Comparison of breast cancer patients who underwent partial mastectomy (PM) with mini latissimus dorsi flap (MLDF) and subcutaneous mastectomy with implant (M + I) regarding quality of life (QOL), cosmetic outcome and survival rates

Overall survival after mastectomy versus breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy for early-stage breast cancer: meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy and mastectomy are currently offered as equivalent surgical options for early-stage breast cancer based on RCTs from the 1970s and 1980s. However, the treatment of breast cancer has evolved and recent observational studies suggest a survival advantage for breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy. A systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to summarize the contemporary evidence regarding survival after breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy versus mastectomy for women with early-stage breast cancer.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Embase that identified studies published between 1 January 2000 and 18 December 2023 comparing overall survival after breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy versus mastectomy for patients with unilateral stage 1-3 breast cancer was undertaken. The main exclusion criteria were studies evaluating neoadjuvant chemotherapy, rare breast cancer subtypes, and specific breast cancer populations. The ROBINS-I tool was used to assess risk of bias, with the overall certainty of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. Studies without critical risk of bias were included in a quantitative meta-analysis.

RESULTS

From 11 750 abstracts, 108 eligible articles were identified, with one article including two studies; 29 studies were excluded from the meta-analysis due to an overall critical risk of bias, 42 studies were excluded due to overlapping study populations, and three studies were excluded due to reporting incompatible results. A total of 35 observational studies reported survival outcomes for 909 077 patients (362 390 patients undergoing mastectomy and 546 687 patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy). The pooled HR was 0.72 (95% c.i. 0.68 to 0.75, P < 0.001), demonstrating improved overall survival for patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy. The overall certainty of the evidence was very low.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis provides evidence suggesting a survival advantage for women undergoing breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy for early-stage breast cancer compared with mastectomy. Although these results should be interpreted with caution, they should be shared with patients to support informed surgical decision-making.

Outcomes of reconstructive techniques in breast cancer using BCCT. core software

BACKGROUND

Surgery remains a priority for breast cancer treatment. This study aimed to compare the cosmetic outcomes of oncoplastic patients who had undergone breast-conserving surgery, mini-LDF (latissimus dorsi flap), and immediate implant reconstruction using both the Japanese scale and the BCCT.core (The Breast Cancer Conservative Treatment cosmetic results software) program and to validate this program.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent surgery for breast cancer between 1997 and 2021 were retrospectively studied. Patients were divided into three groups: 1-those who had undergone breast-conserving surgery (245 patients, 71.3%), 2-those who had undergone mini-LDF after lumpectomy (38 patients, 11.02%), and 3- those who underwent reconstruction with implants after nipple-sparing mastectomy (61 patients, 17.68%). The patients were called for a follow-up examination, and their photos were taken. The photographs were shown to an independent breast surgeon and a plastic surgeon who was not included in the surgeries, and they were asked to evaluate and rate them according to the Japanese cosmetic evaluation scale. The same images were transferred to the computer and scored using BCCT.core.

RESULTS

The plastic and breast surgeon evaluation results showed no significant difference between the three cosmetic techniques (p = 0.99, 0.98). The results of BCCT.core software measurements were similar to the results of plastic and breast surgeons (p: 0.43).

CONCLUSION

Patients are more knowledgeable about cosmetic outcomes and expect more objective data. In this study, we used 3 different cosmetic evaluation scales. We found that these techniques give results that are compatible with each other in terms of evaluating the work done in a more concrete way. For this reason, we recommend the use of such software, which offers objective results in a subjective field such as aesthetics and is very easy to apply.

Comparison of Quality of Life and Cosmetic Outcome of Latissimus Dorsi Mini-Flap With Breast Conservation Surgery Without Reconstruction

PURPOSE

Latissimus dorsi mini-flap (LDMF) reconstruction after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is a useful volume replacement technique when a large tumor is located in the upper or outer portion of the breast. However, few studies have reported the impact of LDMF on patients' quality of life (QoL) and cosmesis compared with conventional BCS.

METHODS

We identified patients who underwent BCS with or without LDMF between 2010 and 2020 at a single center. At least 1 year after surgery, we prospectively administered the BREAST-Q to assess QoL and obtained the patients' breast photographs. The cosmetic outcome was assessed using four panels composed of physicians and the BCCT.core software.

RESULTS

A total of 120 patients were enrolled, of whom 62 and 58 underwent LDMF or BCS only, respectively. The LDMF group had significantly larger tumors, shorter nipple-to-tumor distances in preoperative examinations, and larger resected breast volumes than did the BCS-only group (p < 0.001). The questionnaires revealed that QoL was poorer in the LDMF group, particularly in terms of the physical well-being score (40.9 vs. 20.1, p < 0.001). Notably, the level of patients' cosmetic satisfaction with their breasts was comparable, and the cosmetic evaluation was assessed by panels and the BCCT.core software showed no differences between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Our results showed that cosmetic outcomes of performing LDMF are comparable to those of BCS alone while having the advantage of resecting larger volumes of breast tissue. Therefore, for those who strongly wish to preserve the cosmesis of their breasts, LDMF can be considered a favorable surgical option after the patient is oriented toward the potential for physical dysfunction after surgery.

Use of tumour bed boost radiotherapy in volume replacement oncoplastic breast surgery: A systematic review

Tumour bed boost radiotherapy (RT) following breast conserving surgery reduces local recurrence in high-risk disease. There is recent debate over challenges to accurately localise tumour bed for RT boost delivery following volume replacement oncoplastic breast surgery (VR-OBS). This review evaluates the reporting of RT boost following VR-OBS in the literature published between January 2010 and December 2021. This review was in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Metaanalysis statement.Nine studies met the inclusion criteria (n=670 patients), and RT boost was used in eight studies. Boost was administered in total to 384 patients (62.5% of irradiated patients). Only two studies reported boost planned target volumes and only one compared these against surgical specimen volumes.RT boost was not reported in most published studies on VR-OBS. Future prospective research are strongly needed to evaluate long-term outcomes of VR-OBS following RT boost, especially on breast cosmesis and patients' satisfaction. DATA AVAILABILITY: Data will be made available upon request.

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.

Breast cancer recurrence after immediate and delayed postmastectomy breast reconstruction-A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Oncological safety of different types and timings of PMBR after breast cancer remains controversial. Lack of stratified risk assessment in literature makes current clinical and shared decision‐making complex. This is the first systematic review and meta‐analysis to evaluate differences in oncological outcomes after immediate versus delayed postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR) for autologous and implant‐based PMBR separately.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase. The Cochrane Collaboration Handbook and Meta‐analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist were followed for data abstraction. Variability in point estimates attributable to heterogeneity was assessed using I²‐statistic. (Loco)regional breast cancer recurrence rates, distant metastasis rates, and overall breast cancer recurrence rates were pooled in generalized linear mixed models using random effects.

Results

Fifty‐five studies, evaluating 14,217 patients, were included. When comparing immediate versus delayed autologous PMBR, weighted average proportions were: 0.03 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02–0.03) versus 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01–0.04), respectively, for local recurrences, 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01–0.03) versus 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01–0.03) for regional recurrences, and 0.04 (95% CI, 0.03–0.06) versus 0.01 (95% CI, 0.00–0.03) for locoregional recurrences. No statistically significant differences in weighted average proportions for local, regional and locoregional recurrence rates were observed between immediate and delayed autologous PMBR. Data did not allow comparing weighted average proportions of distant metastases and total breast cancer recurrences after autologous PMBR, and of all outcome measures after implant‐based PMBR.

Conclusions

Delayed autologous PMBR leads to similar (loco)regional breast cancer recurrence rates compared to immediate autologous PMBR. This study highlights the paucity of strong evidence on breast cancer recurrence after specific types and timings of PMBR.

Lay summery

Oncologic safety of different types and timings of postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR) remains controversial.

Lack of stratified risk assessment in literature makes clinical and shared decision‐making complex.

This meta‐analysis showed that delayed autologous PMBR leads to similar (loco)regional recurrence rates as immediate autologous PMBR. Data did not allow comparing weighted average proportions of distant metastases and total breast cancer recurrence after autologous PMBR, and of all outcome measures after implant‐based PMBR.

Based on current evidence, oncological concerns do not seem a valid reason to withhold patients from certain reconstructive timings or techniques, and patients should equally be offered all reconstructive options they technically qualify for.

Oncologic safety of different types and timings of postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR) remains controversial. This meta‐analysis showed that delayed autologous PMBR leads to similar (loco)regional breast cancer recurrence rates compared to immediate autologous PMBR.

The impact of body mass index (BMI) on MRI diagnostic performance and surgical management for axillary lymph node in breast cancer

Background

We hypothesized that different BMI might have different impact on pre-operative MRI axillary lymph node (ALN) prediction accuracy and thereby subsequent surgical lymph node management. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of BMI on presentation, surgical treatment, and MRI performance characteristics of breast cancer with the main focus on ALN metastasis evaluation.

Methods

The medical records of patients with primary invasive breast cancer who had pre-operative breast MRI and underwent surgical resection were retrospectively reviewed. They were categorized into 3 groups in this study: underweight (BMI < 18.5), normal (BMI of 18.5 to 24), and overweight (BMI > 24). Patients’ characteristics, surgical management, and MRI performance for axillary evaluation between the 3 groups were compared.

Results

A total of 2084 invasive breast cancer patients with a mean age of 53.4 ± 11.2 years were included. Overweight women had a higher rate of breast conserving surgery (56.7% vs. 54.5% and 52.1%) and initial axillary lymph node dissection (15.9% vs. 12.2% and 8.5%) if compared to normal and underweight women. Although the post-operative ALN positive rates were similar between the 3 groups, overweight women were significantly found to have more axillary metastasis on MRI compared with normal and underweight women (50.2% vs 37.7% and 18.3%). There was lower accuracy in terms of MRI prediction in overweight women (65.1%) than in normal and underweight women (67.8% and 76.1%).

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that BMI may influence the diagnostic performance on MRI on ALN involvement and the surgical management of the axilla in overweight to obese women with breast cancer.

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Complications Following Breast Reconstruction: A Comparison Between Biological Matrix-Assisted Direct-to-Implant and Latissimus Dorsi Flap

Background

Implant-based breast reconstruction is increasingly becoming the most common method of postmastectomy breast reconstruction in use today. As the traditional autologous reconstruction technique, latissimus dorsi flap (LDF) is employed by surgeons for reconstruction after breast cancer surgery, including partial mastectomy, modified radical mastectomy, and others. The authors aim to compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and complications between the SIS matrix-assisted direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction and the autologous LDF breast reconstruction.

Methods

Patients undergoing the SIS matrix-assisted DTI reconstruction or mastectomy with LDF reconstruction or partial mastectomy with mini latissimus dorsi flap (MLDF) reconstruction were enrolled in a single institution from August 2010 to April 2019. Patients were included for analysis and divided into three groups: those who underwent LDF reconstruction, those who underwent MLDF reconstruction, and patients who underwent SIS matrix-assisted DTI breast reconstruction. PROs (using the BREAST-Q version 2.0 questionnaire) and complications were evaluated.

Results

A total of 135 patients met the inclusion criteria: 79 patients (58.5%) underwent SIS matrix-assisted DTI, 29 patients (21.5%) underwent LDF breast reconstruction, and 27 patients (20%) underwent MLDF breast reconstruction. PROs and complication rates between LDF reconstruction group and MLDF reconstruction group showed no statistically significant differences. Furthermore, BREAST-Q responses found that patients in the whole autologous LDF reconstruction group had better psychosocial well-being, showing a mean score of 84.31 ± 17.28 compared with SIS matrix-assisted DTI reconstruction, with a mean score of 73.52 ± 19.96 (p = 0.005), and expressed higher sexual well-being (69.65 ± 24.64 vs. 50.95 ± 26.47; p = 0.016). But there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups for postoperative complications.

Conclusion

This retrospective study showed no statistically significant differences between LDF breast reconstruction and MLDF breast reconstruction. However, patients in the whole autologous LDF reconstruction group yielded superior PROs than patients in the SIS matrix-assisted DTI reconstruction group in the psychosocial well-being and sexual well-being domains.

Long-term oncologic safety of immediate reconstructive surgery in patients with invasive breast cancer: a retrospective matched-cohort study

Objective

Immediate reconstruction (IR) is a safe and effective surgical treatment for patients with breast cancer. We aimed to assess the prognosis, aesthetic outcomes, and patient satisfaction of IR compared with breast conservation surgery (BCS) and total mastectomy (TM).

Methods

This retrospective matched-cohort study was conducted between May 2005 and December 2014. We established two cohorts according to the tumor (T) size of breast cancer. In the T≤3cm group, cases (IR) and controls (BCS or TM) were matched for age, pathological tumor size, and pathologic nodal status in a 1:1:1 ratio. In the T>3cm group, cases (IR) and controls (TM) were matched with the same factors and ratio. The primary outcome was the 5-year disease-free survival (DFS). The secondary outcome was patient satisfaction and quality of life.

Results

A total of 12,678 breast cancer patients were assessed for eligibility, of which 587 were included (T≤3 cm group: 155 IR vs 155 BCS vs 155 TM; T>3cm group: 61 IR vs 61 TM). In the T≤3 cm cohort, patients who underwent IR had no difference compared with those who underwent BCS or TM regarding the 5-year DFS (P=0.539); however, an improved aesthetic satisfaction, psychosocial, and sexual well-being were achieved in the IR group (P<0.001). In the T>3 cm cohort, the IR group had a worse median 5-year DFS (P=0.044), especially for Her2+ or triple-negative breast carcinoma (TNBC) subtypes compared with the TM group.

Conclusions

IR improves aesthetic satisfaction, psychosocial, and sexual well-being for breast cancer patients with T≤3 cm. For patients with T > 3 cm invasive breast cancer, TM is superior to IR as it predicts a better 5-year DFS.

Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery for women with primary breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (O-BCS) involves removing the tumour in the breast and using plastic surgery techniques to reconstruct the breast. The adequacy of published evidence on the safety and efficacy of O-BCS for the treatment of breast cancer compared to other surgical options for breast cancer is still debatable. It is estimated that the local recurrence rate is similar to standard breast-conserving surgery (S-BCS) and also mastectomy, but the aesthetic and patient-reported outcomes may be improved with oncoplastic techniques.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary objective was to assess oncological control outcomes following O-BCS compared with other surgical options for women with breast cancer. Our secondary objective was to assess surgical complications, recall rates, need for further surgery to achieve adequate oncological resection, patient satisfaction through patient-reported outcomes, and cosmetic outcomes through objective measures or clinician-reported outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (via OVID), Embase (via OVID), the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov on 7 August 2020. We did not apply any language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised comparative studies (cohort and case-control studies). Studies evaluated any O-BCS technique, including volume displacement techniques and partial breast volume replacement techniques compared to any other surgical treatment (partial resection or mastectomy) for the treatment of breast cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four review authors performed data extraction and resolved disagreements. We used ROBINS-I to assess the risk of bias by outcome. We performed descriptive data analysis and meta-analysis and evaluated the quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria. The outcomes included local recurrence, breast cancer-specific disease-free survival, re-excision rates, complications, recall rates, and patient-reported outcome measures.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 78 non-randomised cohort studies evaluating 178,813 women. Overall, we assessed the risk of bias per outcome as being at serious risk of bias due to confounding; where studies adjusted for confounding, we deemed these at moderate risk. Comparison 1: oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (O-BCS) versus standard-BCS (S-BCS) The evidence in the review found that O-BCS when compared to S-BCS, may make little or no difference to local recurrence; either when measured as local recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.34; 4 studies, 7600 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or local recurrence rate (HR 1.33, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.83; 4 studies, 2433 participants; low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain due to most studies not controlling for confounding clinicopathological factors. O-BCS compared to S-BCS may make little to no difference to disease-free survival (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.26; 7 studies, 5532 participants; low-certainty evidence). O-BCS may reduce the rate of re-excisions needed for oncological resection (risk ratio (RR) 0.76, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.85; 38 studies, 13,341 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. O-BCS may increase the number of women who have at least one complication (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.27; 20 studies, 118,005 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and increase the recall to biopsy rate (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.67 to 3.42; 6 studies, 715 participants; low-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis was not possible when assessing patient-reported outcomes or cosmetic evaluation; in general, O-BCS reported a similar or more favourable result, however, the evidence is very uncertain due to risk of bias in the measurement methods. Comparison 2: oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (O-BCS) versus mastectomy alone O-BCS may increase local recurrence-free survival compared to mastectomy but the evidence is very uncertain (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.91; 2 studies, 4713 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of O-BCS on disease-free survival as there were only data from one study. O-BCS may reduce complications compared to mastectomy, but the evidence is very uncertain due to high risk of bias mainly resulting from confounding (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.83; 4 studies, 4839 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Data on patient-reported outcome measures came from single studies; it was not possible to meta-analyse the data. Comparison 3: oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (O-BCS) versus mastectomy with reconstruction O-BCS may make little or no difference to local recurrence-free survival (HR 1.37, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.62; 1 study, 3785 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or disease-free survival (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.22; 1 study, 317 participants; very low-certainty evidence) when compared to mastectomy with reconstruction, but the evidence is very uncertain. O-BCS may reduce the complication rate compared to mastectomy with reconstruction (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.54; 5 studies, 4973 participants; very low-certainty evidence) but the evidence is very uncertain due to high risk of bias from confounding and inconsistency of results. The evidence is very uncertain for patient-reported outcome measures and cosmetic evaluation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence is very uncertain regarding oncological outcomes following O-BCS compared to S-BCS, though O-BCS has not been shown to be inferior. O-BCS may result in less need for a second re-excision surgery but may result in more complications and a greater recall rate than S-BCS. It seems that O-BCS may give better patient satisfaction and surgeon rating for the look of the breast, but the evidence for this is of poor quality, and due to lack of numerical data, it was not possible to pool the results of different studies. It seems O-BCS results in fewer complications compared with surgeries involving mastectomy. Based on this review, no certain conclusions can be made to help inform policymakers. The surgical decision for what operation to proceed with should be made jointly between clinician and patient after an appropriate discussion about the risks and benefits of O-BCS personalised to the patient, taking into account clinicopathological factors. This review highlighted the deficiency of well-conducted studies to evaluate efficacy, safety and patient-reported outcomes following O-BCS.

A Comparison of the Oncological Outcomes After Breast-Conserving Surgery With or Without Latissimus Dorsi Myocutaneous Flap Reconstruction for Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

There is little information on the oncological outcomes of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) with immediate reconstruction using a latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flap (LDMF) for breast cancer compared with BCS alone.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study from a single institution comparing the margin positivity rates after initial surgery, re-excision rates, and local recurrence (LR) between BCS with immediate LDMF reconstruction (n = 145) and BCS alone (n = 1040) performed from 2012 to 2017 for newly diagnosed stage 0-3 breast cancer.

RESULTS

The positive rates of surgical margin after initial surgery were significantly lower in the BCS with LDMF group than in the BCS alone group (4.1 vs. 10.8%; P = .006). There were no marked differences in the re-excision rates between the BCS with LDMF and BCS alone groups (P = .1). At a median follow-up of 61 months, the surgical method (BCS with LD vs. BCS alone) was not associated with the LR-free survival after adjusting for various clinicopathologic factors (P = .8).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that BCS with immediate LDMF reconstruction is oncologically safe for breast cancer compared with BCS alone. However, further studies are needed.