Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy complication rate compared to traditional nipple-sparing mastectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Breast cancer is worldwide the most common cause of cancer in women and causes the second most common cancer-related death. Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is commonly used in therapeutic and prophylactic settings. Furthermore, (preventive) mastectomies are, besides complications, also associated with psychological and cosmetic consequences. Robotic NSM (RNSM) allows for better visualization of the planes and reducing the invasiveness. The aim of this study was to compare the postoperative complication rate of RNSM to NSM. A systematic search was performed on all (R)NSM articles. The primary outcome was determining the overall postoperative complication rate of traditional NSM and RNSM. Secondary outcomes were comparing the specific postoperative complication rates: implant loss, hematoma, (flap)necrosis, infection, and seroma. Forty-nine studies containing 13,886 cases of (R)NSM were included. No statistically significant differences were found regarding postoperative complications (RNSM 3.9%, NSM 7.0%, p = 0.070), postoperative implant loss (RNSM 4.1%, NSM 3.2%, p = 0.523), hematomas (RNSM 4.3%, NSM 2.0%, p = 0.059), necrosis (RNSM 4.3%, NSM 7.4%, p = 0.230), infection (RNSM 8.3%, NSM 4.0%, p = 0.054) or seromas (RNSM 3.0%, NSM 2.0%, p = 0.421). Overall, there are no statistically significant differences in complication rates between NSM and RNSM.

Prediction of positive resection margins in patients with non-palpable breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: In patients undergoing breast conserving surgery for non-palpable breast cancer, obtaining tumour free resection margins is important to prevent reexcision and local recurrence. We developed a model to predict positive resection margins in patients undergoing breast conserving surgery for non-palpable invasive breast cancer. METHODS: A total of 576 patients with non-palpable invasive breast cancer underwent breast conserving surgery in five hospitals in the Netherlands. A prediction model for positive resection margins was developed using multivariate logistic regression. Calibration and discrimination of the model were assessed and the model was internally validated by bootstrapping. RESULTS: Positive resection margins were present in 69/576 (12%) patients. Factors independently associated with positive resection margins included mammographic microcalcifications (OR 2.14, 1.22-3.77), tumour size (OR 1.75, 1.20-2.56), presence of DCIS (OR 2.61, 1.41-4.82), Bloom and Richardson grade 2/3 (OR 1.82, 1.05-3.14), and caudal location of the lesion (OR 2.4, 1.35-4.27). The model was well calibrated and moderately able to discriminate between patients with positive versus negative resection margins (AUC 0.70, 95% CI, 0.63-0.77, and 0.69 after internal validation). CONCLUSION: The presented prediction model is moderately able to differentiate between women with high versus low risk of positive margins, and may be useful for surgical planning and preoperative patient counselling.

Radiofrequency ablation of small breast tumours: evaluation of a novel bipolar cool-tip application.

BACKGROUND: Although radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is promising for the local treatment of breast cancer, burns are a frequent complication. The safety and efficacy of a new technique with a bipolar RFA electrode was evaluated. METHODS: Dosimetry was assessed ex vivo in bovine mammary tissue, applying power settings of 5-15 W with 10-20 min exposure and 3.0-12.0 kJ to a 20-mm active length bipolar internally cooled needle-electrode. Subsequently, in 15 women with invasive breast carcinoma ≤2.0 cm diameter ultrasound-guided RFA was performed followed by immediate resection. RESULTS: An ablation zone of 2.5 cm was reached in the ex vivo experiments at 15 W at 9.0 kJ administered energy. Histopathology revealed complete cell death in 10 of 13 patients (77%); in 3 patients partial ablation was due to inaccurate probe positioning. In 1 patient a pneumothorax was caused by the probe placement, treated conservatively. No burns occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound-guided RFA with a bipolar needle-electrode appears to be a safe local treatment technique for invasive breast cancer up to 2 cm. Ways to improve placement of the probe and direct monitoring of the ablation-effect should be the aim of further research.

Cost-effectiveness of radioguided occult lesion localization (ROLL) versus wire-guided localization (WGL) in breast conserving surgery for nonpalpable breast cancer: results from a randomized controlled multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND: Accurate preoperative localization of nonpalpable breast cancer is essential to achieve complete resection. Radioguided occult lesion localization (ROLL) has been introduced as an alternative for wire-guided localization (WGL). Although efficacy of ROLL has been established in a randomized controlled trial, cost-effectiveness of ROLL compared with WGL is not yet known. The objective of this study was to determine whether ROLL has acceptable cost-effectiveness compared with WGL. METHODS: An economic evaluation was performed along with a randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov, No. NCT00539474). Women (>18 years) with histologically proven nonpalpable breast cancer and eligible for breast conserving treatment with sentinel node procedure were randomized to ROLL (n = 162) or WGL (n = 152). Empirical data on direct medical costs were collected, and changes in quality of life were measured over a 6-month period. Bootstrapping was used to assess uncertainty in cost-effectiveness estimates, and sensitivity of the results to the missing data approach was investigated. RESULTS: In total, 314 patients with 316 invasive breast cancers were enrolled. On average ROLL required the same time as WGL for the surgical procedure (119 vs 118 min), resulted in a 7 % higher reinterventions risk, and 13 % more complications. Quality of life effects were similar (difference 0.00 QALYs 95 % CI (-0.04-0.05). Total costs were also similar for ROLL and WGL (+26 per patient 95 % CI -250-311). CONCLUSION: ROLL is comparable to WGL with respect to both costs and quality of life effects as measured with the EQ5D and will therefore not lead to more cost-effective medical care.

Efficacy of 'radioguided occult lesion localisation' (ROLL) versus 'wire-guided localisation' (WGL) in breast conserving surgery for non-palpable breast cancer: a randomised controlled multicentre trial.

For the management of non-palpable breast cancer, accurate pre-operative localisation is essential to achieve complete resection with optimal cosmetic results. Radioguided occult lesions localisation (ROLL) uses the radiotracer, injected intra-tumourally for sentinel lymph node identification to guide surgical excision of the primary tumour. In a multicentre randomised controlled trial, we determined if ROLL is superior to the standard of care (i.e. wire-guided localisation, WGL) for preoperative tumour localisation. Women (>18 years.) with histologically proven non-palpable breast cancer and eligible for breast conserving treatment with sentinel node procedure were randomised to ROLL or WGL. Patients allocated to ROLL received an intra-tumoural dose of 120 Mbq technetium-99 m nanocolloid. The tumour was surgically removed, guided by gamma probe detection. In the WGL group, ultrasound- or mammography-guided insertion of a hooked wire provided surgical guidance for excision of the primary tumour. Primary outcome measures were the proportion of complete tumour excisions (i.e. with negative margins), the proportion of patients requiring re-excision and the volume of tissue removed. Data were analysed according to intention-to-treat principle. This study is registered at ClinincalTrials.gov, number NCT00539474. In total, 314 patients with 316 invasive breast cancers were enrolled. Complete tumour removal with negative margins was achieved in 140/162 (86 %) patients in the ROLL group versus 134/152 (88 %) patients in the WGL group (P = 0.644). Re-excision was required in 19/162 (12 %) patients in the ROLL group versus 15/152 (10 %) (P = 0.587) in the WGL group. Specimen volumes in the ROLL arm were significantly larger than those in the WGL arm (71 vs. 64 cm(3), P = 0.017). No significant differences were seen in the duration and difficulty of the radiological and surgical procedures, the success rate of the sentinel node procedure, and cosmetic outcomes. In this first multicentre randomised controlled comparison of ROLL versus WGL in patients with histologically proven breast cancer, ROLL is comparable to WGL in terms of complete tumour excision and re-excision rates. ROLL, however, leads to excision of larger tissue volumes. Therefore, ROLL cannot replace WGL as the standard of care.

Sentinel lymph node biopsy of the internal mammary chain in breast cancer.

Routine removal of the internal mammary chain (IMC) sentinel node in breast cancer patients remains a subject of discussion. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of routinely performed IMC sentinel node biopsy on the systemic and locoregional treatments plan. All patients with biopsy proven breast cancer who underwent a sentinel node procedure between 2002 and 2011 were included in a prospective database. In cases of IMC drainage, successful exploration of the IMC (i.e., sentinel node removed) and surgical complications were registered. If the removed sentinel node contained malignant cells we determined if this altered the treatment plan when practising the current guidelines. In total, 119 of the 493 included patients showed IMC drainage on lymphoscintigraphy. Exploration of the IMC was performed in 107 (89 %) patients; in 86/107 (80 %) exploration was successful. In 14/107 patients (13 %) the IMC sentinel node was tumor positive. Macro and micro metastases were found in eight and six patients, respectively. In the group of patients who underwent surgical exploration of the IMC, systemic treatment was changed in none, radiotherapy treatment in 13/107 patients (11 %). Routine sentinel node biopsy of the IMC does not alter the systemic treatment. Radiotherapy treatment is altered in a small proportion of the patients; however, solid scientific evidence for this adjustment is lacking.