There are limited nationwide data regarding breast cancer surgery in China. The Chinese Anti-Cancer Association's Committee of Breast Cancer Society and the Chinese Society of Breast Surgeons conducted a nationwide survey to examine the use of and barriers associated with surgical options among patients with breast cancer.

Breast cancer is treated with a multidisciplinary approach involving surgical oncology, radiation oncology, and medical oncology. The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Breast Cancer include recommendations for clinical management of patients with carcinoma in situ, invasive breast cancer, Paget’s disease, Phyllodes tumor, inflammatory breast cancer, and management of breast cancer during pregnancy. The content featured in this issue focuses on the recommendations for overall management of systemic therapy (preoperative and adjuvant) options for nonmetastatic breast cancer. For the full version of the NCCN Guidelines for Breast Cancer, visit NCCN.org.

 Increased rates of both breast cancer and obesity have resulted in more obese women seeking breast reconstruction. Studies demonstrate that these women are at increased risk for perioperative complications. A systematic review was conducted to assess the outcomes in obese women who underwent breast reconstruction following mastectomy. Cochrane, PUBMED, and EMBASE electronic databases were screened and data were extracted from included studies. The clinical outcomes assessed were surgical complications, medical complications, length of postoperative hospital stay, reoperation rate, and patient satisfaction. Out of 33 studies met the inclusion criteria for the review and 29 provided enough data to be included in the meta-analysis (71,368 patients, 20,061 of whom were obese). Obese women (body mass index > 30 kg/m) were 2.29 times more likely to experience surgical complications (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.19-2.39; < 0.00001), 2.89 times more likely to have medical complications (95% CI 2.50-3.35; < 0.00001), and had a 1.91 times higher risk of reoperation (95% CI 1.75-2.07; < 0.00001). The most common complication, wound dehiscence, was 2.51 times more likely in obese women (95% CI 1.80-3.52; < 0.00001). Sensitivity analysis confirmed that obese women were more likely to experience surgical complications (risk ratio 2.36, 95% CI 2.22-2.52; < 0.00001). This study provides evidence that obesity increases the risk of complications in both implant-based and autologous reconstruction. Additional prospective and observational studies are needed to determine if the weight reduction prior to reconstruction reduces the perioperative risks associated with obesity.Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

The authors' purpose was to evaluate the effects of body mass index, as defined by World Health Organization criteria, on complications and patient-reported outcomes in implant-based and autologous breast reconstruction.Complications and BREAST-Q patient-reported outcomes were analyzed 2 years after breast reconstruction for women from 11 participating sites. Separate mixed-effects regressions were performed to assess body mass index effects on outcomes.A total of 2259 patients (1625 implant-based and 634 autologous) were included. Women with class II/III obesity had higher risks of any complication in both the implant (OR, 1.66; p = 0.03) and autologous (OR, 3.35; p < 0.001) groups, and higher risks of major complications in both the implant (OR, 1.71, p = 0.04) and autologous (OR, 2.72; p = 0.001) groups, compared with underweight/normal weight patients. Both class I (OR, 1.97; p = 0.03) and class II/III (OR, 3.30; p = 0.001) obesity patients experienced higher reconstructive failures in the implant cohort. Class I obesity implant patients reported significantly lower Satisfaction with Breasts scores (mean difference, -5.37; p = 0.007). Body mass index did not significantly affect patient-reported outcomes for autologous reconstruction patients.Obesity was associated with higher risks for complications in both implant-based and autologous breast reconstruction; however, it only significantly affected reconstruction failure and patient-reported outcomes in the implant reconstruction patients. Quality-of-life benefits and surgical risk should be presented to each patient as they relate to her body mass index, to optimize shared decision-making for breast reconstruction.Risk, I.

Smoking has been associated with wound healing complications and overall morbidity in multiple specialties, including plastic surgery. From 2005 to 2014, smoking prevalence among U.S. adults decreased from 20.9 percent to 16.8 percent. This study aims to investigate whether smoking prevalence among plastic surgery patients paralleled the national trend and whether smoking was an independent risk factor for postoperative complications.The 2005 to 2014 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was used to examine smoking prevalence and 30-day postoperative complications in 36,454 patients who underwent common plastic surgical procedures with extensive planes of dissection. Patients were propensity score-matched for demographics and comorbidities. Smokers were stratified by pack-years.Compared to the national trend, a significantly smaller percentage of plastic surgical patients were smokers (p = 0.01), with a less dramatic decline in prevalence. Smokers had significantly increased deep incisional surgical-site infections, incisional dehiscence, and reoperation (p < 0.01 for all). However, superficial surgical-site infection rates were not significantly different (p = 0.18). Smokers with 11 or more pack-years had significantly increased deep surgical-site infection (p < 0.01) and reoperations (p < 0.01). There were no significant differences in graft/prosthesis/flap loss (p = 0.07), bleeding (p = 0.40), sepsis (p = 0.87), or venous thromboembolism (p = 0.16) rates between smokers and nonsmokers.This is the first large-scale propensity score-matched database analysis isolating smoking as a risk factor for postoperative complications in plastic surgical procedures. Smoking was an independent risk factor for deep incisional surgical-site infection, incisional dehiscence, and reoperation. Interestingly, superficial surgical-site infection rates were not significantly different. The authors recommend continued judicious patient selection and preoperative smoking counseling to optimize postoperative outcomes.Risk, II.

Smoking is known to negatively impact postoperative wound healing and increase infection risk. However, few studies have investigated whether the negative effects of smoking are similar for different procedures. The authors examined the association between smoking and postoperative outcomes for a diverse range of plastic surgery procedures.Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data set, demographics and outcomes were examined for patients who underwent plastic surgery between 2007 and 2012. Multivariable logistic regression models assessed the relationship between smoking status and a range of postoperative outcomes, including medical and surgical complications and impaired wound healing. Patients were also evaluated for length of inpatient hospitalization while controlling for multiple demographic factors and type of procedure.Forty thousand four hundred sixty-five patients were identified from the data set, including patients who had undergone breast, upper and lower extremity, abdominal, and craniofacial procedures. Current smokers constituted 15.7 percent of the cohort. Smokers had a higher likelihood of surgical (OR, 1.37; p < 0.0001) and medical complications (OR, 1.24; p = 0.0323) and increased odds for wound complications (OR, 1.49; p < 0.0001) and wound dehiscence (OR, 1.84; p < 0.0001). Smokers were also found to have increased odds of these complications even when subgroup analysis was performed according to major Current Procedural Terminology categories. Smoking also increased the odds of superficial wound infections (OR, 1.40; p < 0.0001). No difference was observed in hospital length of stay between smokers and nonsmokers.Smoking increases a multitude of postoperative complications after plastic surgery procedures. The effects of smoking on plastic surgery outcomes should be used to guide patients in preoperative smoking cessation and to evaluate protocols for managing patients who smoke.Risk, II.

In 2002, the author implemented a new two-stage approach, "delayed-immediate breast reconstruction," for patients who desire breast reconstruction and who are at an increased risk for conditions necessitating postmastectomy radiotherapy. There is increasing acceptance of this approach in clinical practice. This report highlights important technical and timing considerations in delayed-immediate reconstruction that help ensure the best outcomes with low rates of expander loss.Stage 1 of delayed-immediate reconstruction consists of skin-sparing mastectomy with insertion of a saline-filled tissue expander to serve as an adjustable scaffold to preserve the three-dimensional shape of the breast skin envelope. Patients who do not require postmastectomy radiation therapy undergo stage 2 (definitive breast reconstruction) within 2 weeks after stage 1 to avoid delays in the start of adjuvant chemotherapy and to preserve the ptotic shape of the preserved breast skin envelope. In patients who do require radiation, the tissue expander is deflated before the therapy to create a flat chest wall surface to permit modern three-beam radiation delivery. Beginning 2 weeks after completion of radiation therapy, the expander is reinflated to the predeflation volume. Three months after the therapy, a "skin-preserving" delayed reconstruction is performed, with removal of the expander and transfer of an autologous tissue flap.Delayed-immediate reconstruction allows patients who do not require postmastectomy radiation therapy to receive the benefits of skin-sparing mastectomy with aesthetic outcomes similar to those of immediate reconstruction. Patients who do require radiation receive a skin-preserving delayed reconstruction, while avoiding the problems that can be associated with radiation delivery after an immediate breast reconstruction.

In patients with early-stage breast cancer who are scheduled to undergo mastectomy and desire breast reconstruction, the optimal timing of reconstruction depends on whether postmastectomy radiation therapy will be needed. Immediate reconstruction offers the best aesthetic outcomes if postmastectomy radiation therapy is not needed, but if postmastectomy radiation therapy is required, delayed reconstruction is preferable to avoid potential aesthetic and radiation-delivery problems. Unfortunately, the need for postmastectomy radiation therapy cannot be reliably determined until review of the permanent tissue sections. The authors recently implemented a two-stage approach, delayed-immediate breast reconstruction, to optimize reconstruction in patients at risk for requiring postmastectomy radiation therapy when the need for postmastectomy radiation therapy is not known at the time of mastectomy. Stage 1 consists of skin-sparing mastectomy with insertion of a completely filled textured saline tissue expander. After review of permanent sections, patients who did not require post-mastectomy radiation therapy underwent immediate reconstruction (stage 2) and patients who required postmastectomy radiation therapy completed postmastectomy radiation therapy and then underwent standard delayed reconstruction. In this study, the feasibility and outcomes of this approach were reviewed. Fourteen patients were treated with delayed-immediate reconstruction between May of 2002 and June of 2003. Twelve patients had unilateral reconstruction and two patients had bilateral reconstruction, for a total of 16 treated breasts. All patients completed stage 1. Tissue expanders were inserted subpectorally in 15 breasts and subcutaneously in one breast. The mean intraoperative expander fill volume was 475 cc (range, 250 to 750 cc). Three patients required postmastectomy radiation therapy and underwent delayed reconstruction. Eleven patients did not require postmastectomy radiation therapy. Nine patients had 11 breast reconstructions (stage 2), six with free transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (TRAM) flaps, one with a superior gluteal artery perforator flap, and four with a latissimus dorsi flap plus an implant. The median interval between stages was 13 days (range, 11 to 22 days). Two patients who did not require postmastectomy radiation therapy have not yet had stage 2 reconstruction, one because she wished to delay reconstruction and the other because she required additional tissue expansion before permanent implant placement. Six complications occurred. The stage 1 complications involved two cases of mastectomy skin necrosis in patients who required post-mastectomy radiation therapy; one patient required removal of the subcutaneously placed expander before postmastectomy radiation therapy and the other patient had a subpectorally placed expander that only required local wound care. The stage 2 complications were a recipient-site seroma in a patient with a latissimus dorsi flap, a recipient-site hematoma in the patient with the superior gluteal artery perforator flap, and two arterial thromboses in patients with TRAM flaps. Both TRAM flaps were salvaged. Delayed-immediate reconstruction is technically feasible and safe in patients with early-stage breast cancer who may require postmastectomy radiation therapy. With this approach, patients who do not require postmastectomy radiation therapy can achieve aesthetic outcomes essentially the same as those with immediate reconstruction, and patients who require postmastectomy radiation therapy can avoid the aesthetic and radiation-delivery problems that can occur after an immediate breast reconstruction.

The technique of delayed-immediate breast reconstruction includes immediate insertion of a tissue expander, post-mastectomy radiation, followed by reconstruction. The aesthetic benefits of delayed-immediate reconstruction compared to delayed reconstruction are postulated but remain unproven. The purpose of this study was to compare aesthetic outcomes in patients following delayed and delayed-immediate autologous breast reconstruction.A retrospective analysis was performed of all patients who underwent delayed or delayed-immediate autologous breast reconstruction by the senior author from 2005 to 2011. Postoperative photographs were used to evaluate aesthetic outcomes: skin quality, scar formation, superior pole contour, inferior pole contour, and overall aesthetic outcome. Ten non-biased reviewers assessed outcomes using a 5-point Likert scale. Fisher's Exact and Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests were used for comparative analysis.Patient age and body mass index were similar between delayed (n=20) and delayed-immediate (n=20) cohorts (P>0.05). Skin and scar quality was rated significantly higher in the delayed-immediate cohort (3.74 vs. 3.05, P<0.001 and 3.41 vs. 2.79, P<0.001; respectively). Assessment of contour-related parameters, superior pole and inferior pole, found significantly improved outcomes in the delayed-immediate cohort (3.67 vs. 2.96, P<0.001 and 3.84 vs. 3.06, P<0.001; respectively). Delayed-immediate breast reconstruction had a significantly higher overall score compared to delayed breast reconstructions (3.84 vs. 2.94, P<0.001). Smoking and the time interval from radiation to reconstruction were found to affect aesthetic outcomes (P<0.05).Preservation of native mastectomy skin may allow for improved skin/scar quality, breast contour, and overall aesthetic outcomes following a delayed-immediate reconstructive algorithm as compared to delayed breast reconstruction.

随着乳腺肿瘤整形与乳房重建在国内新的临床应用趋势,更鉴于新的循证医学数据不断累积,中国抗癌协会乳腺癌专业委员会召集外科、整形、放疗、内科、病理等多学科专家,在《乳腺肿瘤整形与乳房重建专家共识（2018年版）》的基础上共同商讨制定了《乳腺肿瘤整形与乳房重建专家共识（2022年版）》,2022年版新增了腔镜乳房重建、胸肌前乳房重建及乳房重建的个案管理等内容,并将初版的保留乳头乳晕的全乳切除章节更名为保守性全乳切除,并做了大量内容补充及更新。共识也对胸肌前乳房重建、游离腹壁下动脉穿支皮瓣（deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap,DIEP）手术等临床热点进行了详尽的阐述。相信本次更新会给各层级医院提高乳腺肿瘤整形及乳房重建临床水平,提升治疗规范化,优化治疗结局助力,最终提高患者满意度。

Inflammatory breast cancer is a rare but aggressive breast cancer with an overall poor prognosis. Traditionally, reconstruction has not been offered, because of poor long-term survival, the need for multimodality treatment, and complex treatment sequencing. The authors examined the safety and feasibility of free flap breast reconstruction for inflammatory breast cancer.A retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent reconstruction for inflammatory breast cancer from January of 2000 to December of 2012 was conducted.Of 830 inflammatory breast cancer patients, 59 (7.1 percent; median age, 48 years; range, 27 to 65 years) underwent free flap reconstruction. All patients received chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Most patients (n = 52) underwent delayed reconstruction. Five patients with a history of prior partial mastectomy and irradiation developed inflammatory breast cancer and underwent immediate reconstruction following completion mastectomy. Two others underwent immediate chest wall and breast reconstruction following resection. Thirteen patients underwent bilateral reconstruction, and seven required a bipedicled abdominal flap for the unilateral mastectomy defect. Thirty-seven patients (62.7 percent) required revision of the reconstructed breast, and 29 (49.2 percent) had a contralateral balancing procedure to optimize symmetry. Complications occurred in 21 patients (35.6 percent), with one total flap loss (1.7 percent). The median length of follow-up was 43.9 months; 49 patients (83.1 percent) were alive without evidence of recurrent disease.Autologous free flap breast reconstruction can be performed safely in inflammatory breast cancer patients, with acceptable complication rates and without an increased risk for flap loss. Inflammatory breast cancer should not preclude free flap breast reconstruction.Therapeutic, IV.

Breast reconstruction (BR) is a unique surgical procedure that provides patients undergoing mastectomy with significant psychosocial and aesthetic benefits and has also become a crucial part of the treatment pathway for women with breast cancer. Due to methodological inadequacies and the absence of substantial risk factor analysis, no conclusion can be drawn about the correlation between risk variables and post-surgical complications in BR surgery. We aim to identify the potential risk factors associated with postoperative complications.We queried MEDLINE and Cochrane CENTRAL from their inception to March 2022, for published randomized controlled trials and observational studies that assessed complications post-reconstruction procedure in breast cancer patients following mastectomy or evaluated at least one of the following outcomes of major or reoperative complications. The results from the studies were presented as odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals and were pooled using a random-effects model.Our pooled analysis demonstrated a significant correlation with BR postoperative complications and risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, and obesity. Diabetes and the development of seroma were found to have a significant relationship. Risk variables such as age, radiotherapy, COPD, and smoking had no significant connection with 0-to-30-day readmission and 30-to-90-day readmission.This meta-analysis shows that risk factors like age, smoking history, high blood pressure, and body mass index (BMI) have a big effect on complications after BR, and patients with risk factors have a high rate of developing infection.Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American Society of Plastic Surgeons.

Postmastectomy reconstruction using a deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap is increasingly being performed in patients with breast cancer. The procedure induces extensive tissue trauma, and it has been hypothesized that the release of growth factors, angiogenic agonists and immunomodulating factors may reactivate dormant micrometastasis. The aim of the present study was to estimate the risk of breast cancer recurrence in patients undergoing DIEP flap reconstruction compared with that in patients treated with mastectomy alone.Each patient who underwent delayed DIEP flap reconstruction at Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden, between 1999 and 2013, was compared with up to four controls with breast cancer who did not receive a DIEP flap. The control patients were selected using incidence density matching with respect to age, tumour and nodal status, neoadjuvant therapy and year of mastectomy. The primary endpoint was breast cancer-specific survival. Survival analysis was carried out using Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and Cox proportional hazard regression analysis.The analysis included 250 patients who had 254 DIEP flap reconstructions and 729 control patients. Median follow-up was 89 and 75 months respectively (P = 0·053). Breast cancer recurrence developed in 50 patients (19·7 per cent) in the DIEP group and 174 (23·9 per cent) in the control group (P = 0·171). The 5-year breast cancer-specific survival rate was 92·0 per cent for patients with a DIEP flap and 87·9 per cent in controls (P = 0·032). Corresponding values for 5-year overall survival were 91·6 and 84·7 per cent (P < 0·001). After adjustment for tumour and patient characteristics and treatment, patients without DIEP flap reconstruction had significantly lower overall but not breast cancer-specific survival.The present findings do not support the hypothesis that patients with breast cancer undergoing DIEP flap reconstruction have a higher rate of breast cancer recurrence than those who have mastectomy alone.© 2018 The Authors. BJS published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJS Society Ltd.

Background: Autologous fat grafting (AFG) has emerged as a useful technique in breast reconstruction. Utilizing a patient’s own fat from areas like the abdomen or thighs, AFG serves various reconstruction needs. Nevertheless, the oncological safety of AFG in breast cancer patients has become a contentious issue. Concerns about its influence on cancer recurrence and detention have led to significant clinical debate and the need for thorough investigation. Methods: To determine the impact of autologous fat grafting (AFG) on loco-regional recurrence (LRR) in breast cancer survivors undergoing reconstruction, a comprehensive search of databases including PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane libraries was conducted from November 2023 through March 2024. This search adhered to the PRISMA guidelines and aimed to identify all the relevant studies on AFG in the context of breast reconstruction post cancer treatment. A meta-analysis was performed. Results: Out of the studies reviewed, 40 met the inclusion criteria, with a total patient cohort of 14,078. The analysis revealed that AFG had no significant association with increased rates of LRR. Conclusions: According to the available literature, AFG is a safe reconstructive option for breast cancer patients and does not increase the risk of loco-regional recurrence. Nevertheless, further well-structured long-term prospective studies are required, since heterogeneity of available studies is high and requires standardization.

Autologous fat grafting has become a vital component of breast reconstruction. However, concerns remain regarding the safety of fat grafting after oncological resection and breast reconstruction. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the association of fat grafting after breast reconstruction with metastasis and death in breast cancer patients.A retrospective, population-based cohort study was conducted using deidentified claims data from 2001 to 2018 and included privately insured patients with breast cancer who underwent breast reconstruction after surgical resection. Breast reconstruction patients who underwent fat grafting were compared with those not undergoing fat grafting, evaluating metastasis and death up to 15 years after reconstruction. One-to-one propensity score matching was used to account for selection bias on patient risk factors comparing those with and without fat grafting.A total of 4709 patients were identified who underwent breast reconstruction after lumpectomy or mastectomy, of which 368 subsequently underwent fat grafting. In the propensity score-matched patients, fat grafting was not associated with an increased risk of lymph node metastasis (9.7% fat-grafted vs 11.4% in non-fat-grafted, P = 0.47) or distant metastasis (9.1% fat-grafted vs 10.5% in non-fat-grafted, P = 0.53). There was no increased risk of all-cause mortality after fat grafting for breast reconstruction (3.9% fat-grafted vs 6.6% non-fat-grafted, P = 0.10).Among breast cancer patients who subsequently underwent fat grafting, compared with no fat grafting, no significant increase was observed in distant metastasis or all-cause mortality. These findings suggest that autologous fat grafting after oncologic resection and reconstruction was not associated with an increased risk of future metastasis or death.Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

Exclusive fat grafting is an alternative method to implant- or flap- based reconstruction techniques following mastectomies or breast conservation therapies. Its efficacy has been explored before but new data has come to light, resulting in previous results becoming outdated. Concerns have also been raised about the oncological safety of this procedure which must be evaluated alongside the efficacy to gain a comprehensive understanding of the merits of this alternative technique.We queried the PubMed electronic database from its inception until August 2023 for studies evaluating the efficacy and oncological safety of exclusive fat grafting breast reconstruction following cancer-related mastectomy or breast conservation therapy. Results of the analysis were pooled and presented as means or valid proportions. Results of the analysis were pooled using a random-effects model and presented with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) where appropriate.41 studies were included in our analysis. Pooled results show that on average, 1.7 sessions of exclusive fat grafting were required to complete reconstruction in Breast Conservation Therapy (BCT) patients, with an average volume of 114.2 ml being injected. For mastectomy patients with irradiated breasts, 4.7 sessions were needed on average with 556.8 ml being required to complete reconstruction, compared to their non-irradiated Counterparts requiring only 2.6 sessions and 207.2 ml to complete reconstruction. Oncological recurrence events were found in 29/583 non-irradiated mastectomy patients (p = 0.014) and in 41/517 BCT patients (p = 0.301) CONCLUSION: Exclusive fat grafting is an oncologically safe and reasonably efficacious alternative to more common methods of breast reconstruction. More data is needed to fully characterize the oncological safety of this procedure in irradiated and non-irradiated mastectomy patients.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.© 2024. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery.

For women undergoing breast reconstruction after mastectomy, the comparative benefits and harms of implant-based reconstruction (IBR) and autologous reconstruction (AR) are not well known. We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis of IBR versus AR after mastectomy for breast cancer.We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies from inception to March 23, 2021. We assessed the risk of bias of individual studies and strength of evidence (SoE) of our findings using standard methods.We screened 15,936 citations and included 40 studies (two randomized controlled trials and 38 adjusted nonrandomized comparative studies). Compared with patients who undergo IBR, those who undergo AR experience clinically significant better sexual well-being [summary adjusted mean difference (adjMD) 5.8, 95% CI 3.4-8.2; three studies] and satisfaction with breasts (summary adjMD 8.1, 95% CI 6.1-10.1; three studies) (moderate SoE for both outcomes). AR was associated with a greater risk of venous thromboembolism (moderate SoE), but IBR was associated with a greater risk of reconstructive failure (moderate SoE) and seroma (low SoE) in long-term follow-up (1.5-4 years). Other outcomes were comparable between groups, or the evidence was insufficient to merit conclusions.Most evidence regarding IBR versus AR is of low or moderate SoE. AR is probably associated with better sexual well-being and satisfaction with breasts and lower risks of seroma and long-term reconstructive failure but a higher risk of thromboembolic events. New high-quality research is needed to address the important research gaps.Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American Society of Plastic Surgeons.

After reading this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Understand the indications for implant-based breast reconstruction and the indications for nipple preservation compared to skin-sparing or skin-reducing patterns. 2. Understand the indications for direct-to-implant breast reconstruction versus tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction and the advantages and disadvantages of total, partial, or no muscle coverage. 3. Understand the role of acellular dermal matrix or mesh in reconstruction. 4. Learn the advantages and disadvantages of different types and styles of implants and develop a postoperative plan for care and pain management.Breast reconstruction with implants has seen a decade of advances leading to more natural breast reconstructions and lower rates of complications.

The incidence of nipple-sparing mastectomy is rising, but no single incision type has been proven to be superior. This study systematically evaluated the rate and efficacy of various nipple-sparing mastectomy incision locations, focusing on nipple-areola complex necrosis and reconstructive method.A systematic literature review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines identifying studies on nipple-sparing mastectomy where incision type was described. Pooled descriptive statistics meta-analysis of overall (nipple-areola complex) necrosis rate and nipple-areola complex necrosis by incision type was performed.Fifty-one studies (9975 nipple-sparing mastectomies) were included. Thirty-two incision variations were identified and categorized into one of six groups: inframammary fold, radial, periareolar, mastopexy/prior scar/reduction, endoscopic, and other. The most common incision types were inframammary fold [3634 nipple-sparing mastectomies (37.8 percent)] and radial [3575 nipple-sparing mastectomies (37.2 percent)]. Meta-analysis revealed an overall partial nipple-areola complex necrosis rate of 4.62 percent (95 percent CI, 3.14 to 6.37 percent) and a total nipple-areola complex necrosis rate of 2.49 percent (95 percent CI, 1.87 to 3.21 percent). Information on overall nipple-areola complex necrosis rate by incision type was available for 30 of 51 studies (4645 nipple-sparing mastectomies). Periareolar incision had the highest nipple-areola complex necrosis rate (18.10 percent). Endoscopic and mastopexy/prior scar/reduction incisions had the lowest rates of necrosis at 4.90 percent and 5.79 percent, respectively, followed by the inframammary fold incision (6.82 percent). The rate of single-stage implant reconstruction increased during this period.For nipple-sparing mastectomy, the periareolar incision maintains the highest necrosis rate because of disruption of the nipple-areola complex blood supply. The inframammary fold incision has become the most popular incision, demonstrating an acceptable complication profile.

The aim of this study was to compare robotic mastectomy with open classical technique outcomes in breast cancer patients.

Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy (RNSM) has been developed to reduce conspicuous scar and increase the quality of life in women. This study aimed to evaluate the surgical and oncologic outcomes of RNSM with immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) compared with conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy (CNSM).This international multicenter, pooled analysis of individual patient-level data enrolled a total of 755 procedures in 659 women (609 had breast cancer and 50 underwent risk-reducing mastectomy) who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy with IBR. Surgical and oncologic outcomes, including 30-days postoperative (POD 30d) complication rate, nipple necrosis rate, grade of Clavien-Dindo classification, disease-free survival, and overall survival, were evaluated. Propensity score-matched analyses were performed to adjust for confounding factors.The median age of both the RNSM and CNSM groups was 45 years. The RNSM group had lower body mass index (BMI) and a higher proportion of benign disease compared with the CNSM group. POD 30d complications and postoperative complication grade III rates were lower in the RNSM group than in the CNSM group (p < 0.05). The nipple necrosis rate was 2.2% and 7.8% for RNSM and CNSM, respectively (p = 0.002). After propensity score matching, significantly lower rates of POD 30d complications, nipple necrosis, and postoperative complication grade III occurred in the RNSM group than in the CNSM group (all p < 0.05). Oncologic outcomes were not significantly different between the two groups.RNSM can provide better cosmetic results with favorable surgical and oncologic outcomes for women with early breast cancer or BRCA mutation.© 2022. Society of Surgical Oncology.

There is increasing interest in the use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR). Suggested advantages are that ADMs facilitate one-stage IBBR and improve aesthetic outcomes. We compared immediate one-stage ADM-assisted IBBR with two-stage IBBR (current standard of care). Our previously reported secondary endpoint showed that one-stage ADM-assisted IBBR was associated with significantly more adverse outcomes. Here, we present the primary endpoint results aiming to assess whether one-stage IBBR with ADM provides higher patient-reported quality of life (QOL) compared with two-stage IBBR.This multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial (BRIOS study) was done in eight hospitals in the Netherlands. We recruited women aged older than 18 years with breast carcinoma or a genetic predisposition who intended to undergo skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate IBBR. Participants were randomly assigned to undergo one-stage IBBR with ADM (Strattice, LifeCell, Branchburg, NJ, USA) or two-stage IBBR. Randomisation was stratified by centre and indication for surgery (oncological or prophylactic) in blocks of ten participants. The primary endpoint was patient-reported QOL, as measured with the BREAST-Q (ie, health-related QOL scales and satisfaction scales), in the modified intention-to-treat population. The study follow-up is complete. This study is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, number NTR5446.Between April 14, 2013, and May 29, 2015, we enrolled 142 women, of whom 69 were randomly assigned to receive one-stage ADM-assisted IBBR and 73 to receive two-stage IBBR. After exclusions, the modified intention-to-treat population comprised 60 patients in the one-stage group and 61 patients in the two-stage group. Of these, 48 women (mean follow-up 17·0 months [SD 7·8]) in the one-stage group and 44 women (17·2 months [SD 6·7]) in the two-stage group completed the BREAST-Q at least 1 year after implant placement. We found no significant differences in postoperative patient-reported QOL domains, including physical wellbeing (one-stage mean 78·0 [SD 14·1] vs two-stage 79·3 [12·2], p=0·60), psychosocial wellbeing (72·6 [17·3] vs 72·8 [19·6], p=0·95), and sexual wellbeing (58·0 [17·0] vs 57·1 [19·5], p=0·82), or in the patient-reported satisfaction domains: satisfaction with breasts (63·4 [15·8] vs 60·3 [15·4], p=0·35) and satisfaction with outcome (72·8 [19·1] vs 67·8 [16·3], p=0·19).Taken together with our previously published findings, one-stage IBBR with ADM does not yield superior results in terms of patient-reported QOL compared with two-stage IBBR. Risks for adverse outcomes were significantly higher in the one-stage ADM group. Use of ADM for one-stage IBBM should be considered on a case-by-case basis.Pink Ribbon, Nuts-Ohra, and LifeCell.Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Implant-based or expander-supported breast reconstruction is an established surgical method after mastectomies due to cancer or to prophylactic reasons. Patient reported outcome (PRO) and cosmetic outcome after breast reconstruction with a synthetic surgical mesh was investigated in a prospective, single-arm, multi-center study.Primary or secondary implant-based breast reconstruction with support of TiLOOP® Bra was performed in 269 patients during the PRO-BRA study. PRO 12 months after breast reconstruction was evaluated using Breast-Q questionnaire. Cosmetic outcome was evaluated by two independent experts by means of pictures taken preoperatively and at the follow-up visits.Breast-Q and 12 months FU were completed by 210 women. Patients without adverse event had a significantly higher Breast-Q score for "sexual well-being" (p = 0.001); "psychosocial well-being" was negatively influenced by prior therapies (p < 0.01), and older patients had significantly lower scores at 12 months FU compared to pre-OP for "satisfaction with breasts" (p < 0.01) while the opposite was true for younger patients. Unilateral surgery resulted in reduced "satisfaction with breast" at 12 months FU (p < 0.01). Radiotherapy negatively influenced "satisfaction with breast", "sexual well-being" and "physical well-being chest". The cosmetic evaluation showed a significant difference (p < 0.001) in the evaluation by the patients and experts with the patients' assessment being worse compared to experts' assessment.Our study showed that two years after implant-based breast reconstruction with support of TiLOOP® Bra PRO is influenced by different factors. This information can be used to improve the decision-making process for women who chose implant-based breast reconstruction.Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Kallikrein‐related peptidase 6 (KLK6) encodes a trypsin‐like serine protease that is up‐regulated in several cancers, although the putative functions of KLK6 in cancer have not been elucidated. In the current study, overexpression of KLK6 was identified in colon cancer, and the possibility that KLK6 may be a suitable candidate as a tumor marker was examined.

The impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) on the complication rate after implant-based and autologous breast reconstruction remains unclear. The aim of this study was to systematically review and perform a meta-analysis of previously published studies on immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) in breast cancer patients treated with NACT compared with controls.PubMed and EMBASE were searched to identify studies assessing the impact of NACT on major and minor complications after IBR. The primary effect measures were relative risk (RR), 95% confidence interval (95% CI), and p-value.Eight studies comprising 51,731 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Of these, 5161 patients received NACT and 46,570 patients did not receive NACT. In regard to major complications, NACT did not statistically significant increase the rate of reconstructive failure (RR = 1.35, 95% CI = 0.96-1.91, p = 0.09), the rate of mastectomy skin-flap necrosis (RR = 1.39, 95% CI = 0.61-3.17, p = 0.44), or the rate of reoperation (RR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.87-1.37, p = 0.45). Regarding minor complications, NACT did not significantly increase the rate of wound complications (RR = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.87-1.28, p = 0.62). In a subgroup analysis of implant-based breast reconstruction following NACT, single-stage direct-to-implant (DTI) had a significantly lower implant failure rate compared with two-staged tissue expander/implant (TE/I) (RR = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.26-0.71, p = 0.0011).NACT did not increase the major or minor complication rate after IBR with either autologous tissue or implants. Thus, NACT and IBR should be considered safe procedures. The review of studies describing patients undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction following NACT could indicate that single-stage DTI was a safer procedure than two-staged TE/I. However, the association requires further evaluation.Copyright © 2023 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NC) is increasingly being used in patients with breast cancer, and evidence-based reports related to its independent effects on morbidity after mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction are limited.To determine the effect of NC on 30-day postoperative morbidity in women undergoing mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction.All women undergoing mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction from January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2011, at university and private hospitals internationally were analyzed using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program 2005-2011 databases. Patients who received NC were compared with those without a history of NC to estimate the relative odds of 30-day postoperative overall, systemic, and surgical site morbidity using model-wise multivariable logistic regression.Neoadjuvant chemotherapy.Thirty-day postoperative morbidity (overall, systemic, and surgical site).Of 85,851 women, 66,593 (77.6%) underwent mastectomy without breast reconstruction, with 2876 (4.3%) receiving NC; 7893 patients were excluded because of missing exposure data. The immediate breast reconstruction population included 19,258 patients (22.4%), with 820 (4.3%) receiving NC. After univariable analysis, NC was associated with a 20% lower odds of overall morbidity in the group undergoing mastectomy without breast reconstruction (odds ratio [OR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71-0.91) but had no significant effect in the immediate breast reconstruction group (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.79-1.23). After adjustment for confounding, NC was independently associated with lower overall morbidity in the group undergoing mastectomy without breast reconstruction (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.51-0.73) and the immediate tissue expander reconstruction subgroup (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30-0.84). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was associated with decreased odds of systemic morbidity in 4 different populations: complete sample (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.49-0.71), mastectomy without breast reconstruction (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.48-0.72), any immediate breast reconstruction (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.37-0.88), and the tissue expander subgroup (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.23-0.72).Our study supports the safety of NC in women undergoing mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with lower overall morbidity in the patients undergoing mastectomy without breast reconstruction and in those undergoing tissue expander breast reconstruction. In addition, the odds of systemic morbidity were decreased in patients undergoing mastectomy with and without immediate breast reconstruction. The mechanisms behind the protective association of NC remain unknown and warrant further investigation.

Mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction (MIBR) are becoming an increasingly popular option for women with breast cancer. However, MIBR is associated with a higher risk of postoperative complications compared to mastectomy alone, which may delay adjuvant cancer therapy. The main objective of this retrospective cohort study was to investigate oncologic outcomes in MIBR patients with and without neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT).A 6-year retrospective study of breast cancer patients treated with MIBR was conducted from January 2013 to May 2019. The primary outcome was a delay in adjuvant radiochemotherapy. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications and locoregional recurrences.Of 1832 patients reviewed, 300 (7.1%) were included. The cohort consisted of 277 (92%) MIBR patients without NACT and 23 (7.7%) with NACT. There was significantly more N1 and N2 tumor node status in the non-NACT group compared to the NACT group (p<0.001). The overall complication rates were similar in the NACT group compared to non-NACT (37.5% versus 21.7%, p=0.148). The rates of major and minor complications were also similar between NACT and non-NACT groups (Major: 29.6% versus 21.7%, p=0.823) and (Minor: 26.7% versus 8.70%, p =0.0970). The rates of locoregional recurrence (p=1.00), time to adjuvant therapy (p=0.629), and rates of delay (p=0.305) was also similar between groups. Overall survival was significantly lower in the NACT group compared to non-NACT (98.2% versus 82.6%, p<0.001).There was no difference in complication rates, or timing to adjuvant therapy, among MIBR patients with and without NACT. However, MIBR patients who received NACT had worse overall survival than MIBR patients without NACT.Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Demand for nipple- and skin- sparing mastectomy (NSM/SSM) with immediate breast reconstruction (BR) has increased at the same time as indications for post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) have broadened. The aim of the Oncoplastic Breast Consortium initiative was to address relevant questions arising with this clinically challenging scenario.A large global panel of oncologic, oncoplastic and reconstructive breast surgeons, patient advocates and radiation oncologists developed recommendations for clinical practice in an iterative process based on the principles of Delphi methodology.The panel agreed that surgical technique for NSM/SSM should not be formally modified when PMRT is planned with preference for autologous over implant-based BR due to lower risk of long-term complications and support for immediate and delayed-immediate reconstructive approaches. Nevertheless, it was strongly believed that PMRT is not an absolute contraindication for implant-based or other types of BR, but no specific recommendations regarding implant positioning, use of mesh or timing were made due to absence of high-quality evidence. The panel endorsed use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice. It was acknowledged that the shape and size of reconstructed breasts can hinder radiotherapy planning and attention to details of PMRT techniques is important in determining aesthetic outcomes after immediate BR.The panel endorsed the need for prospective, ideally randomised phase III studies and for surgical and radiation oncology teams to work together for determination of optimal sequencing and techniques for PMRT for each patient in the context of BR.Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Radiotherapy before mastectomy and autologous free-flap breast reconstruction can avoid adverse radiation effects on healthy donor tissues and delays to adjuvant radiotherapy. However, evidence for this treatment sequence is sparse. We aimed to explore the feasibility of preoperative radiotherapy followed by skin-sparing mastectomy and deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap reconstruction in patients with breast cancer requiring mastectomy.We conducted a prospective, non-randomised, feasibility study at two National Health Service trusts in the UK. Eligible patients were women aged older than 18 years with a laboratory diagnosis of primary breast cancer requiring mastectomy and post-mastectomy radiotherapy, who were suitable for DIEP flap reconstruction. Preoperative radiotherapy started 3-4 weeks after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and was delivered to the breast, plus regional nodes as required, at 40 Gy in 15 fractions (over 3 weeks) or 42·72 Gy in 16 fractions (over 3·2 weeks). Adverse skin radiation toxicity was assessed preoperatively using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group toxicity grading system. Skin-sparing mastectomy and DIEP flap reconstruction were planned for 2-6 weeks after completion of preoperative radiotherapy. The primary endpoint was the proportion of open breast wounds greater than 1 cm width requiring a dressing at 4 weeks after surgery, assessed in all participants. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02771938, and is closed to recruitment.Between Jan 25, 2016, and Dec 11, 2017, 33 patients were enrolled. At 4 weeks after surgery, four (12·1%, 95% CI 3·4-28·2) of 33 patients had an open breast wound greater than 1 cm. One (3%) patient had confluent moist desquamation (grade 3). There were no serious treatment-related adverse events and no treatment-related deaths.Preoperative radiotherapy followed by skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate DIEP flap reconstruction is feasible and technically safe, with rates of breast open wounds similar to those reported with post-mastectomy radiotherapy. A randomised trial comparing preoperative radiotherapy with post-mastectomy radiotherapy is required to precisely determine and compare surgical, oncological, and breast reconstruction outcomes, including quality of life.Cancer Research UK, National Institute for Health Research.Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Premastectomy radiotherapy (PreMRT) is a new treatment sequence to avoid the adverse effects of radiotherapy on the final breast reconstruction while achieving the benefits of immediate breast reconstruction (IMBR).

Despite a trend towards immediate breast reconstruction in recent years, delayed breast reconstruction using a tissue expander remains a common procedure. Radiotherapy after mastectomy but before reconstruction is a risk factor, although studies examining the effect of this are limited. The aim of this retrospective cohort study is to evaluate the impact of pre-reconstructive radiotherapy (PRT) in patients undergoing breast reconstruction using an expander/implant.Two hundred twenty-three consecutive patients underwent unilateral mastectomy followed by expander-based reconstruction over a 10-year period (2004-2013). Fifty patients (22%) received radiotherapy before reconstruction (PRT group), and 173 patients (78%) did not (non-PRT group). Descriptive patient data as well as data regarding the operations, hospitalisation and complications were collected. Statistical analyses such as logistic regression, Fisher exact test and multivariate analysis were performed using R-statistics.PRT was a significant predictor of loss of reconstruction, and when adjusted for smoking and body mass index (BMI), it showed an odds ratio (OR) of 17.8 [95% confidence interval (CI): 5.7-70.6; p<0.01] for loss of reconstruction, with 15 (30%) in the PRT group and 7 (4%) in the non-PRT group. We found no difference in short-term reoperations or infections at either stage of reconstruction.In patients undergoing delayed breast reconstruction using an expander/implant, radiotherapy is a significant risk factor for loss of reconstruction. It should be considered a relative contraindication for this reconstructive modality, and careful selection and advisement of the patient about the risks of complications and potential need for additional corrective surgery or later autologous breast reconstruction should be discussed.Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Despite the continued demand for immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction, some suggest that delayed reconstruction may reduce complications. However, with limited comparative data available, the extent of this benefit is unclear, particularly in the setting of postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). This study evaluates outcomes after mastectomy and delayed tissue expander reconstruction (DTER) or immediate tissue expander reconstruction (ITER).A retrospective review of 893 consecutive patients (1201 breasts) who underwent mastectomy with DTER or ITER at one institution during a 10-year period was performed. Relevant patient factors, including the use of PMRT and complication rates, were recorded. Complications were categorized by type and end-outcome, including nonoperative (no further surgery), operative (further surgery except explantation), and explantation. Statistics were done using Student t test and Fisher exact test.There were no differences in clinical risk factors between ITER (n = 1127 breasts) and DTER (n = 74 breasts) patients. Delayed tissue expander reconstruction breasts had lower rates of mastectomy flap necrosis (P = 0.003), and nonoperative (P = 0.01) and operative (P = 0.001) complications relative to ITER. In ITER breasts, PMRT increased operative complications (P = 0.02) and explantation (P = 0.0005), resulting in a decrease in overall, 2-stage success rate (P < 0.0001). In contrast, there were no differences in outcomes between PMRT and non-PMRT DTER breasts.This comparative study, the largest to date, suggests that DTER is a viable reconstructive alternative that may minimize certain complications over ITER, including in patients needing PMRT. However, unlike with ITER, surgeons can evaluate patients' potential for success with DTER based on skin flap appearance after both mastectomy and PMRT (when present). As a result, the benefits of DTER may also be due to a careful patient selection process preoperatively. The choice of DTER should, therefore, be balanced against both individual patient risk factors and the psychological appeal of immediate reconstruction.