Impact of Surgical Delay on Tumor Upstaging and Outcomes in Estrogen Receptor-Negative Ductal Carcinoma in Situ Patients.

BACKGROUND: The delay of elective surgeries by the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic prompted concern among surgeons to delay estrogen receptor (ER)-negative ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) for fear of missing an ER-negative invasive cancer and compromising survival of patients. STUDY DESIGN: Female patients ≥40 years old diagnosed with ER-negative DCIS from 2004 to 2017 were examined from the National Cancer Database. Multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for patient and tumor factors, was used to determine factors associated with tumor upstage. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to determine if surgical delay impacted overall survival of ER-negative DCIS patients that were upstaged to invasive disease. RESULTS: There were 219,731 patients with DCIS of which 24,338 (11.1%) had tumor upstage. Of these patients, 5,675 (16.2%) of ER-negative and 18,663 (10.1%) of ER-positive DCIS patients were upstaged (p ≤ 0.001). From 2004 to 2017, ER-negative DCIS upstage rates increased from 12.9% to 18.9%. Independent factors associated with tumor upstage were younger age (odds ratio [OR] 0.75 [95% CI 0.69 to 0.81]) and Black race (OR 1.34 [95% CI 1.22 to 1.46]). Compared with patients with ≤30 days between biopsy and surgery, patients with a 31- to 60-day interval (OR 1.13 [95% CI 1.05 to 1.20]) and a >60-day interval (OR 1.12 [95% CI 1.02 to 1.23]) had an increased rate of tumor upstage. Among ER-negative DCIS patients whose tumors were upstaged to invasive disease, Cox proportional hazard regression modeling showed no association between the number of days between biopsy and surgery and overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Delays in surgery were associated with higher tumor upstage rates but not with worse overall survival.

Evolution of the Surgical Technique for "Breast in a Day" Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: Transitioning from Dual-Plane to Prepectoral Implant Placement.

BACKGROUND: Direct-to-implant breast reconstruction offers the intuitive advantages of shortening the reconstructive process and reducing costs. In the authors' practice, direct-to-implant breast reconstruction has evolved from dual-plane to prepectoral implant placement. The authors sought to understand postoperative complications and aesthetic outcomes and identify differences in the dual-plane and prepectoral direct-to-implant subcohorts. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database was conducted from November of 2014 to March of 2018. Postoperative complication data, reoperation, and aesthetic outcomes were reviewed. Aesthetic outcomes were evaluated by a blinded panel of practitioners using standardized photographs. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-four direct-to-implant reconstructions were performed in 81 women: 42.5 percent were dual-plane (n = 57) and 57.5 percent were prepectoral (n = 77). Statistical analysis was limited to patients with at least 1 year of follow-up. Total complications were low overall (8 percent), although the incidence of prepectoral complications [n = 1 (2 percent)] was lower than the incidence of dual-plane complications [n = 7 (12 percent)], with the difference approaching statistical significance (p = 0.07). Panel evaluation for aesthetic outcomes favored prepectoral reconstruction. Pectoralis animation deformity was completely eliminated in the prepectoral cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The authors present the largest comparative direct-to-implant series using acellular dermal matrix to date. Transition to prepectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction has not resulted in increased complications, degradation of aesthetic results, or an increase in revision procedures. Prepectoral reconstruction is a viable reconstructive option with elimination of animation deformity and potential for enhanced aesthetic results. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.