The impact of axillary node surgery on outcomes following immediate breast reconstruction

Complication Rates in Therapeutic Versus Prophylactic Bilateral Mastectomies: Insights From a National Database

BACKGROUND

The "Jolie effect" and other media focus on prophylactic treatments have resulted in unilateral breast cancer patients increasingly undergoing contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Little is known, however, regarding outcomes following therapeutic versus prophylactic mastectomy. In this study, we compared complication rates of unilateral breast cancer patients undergoing contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (BM-TP) to patients undergoing bilateral prophylactic mastectomy (BM-P).

METHODS

The BM-TP and BM-P patients from 2015 to 2019 were identified in Optum Clinformatics DataMart. Six-month outcomes were assessed and included wound complications, infection, hematoma/seroma, breast pain, fat necrosis, flap failure, implant failure/removal, other flap/implant complications, and other complications. Multivariable regression models adjusted for age, residence, insurance, race, and Charlson Comorbidity Index score.

RESULTS

Of 9319 women, 7114 (76.3%) underwent BM-TP, and 2205 (23.7%) underwent BM-P. In multivariable analysis, BM-TP had higher odds of overall complications (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.35; P < 0.0001), but no difference was observed among patients who had autologous ( P = 0.1448) or no breast reconstruction ( P = 0.1530). Higher odds of overall complications persisted even after controlling for radiation therapy (aOR, 1.25; P = 0.0048) and chemotherapy (aOR, 1.28; P = 0.0047), but not after controlling for lymph node surgery ( P = 0.7765).

CONCLUSION

The BM-TP (vs BM-P) patients face higher odds of overall complications but without any difference in certain reconstructive modalities or after controlling for lymph node surgery.

Delayed Sentinel Lymph Node Dissection in Patients with a Preoperative Diagnosis of Ductal Cancer In Situ by Preoperative Injection with Superparamagnetic Iron Oxide (SPIO) Nanoparticles: The SentiNot Study

BACKGROUND

Difficulty in preoperatively assessing the risk for occult invasion or surgery that precludes future accurate axillary mapping in patients with ductal cancer in situ (DCIS) account for overutilization of SLND.

METHODS

Prospective, multicenter, cohort study, including women with any DCIS planned for mastectomy or DCIS grade 2 and > 20 mm, any DCIS grade 3, any mass-forming DCIS and any planned surgery. Patients received an interstitial SPIO injection during breast surgery, but no upfront SLND was performed. If invasion was identified on final pathology, delayed SLND (d-SLND) was performed separately with the coadministration of isotope ± blue dye (BD). Study outcomes were proportion of upfront SLNDs that were avoided, detection rates during d-SLND, and impact on healthcare costs.

RESULTS

In total, 78.7% of study participants (N = 254, mean age 60 years, mean DCIS size 37.8 mm) avoided upfront SLND. On d-SLND (median 28 days, range 9-46), SPIO outperformed Tc99 with (98.2% vs. 63.6%, p < 0.001) or without BD (92.7% vs. 50.9%, p < 0.001) and had higher nodal detection rate (86.9% vs. 32.3%, p < 0.001) and with BD (93.9% vs. 41.4%, p < 0.001). Only 27.9% of all SLNs retrieved were concordant for Tc99 and SPIO. Type of breast procedure (WLE vs. oncoplastic BCT vs. mastectomy) affected these outcomes and accounted for the low performance of Tc99 (p < 0.001). d-SLND resulted in a 28.1% total cost containment for women with pure DCIS on final pathology (4190 vs. 5828 USD, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Marking the SLN with SPIO may avoid overtreatment and allow for accurate d-SLND in patients with DCIS.

Immediate breast reconstruction is oncologically safe for node-positive patients: Comparison using propensity score matching

The oncological safety of immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) in lymph node-positive patients is unclear. In the present study, the impact of IBR on recurrence based on data of patients with axillary lymph node metastases only was examined.The subjects were 232 patients who underwent breast surgery. The patients were grouped into 2 cohorts: non-IBR patients who underwent mastectomy with axillary lymph node dissection; and IBR patients with tissue expander or flap transfer and axillary lymph node dissection. The Non-IBR group included 165 patients, and the IBR group included 67 patients. For the comparison of oncological outcomes between the 2 groups, propensity score matching was performed. The propensity scores were calculated by logistic regression analysis, including age, tumor staging, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status, and estrogen receptor status. There was no difference in locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRRFS) between the non-IBR and IBR groups. The 5-year LRRFS rate was 78.9% in the non-IBR group and 85.1% in the IBR group. There was no difference in recurrence-free survival (RFS) between the non-IBR and IBR groups. The 5-year RFS rate was 75.6% in the non-IBR group and 78.8% in the IBR group. In all patients, the 5-year LRRFS rate was 77.3%, and the RFS rate was 70.5%. Multivariate Cox regression analysis to identify factors affecting RFS in all patients showed that estrogen receptor status and high nuclear grade were significant prognostic factors; IBR was irrelevant.This is the first report of an analysis using propensity score matching limited to node-positive breast cancer patients, and it showed that IBR is relatively safe in such patients.

Debate: Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy in T1/2N1 Disease

Although postmastectomy radiation therapy is known to reduce local recurrence in patients with T1/2N1 breast cancer, some have postulated that not all patients require this treatment. In this era of genomic analyses and personalized therapy, clinicians have debated whether the toxicity of post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) can be avoided for some subsets of patients. However, the data in this regard remain controversial, particularly as surgeons de-escalate the surgical management of the axilla. Several ongoing clinical trials may provide a glimpse into optimal management in this scenario. However, the "right" answer to this debate currently remains unclear.