of unplanned explantation and total reconstructive failure. Secondary outcomes included 90-day postoperative complications and long-term rates of capsular contracture development.

RESULTS

A total of 738 patients (1228 breasts) underwent iPBR during the study period; 405 patients received DermACELL (54.9%), 231 received AlloDerm (31.3%), and 102 received SurgiMend PRS (13.8%). Rates of short-term complications, total reconstruction failure, reoperation within 90 days, capsular contracture, and unplanned explantation were comparable. These findings remained true upon multivariate analysis accounting for baseline differences between cohorts, whereby ADM type was not an independent predictor of any outcome of interest. Conversely, factors such as body mass index, diabetes mellitus, smoking history, neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy, adjuvant radiation, skin-sparing mastectomy, Wise pattern and periareolar incisions, use of tissue expanders, and a subpectoral plane of insertion were significant predictors of postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

Low rates of complications support the equivalency of fetal bovine and human-derived ADMs in iPBR. Patient characteristics and operative approach are likely more predictive of postoperative outcomes than ADM derivative alone.

The impact of the new ESTRO-ACROP target volume delineation guidelines for postmastectomy radiotherapy after implant-based breast reconstruction on breast complications

The European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology-Advisory Committee in Radiation Oncology Practice (ESTRO-ACROP) updated a new target volume delineation guideline for postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) after implant-based reconstruction. This study aimed to evaluate the impact on breast complications with the new guideline compared to the conventional guidelines. In total, 308 patients who underwent PMRT after tissue expander or permanent implant insertion from 2016 to 2021 were included; 184 received PMRT by the new ESTRO-ACROP target delineation (ESTRO-T), and 124 by conventional target delineation (CONV-T). The endpoints were major breast complications (infection, necrosis, dehiscence, capsular contracture, animation deformity, and rupture) requiring re-operation or re-hospitalization and any grade ≥2 breast complications. With a median follow-up of 36.4 months, the cumulative incidence rates of major breast complications at 1, 2, and 3 years were 6.6%, 10.3%, and 12.6% in the ESTRO-T group, and 9.7%, 15.4%, and 16.3% in the CONV-T group; it did not show a significant difference between the groups (p = 0.56). In multivariable analyses, target delineation is not associated with the major complications (sHR = 0.87; p = 0.77). There was no significant difference in any breast complications (3-year incidence, 18.9% vs. 23.3%, respectively; p = 0.56). Symptomatic RT-induced pneumonitis was developed in six (3.2%) and three (2.4%) patients, respectively. One local recurrence occurred in the ESTRO-T group, which was within the ESTRO-target volume. The new ESTRO-ACROP target volume guideline did not demonstrate significant differences in major or any breast complications, although it showed a tendency of reduced complication risks. As the dosimetric benefits of normal organs and comparable oncologic outcomes have been reported, further analyses with long-term follow-up are necessary to evaluate whether it could be connected to better clinical outcomes.

Multimodality Imaging of Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction Techniques, Complications, and Tumor Recurrence

For women undergoing mastectomy, breast reconstruction can be performed by using implants or autologous tissue flaps. Mastectomy options include skin- and nipple-sparing techniques. Implant-based reconstruction can be performed with saline or silicone implants. Various autologous pedicled or free tissue flap reconstruction methods based on different tissue donor sites are available. The aesthetic outcomes of implant- and flap-based reconstructions can be improved with oncoplastic surgery, including autologous fat graft placement and nipple-areolar complex reconstruction. The authors provide an update on recent advances in implant reconstruction techniques and contemporary expanded options for autologous tissue flap reconstruction as it relates to imaging modalities. As breast cancer screening is not routinely performed in this clinical setting, tumor recurrence after mastectomy and reconstruction is often detected by palpation at physical examination. Most local recurrences occur within the skin and subcutaneous tissue. Diagnostic breast imaging continues to have a critical role in confirmation of disease recurrence. Knowledge of the spectrum of benign and abnormal imaging appearances in the reconstructed breast is important for postoperative evaluation of patients, including recognition of early and late postsurgical complications and breast cancer recurrence. The authors provide an overview of multimodality imaging of the postmastectomy reconstructed breast, as well as an update on screening guidelines and recommendations for this unique patient population. ©RSNA, 2024 Test Your Knowledge questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.

A Decade of Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: Lessons Learned in 3035 Immediate Implant-Based Breast Reconstructions

BACKGROUND

Nipple-sparing mastectomy is commonly performed for breast cancer treatment or prevention. The authors present one of the largest breast reconstruction series in the literature.

METHODS

A single-institution retrospective review was conducted from 2007 to 2019.

RESULTS

The authors' query identified 3035 implant-based breast reconstructions after nipple-sparing mastectomy, including 2043 direct-to-implant and 992 tissue expander-to-implant reconstructions. The overall major complication rate was 9.15%, and the nipple necrosis rate was 1.20%. Therapeutic mastectomy was associated with higher overall complications and explantations compared with prophylactic mastectomy ( P < 0.01). In comparisons of unilateral and bilateral procedures, bilateral mastectomy had an increased risk for complications (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 0.997 to 2.145; P = 0.05). Tissue-expander reconstructions had higher rates of nipple necrosis (1.9% versus 0.88%; P = 0.015), infection (4.2% versus 2.8%; P = 0.04), and explantation (5.1% versus 3.5%; P = 0.04) compared with direct-to-implant reconstruction. When assessing plane of reconstruction, the authors found similar rates of complications between subpectoral dual-plane and prepectoral reconstruction. There was no difference in complications between reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix or mesh compared with total or partial muscle coverage without acellular dermal matrix/mesh (OR, 0.749; 95% CI, 0.404 to 1.391; P = 0.361). Multivariable regression analysis revealed preoperative radiotherapy (OR, 2.465; 95% CI, 1.579 to 3.848; P < 0.001), smoking (OR, 2.53; 95% CI, 1.581 to 4.054; P < 0.001), and a periareolar incision (OR, 3.657; 95% CI, 2.276 to 5.875; P < 0.001) to be the strongest predictors of complications and nipple necrosis ( P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction has a low rate of complications. In this series, radiation therapy, smoking, and incision choice predicted overall complications and nipple necrosis, whereas direct-to-implant reconstruction and acellular dermal matrix or mesh did not increase risk.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

The Effect of Adjuvant Radiotherapy on One- and Two-Stage Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction and on Autologous Reconstruction: A Multicenter Italian Study among 18 Senonetwork Breast Centres

Purpose

In modern breast cancer treatment, a growing role has been observed for breast reconstruction together with an increase in clinical indications for postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT). Choosing the optimum type of reconstructive technique is a clinical challenge. We therefore conducted a national multicenter study to analyze the impact of PMRT on breast reconstruction.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective case-control multicenter study on women undergoing breast reconstruction. Data were collected from 18 Italian Breast Centres and stored in a cumulative database which included the following: autologous reconstruction, direct-to-implant (DTI), and tissue expander/immediate (TE/I). For all patients, we described complications and surgical endpoints to complications such as reconstruction failure, explant, change in type of reconstruction, and reintervention.

Results

From 2001 to April 2020, 3116 patients were evaluated. The risk for any complication was significantly increased in patients receiving PMRT (aOR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.33-2.24; p < 0.001). PMRT was associated with a significant increase in the risk of capsular contracture in the DTI and TE/I groups (aOR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.57-3.20; p < 0.001). Comparing type of procedures, the risk of failure (aOR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.06-3.12, p=0.030), explant (aOR, 3.34; 95% CI, 3.85-7.83, p < 0.001), and severe complications (aOR, 2.54; 95% CI, 1.88-3.43, p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the group undergoing DTI reconstruction as compared to TE/I reconstruction.

Conclusion

Our study confirms that autologous reconstruction is the procedure least impacted by PMRT, while DTI appears to be the most impacted by PMRT, when compared with TE/I which shows a lower rate of explant and reconstruction failure. The trial is registered with NCT04783818, and the date of registration is 1 March, 2021, retrospectively registered.

Short-Term Surgical Complications of Skin-Sparing Mastectomy and Direct-to-Implant Immediate Breast Reconstruction in Women Concurrently Treated with Adjuvant Radiotherapy for Breast Cancer

Background  Postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) is allegedly associated with a higher risk of complications of combined nipple-sparing or skin-sparing mastectomy and subpectoral direct-to-implant immediate breast reconstruction ([N]SSM/SDTI-IBR). For this reason, this combination is usually advised against or, even, refused in women who need to undergo PMRT. Because this advice has never been justified, we assessed the short-term complications that may potentially be associated with PMRT after [N]SSM/SDTI-IBR. Methods  We compared the complications requiring reintervention and implant loss occurring after 273 [N]SSM/SDTI-IBR that were exposed to PMRT within the first 16 postoperative weeks (interventional group) to those occurring in 739 similarly operated breasts that were not (control group). Additionally, we compared the fraction of complications requiring reintervention occurring after the onset of radiotherapy in the interventional group to that occurring after a comparable postoperative period in the control group. Results  The fraction of breasts requiring unscheduled surgical reinterventions for complications and the loss of implants did not differ significantly between both groups but significantly more reinterventions were needed among the controls ( p  = 0.00). The fraction of events after the onset of radiotherapy in the interventional group was higher than the fraction of events after 6.2 weeks in the control group, but not significantly so. Conclusion  We found no prove for the alleged increase of short-term complications of adjuvant radiotherapy. Therefore, we advise that these should not be considered valid arguments to advice against [N]SSM/SDTI-IBR.

Radiation-Induced Tissue Damage: Clinical Consequences and Current Treatment Options

Radiation therapy is a valuable tool in the treatment of numerous malignancies but, in certain cases, can also causes significant acute and chronic damage to noncancerous neighboring tissues. This review focuses on the pathophysiology of radiation-induced damage and the clinical implications it has for plastic surgeons across breast reconstruction, osteoradionecrosis, radiation-induced skin cancers, and wound healing. The current understanding of treatment modalities presented here include hyperbaric oxygen therapy, autologous fat grafting and stem cells, and pharmaceutical agents.

Breast reconstruction and radiation therapy: An Italian expert Delphi consensus statements and critical review

Breast conserving surgery (BCS) plus radiation therapy (RT) or mastectomy have shown comparable oncological outcomes in early-stage breast cancer and are considered standard of care treatments. Postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) targeted to both the chest wall and regional lymph nodes is recommended in high-risk patients. Oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (OBCS) represents a significant recent improvement in breast surgery. Nevertheless, it represents a challenge for radiation oncologists as it triggers different decision-making strategies related to treatment volume definition and target delineation. Hence, the choice of the best combination and timing when offering RT to breast cancer patients who underwent or are planned to undergo reconstruction procedures should be carefully evaluated and based on individual considerations. We present an Italian expert Delphi Consensus statements and critical review, led by a core group of all the professional profiles involved in the management of breast cancer patients undergoing reconstructive procedures and RT. The report was structured as to consider the main recommendations on breast reconstruction and RT and analyse the current open issues deserving investigation and consensus. We used a three key-phases and a Delphi process. The final expert panel of 40 colleagues selected key topics as identified by the core group of the project. A final consensus on 26 key statements on RT and breast reconstruction after three rounds of the Delphi voting process and harmonisation was reached. An accompanying critical review of available literature was summarized. A clear communication and cooperation between surgeon and radiation oncologist is of paramount relevance both in the setting of breast reconstruction following mastectomy when PMRT is planned and when extensive glandular rearrangements as OBCS is performed. A shared-decision making, relying on outcome-based and patient-centred considerations, is essential, while waiting for higher level-of-evidence data.

Analysis of Secondary Surgeries after Immediate Breast Reconstruction for Cancer Compared with Risk Reduction

Background:

This study sets out to compare reconstructive practice between patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) for cancer and those who opted for risk reduction (RR), with an emphasis on examining patterns of secondary surgery.

Methods:

Data collection was performed for patients undergoing mastectomy and IBR at a teaching hospital breast unit (2013–2016).

Results:

In total, 299 patients underwent IBR (76% cancer versus 24% RR). Implant-based IBR rate was similar in both groups (58% cancer versus 63% RR). Reconstruction loss (5.3% cancer versus 4.2% RR) and complication (16% cancer versus 12.9% RR) rates were similar. Cancer patients were more likely to undergo secondary surgery (68.4% versus 56.3%; P = 0.025), including contralateral symmetrization (22.8% versus 0%) and conversion to autologous reconstruction (5.7% versus 1.4%). Secondary surgeries were mostly planned for cancer patients (72% planned versus 28% unplanned), with rates unaffected by adjuvant therapies. This distribution was different in RR patients (51.3% planned versus 48.7% unplanned). The commonest secondary procedure was lipomodeling (19.7% cancer versus 23.9% RR). For cancer patients, complications resulted in a significantly higher unplanned secondary surgery rate (82.5% versus 38.8%; P = 0.001) than patients without complications. This was not evident in the RR patients, where complications did not lead to a significantly higher unplanned surgery rate (58.9% versus 35.2%; P = 0.086).

Conclusions:

Most of the secondary surgeries were planned for cancer patients. However, complications led to a significantly higher rate of unplanned secondary surgery. Approximately 1 in 4 RR patients received unplanned secondary surgery, which may be driven by the desire to achieve an optimal aesthetic outcome.

Early Expander-to-Implant Exchange after Postmastectomy Reconstruction Reduces Rates of Subsequent Major Infectious Complications

Major infectious complications after implant-based postmastectomy reconstruction commonly occur late (>30 days postoperative). We set out to determine if early expander-to-implant exchange (3-6 weeks after tissue expander placement) reduced rates of subsequent major infectious complications.

METHODS

We retrospectively examined patients after mastectomy and tissue expander reconstruction followed by early expander-to-implant exchange versus exchange at least 6 months after initial tissue expander placement (the control group). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to determine whether the timing of implant exchange independently predicted major infectious complications occurring more than 30 days after initial tissue expander placement after adjusting for differences in patient variables between groups.

RESULTS

In total, 252 consecutive patients (430 breasts) between August 2014 and October 2019 were included. While the rates of major early infectious complications after mastectomy and tissue expander placement were similar between the groups, the control group had more subsequent major infectious complications during the reconstructive process [9.8% (n = 22) versus 1.9% (n = 4), P < 0.001].

CONCLUSIONS

Early implant exchange results in a reduced subsequent rate of major infectious complications. This protocol reduces the window of time for late infectious complications to develop by proceeding with exchange within 6 weeks of tissue expander placement instead of the standard 6 months, which is common practice. We hypothesize that early exchange allows for washout of the mastectomy cavity, eliminating indolent bacterial contamination that could have subsequently manifested as a late infection. This protocol also obviates the need to operate on patients that undergo post-mastectomy radiotherapy, which also reduces reconstructive failure rates.

Is Tissue Expansion Worth It? Comparative Outcomes of Skin-preserving versus Delayed Autologous Breast Reconstruction

Background:

The requirement for postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) at the time of mastectomy is often unknown. Autologous reconstruction is preferred in the setting of radiotherapy by providing healthy vascularized tissue to the chest. To maximize mastectomy skin preservation, tissue expander (TE) placement maintains the breast pocket until definitive reconstruction. This study aims to compare outcomes of skin-preserving delayed versus standard delayed autologous breast reconstruction in the setting of PMRT.

Methods:

A retrospective review of a prospective database was performed of two patient cohorts at a single center between 2006 and 2016. Inclusion criteria were locally advanced breast cancer patients who completed PMRT and free autologous reconstruction. Primary outcomes were major intraoperative and postoperative TE and flap complications.

Results:

Over 10 years, 241 patients underwent mastectomy and PMRT. Standard delayed autologous breast reconstruction was performed in 131 breasts (non-TE group). Skin-preserving delayed autologous reconstruction was performed in 113 breasts (TE group). The TE group was associated with a higher incidence of intraoperative complications during flap reconstruction (P = 0.002) and had a higher venous thrombosis incidence than the non-TE cohort (P = 0.007). Other major postoperative complications were not significantly different between the two groups. TE patients had 7.5 times higher risk of intraoperative complications and an 18.6% TE loss rate.

Conclusions:

We identified higher intraoperative flap complications and a high rate of TE loss in patients who underwent skin-preserving delayed autologous breast reconstruction. The benefit of mastectomy skin preservation needs to be weighed against the increased risk of TE loss and higher rates of flap thrombosis.

Correction of Suboptimal Results in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

Implant-based breast reconstruction is the most common means to rebuild the breast following mastectomy. Although largely successful in restoring breast shape, suboptimal results may occur secondary to inadequate size or projection, malposition, rippling and contour irregularities, nipple malposition, capsular contracture, or implant rotation/flipping. This article reviews common strategies to improve implant reconstruction outcomes with revisional surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Quality of life and patient satisfaction after implant-based breast reconstruction with or without acellular dermal matrix: randomized clinical trial

Background

Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in implant‐based breast reconstructions (IBBRs) aims to improve cosmetic outcomes. Six‐month data are presented from a randomized trial evaluating whether IBBR with ADM provides higher health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) and patient‐reported cosmetic outcomes compared with conventional IBBR without ADM.

Methods

In this multicentre open‐label RCT, women with breast cancer planned for mastectomy with immediate IBBR in four centres in Sweden and one in the UK were allocated randomly (1 : 1) to IBBR with or without ADM. HRQoL, a secondary endpoint, was measured as patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) using three validated instruments (EORTC‐QLQC30, QLQ‐BR23, QLQ‐BRR26) at baseline and 6 months.

Results

Between 24 April 2014 and 10 May 2017, 135 women were enrolled, of whom 64 with and 65 without ADM were included in the final analysis. At 6 months after surgery, patient‐reported HRQoL, measured with generic QLQ‐C30 or breast cancer‐specific QLQ‐BR23, was similar between the groups. For patient‐reported cosmetic outcomes, two subscale items, cosmetic outcome (8·66, 95 per cent c.i. 0·46 to 16·86; P = 0·041) and problems finding a well‐fitting bra (−13·21, −25·54 to −0·89; P = 0·038), yielded higher scores in favour of ADM, corresponding to a small to moderate clinical difference. None of the other 27 domains measured showed any significant differences between the groups.

Conclusion

IBBR with ADM was not superior in terms of higher levels of HRQoL compared with IBBR without ADM. Although two subscale items of patient‐reported cosmetic outcomes favoured ADM, the majority of cosmetic items showed no significant difference between treatments at 6 months. Registration number: NCT02061527 ( www.clinicaltrials.gov).