The Impact of Adjuvant Radiotherapy on Immediate Prepectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Immediate prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) rates have increased in recent years owing to improved cosmetic and psychological benefits. However, there is a lack of studies regarding complications rates following adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) among patients undergoing immediate prepectoral IBBR. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective monocentric analysis of a cohort of consecutively treated patients who underwent NSM following immediate prepectoral IBBR at our institution between March 2017 and November 2021. Patient demographics, quality of life, complication rates, and oncological safety were evaluated in the RT and non-RT groups. Data analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Version 24 (IMB Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). RESULTS: A total of 98 patients were examined: 70 were assigned to have prepectoral IBBR without RT and 28 to the group who had prepectoral IBBR with RT. There was a statistically significant difference in overall capsular contracture rate between the RT and non-RT group (18% vs. 4.3%, p=0.04). The total implant loss in the cohort was 4% (10.7% vs. 1.4%, p=0.05). We obtained a high percentages of all BREAST-Q categories in both groups; however, satisfaction with the breast and sexual well-being was higher in the non-RT group. The three-year overall survivals were 97.4% in the RT group and 98.5% in the non-RT group. CONCLUSION: Our findings showed that patients in the RT group had a higher rate of capsular contracture and implant loss than those in the non-RT group. However, complication rates were within acceptable range and with accurate preoperative information patients have more benefits from immediate reconstruction showing excellent overall quality of life irrespectively of radiation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: 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 .

Ptotic versus Nonptotic Breasts in Nipple-sparing Mastectomy and Immediate Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction.

In recent years, nipple-sparing mastectomy followed by implant-based breast reconstruction has gained popularity due to improved cosmetic and psychological benefits. However, patients with ptotic breasts remain the main challenge for surgeons, owing to the potential risk of postoperative complications. Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed for patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy and prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction between March 2017 and November 2021. Patient demographics, incidence of complications, and quality of life assessed using the BREAST-Q questionnaire were compared between the two different incisions [inverted-T for ptotic versus inframammary fold (IMF) for nonptotic breasts]. Results: A total of 98 patients were examined: 62 in the IMF cohort and 36 in the inverted-T cohort. The results demonstrated equivalence in the safety metrics between the two groups, including hematoma (p=0.367), seroma (p=0.552), infection (P = 1.00), skin necrosis (P = 1.00), local recurrence (P = 1.00), implant loss (P = 0.139), capsular contracture (P = 1.00), and nipple-areolar complex necrosis (P = 0.139). The BREAST-Q scores were equally high in both groups. Conclusion: Our results suggest that inverted-T incision for ptotic breasts is a safe modality with similar complication rates and high aesthetic results compared with IMF incision for nonptotic breasts. A higher rate of nipple-areolar complex necrosis in the inverted-T group, although not significant, should be considered during careful preoperative planning and patient selection.

Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Systemic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) remains the standard and most popular option for women undergoing breast reconstruction after mastectomy worldwide. Recently, prepectoral IBBR has resurged in popularity, despite limited data comparing prepectoral with subpectoral IBBR. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed and Cochrane Library from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2021, was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines, data were extracted by independent reviewers. Studies that compared prepectoral with subpectoral IBBR for breast cancer were included. RESULTS: Overall, 15 studies with 3,101 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Our results showed that patients receiving prepectoral IBBR experienced fewer capsular contractures (odds ratio [OR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-0.92; P = 0.02), animation deformity (OR, 0.02; 95% CI, 0.00-0.25; P = 0.002), and prosthesis failure (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.42-0.80; P = 0.001). There was no significant difference between prepectoral and subpectoral IBBR in overall complications (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.64-1.09; P = 0.19), seroma (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.59-2.51; P = 0.60), hematoma (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.49-1.18; P = 0.22), infection (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.63-1.20; P = 0.39), skin flap necrosis (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.45-1.08; P = 0.11), and recurrence (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.52-3.39; P = 0.55). Similarly, no significant difference was found in Breast-Q scores between the prepectoral and subpectoral IBBR groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of our systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that prepectoral, implant-based, breast reconstruction is a safe modality and has similar outcomes with significantly lower rates of capsular contracture, prosthesis failure, and animation deformity compared with subpectoral, implant-based, breast reconstruction.

Influence of Height on Risk and Outcome of Patients with Early Breast Cancer: A Pooled Analysis of 4,925 Patients from 5 Randomized Trials of the Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group (ABCSG).

Background: Associations between height, cancer risk and worse outcome have been reported for several cancers including breast cancer. We hypothesized that in breast cancer clinical trials, tall women should be overrepresented and might have worse prognosis. Methods: Data of 4,935 women, included from 1990 to 2010 in 5 trials of the Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group (ABCSG), were analyzed retrospectively. The primary objective was to determine differences in height distribution between the ABCSG cohort and the Austrian female population according to a cross-sectional health survey conducted by the Austrian Statistic Center in 2006 and 2007. Secondary endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in different height classes and differences of body mass index (BMI) distribution. Results: Breast cancer patients in the ABCSG cohort were only slightly but statistically significantly smaller compared to unselected Austrian adult females (mean 164.3 vs. 164.8 cm; p < 0.0001) and significantly more patients were seen in the lower body height class (50 vs. 46%; p < 0.0001) when using the median as a cutoff. However, after adjustment for age, the difference in body height between the two cohorts was no longer significant (p = 0.089). DFS and OS in the two upper height groups (≥170 cm) compared to the two lowest height groups (<160 cm) was not significantly different (5-year DFS: 84.7 vs. 83.0%; HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.73-1.13, p = 0.379; 5-year OS: 94.8 vs. 91.7%; HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55-1.00, p = 0.051). The BMI of ABCSG patients was significantly higher than in the reference population (mean BMI 24.64 vs. 23.96; p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Our results do not confirm previous findings that greater body height is associated with a higher breast cancer risk and worse outcome.

Adjuvant Bisphosphonate Therapy in Postmenopausal Breast Cancer.

OPINION STATEMENT: Bone health and breast cancer are two connected subjects, because breast cancer patients have a higher prevalence of osteopenia/osteoporosis and reduced bone health parameters than healthy woman of the same age. Therefore, the positive effect of adjuvant bisphosphonate therapy plays an important role in breast cancer treatment. Several randomized trials have studied bisphosphonates in the adjuvant setting in postmenopausal woman and demonstrated their potential to prevent treatment-induced bone loss. The prevention of fractures and the subsequent preservation of patients' quality of life are important arguments for the use of adjuvant bisphosphonates in postmenopausal breast cancer patients. In addition, trials of adjuvant bone-targeted agents showed a reduction of recurrences in and outside bone and an improved outcome in patients treated with bisphosphonates.

Optimal duration of adjuvant endocrine therapy: how to apply the newest data.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of 5 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy for women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer (BC) is beyond discussion. Nevertheless, the risk of recurrence of luminal BC persists for 15 years or more after diagnosis. Consequently, approaches of extended adjuvant therapy have been investigated in large clinical trials, with the ultimate aim of further reducing the risk of recurrence in patients with HR+ BC. METHODS: A review of recently published trial data is presented to provide a solid basis for discussion. A discussion of the side effects of long-term endocrine treatment, multigenetic tests aiming to identify patients at particular risk, and an outlook for further promising targets are additional aims of this review. CONCLUSION: Extended adjuvant therapy seems beneficial in reducing distant relapse and contralateral BC for a selected group of patients with HR+ BC, particularly if aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are used after initial tamoxifen therapy. However, patients with lower risk of recurrence and initial AI therapy may suffer more from side effects than benefit from extended therapy.

Adjuvant Bisphosphonates and Breast Cancer Survival.

Randomized trials have studied bisphosphonates in the adjuvant setting of early breast cancer to investigate their ability to prevent treatment-induced bone loss. Trial results have also suggested their potential to prevent disease recurrence and metastases. These trials are summarized in this review. A recent patient-level meta-analysis by the Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG) finds convincing evidence that adjuvant antiresorptive treatments provide persistent benefits to breast cancer patients in low-estrogen situations and should be considered an important part of the treatment algorithm.