A Comparative Study of Secondary Procedures after Subpectoral and Prepectoral Single-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) is the most commonly used procedure to reconstruct the breast after mastectomy. The advantages and disadvantages of subpectoral versus prepectoral implant placement remain a matter of debate. This study compares the need for secondary aesthetic procedures between prepectoral and subpectoral IBR. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients who underwent subpectoral or prepectoral IBR between 2015 and 2018 under a single surgeon at a tertiary breast unit. The primary endpoint was the number of secondary procedures performed to improve the aesthetic outcome. Secondary endpoints included the number of secondary procedures during the first year. RESULTS: A total of 271 one-stage IBRs were performed (subpectoral, n = 128 in 74 patients; prepectoral, n = 143 in 84 patients). Overall, more patients required secondary procedures in the subpectoral group (36.5% versus 19%; P = 0.014), although through longer follow-up. The most common procedures were pocket revision and implant exchange [11.7% versus 3.5% ( P = 0.010); 11.7% versus 4.2% ( P = 0.021)], whereas fat grafting was similar between the two groups (46% versus 40.5%; P = 0.777). When adjusted for follow-up time, there was no significant difference in the number of secondary procedures undertaken in the subpectoral versus the prepectoral group (21% versus 16%, respectively; P = 0.288) at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: The requirement for secondary procedures at 1 year was not different between groups. The need for fat grafting was not increased following prepectoral IBR. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

A Retrospective Cohort Study of the Utility of Ultrasound, 99mTc-Sestamibi Scintigraphy, and Four-Dimensional Computed Tomography for Pre-Operative Localization of Parathyroid Disease To Facilitate Minimally Invasive Parathyroidectomy.

Background This study investigated the utility of ultrasound (US), 99mTc-Sestamibi scintigraphy (Sestamibi), and four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) for pre-operative localization of a single abnormal parathyroid gland prior to minimally invasive parathyroidectomy (MIP) to determine the optimum pre-operative scans to facilitate a MIP. Methods Patients with primary hyperparathyroidism who underwent curative parathyroidectomy at Broomfield Hospital, Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust between 2009 and 2018 were included. Diagnostic performance parameters and the agreement between US, Sestamibi, and 4DCT were evaluated. Cohen's κ was used to assess the strength of agreement between imaging modalities. Results At localizing pathology to the correct side of the neck, Sestamibi had the highest sensitivity (87%), followed by US (76%) and 4DCT (64%). 4DCT had a positive predictive value (PPV) of 95%, similar to Sestamibi (96%), but higher than US (92%). Amongst patients who underwent both US and Sestamibi, the abnormal parathyroid gland was localized to the same area by both imaging modalities in 77% of patients (Cohen's κ: 0.383). Following an inconclusive US or Sestamibi scan, or discordance between the two modalities, 4DCT was correct at localization in 63% of patients. Conclusion Sestamibi has the highest sensitivity and PPV for accurately localizing parathyroid pathology. The addition of US to a positive Sestamibi scan adds little additional value. 4DCT is the preferred imaging modality following an inconclusive Sestamibi or US.

Breast Density Notification: Current UK National Practice.

Increased breast density is a risk factor for breast cancer and can mask cancer on mammography. This survey attempts to understand clinician views regarding breast density notification in the United Kingdom. Two separate breast density surveys were distributed to radiologists and breast surgeons between May 2019 and May 2020. Invited participants were members of the British Society of Breast Radiology and the Association of Breast Surgeons. We received 232 completed questionnaires from 109 surgeons (71%) and 123 radiologists (41%). Fourteen percent of the surgeons reported discussing the increased risk of developing cancer with their patients, and 20% of the surgeons recommended further imaging compared with 50% of the radiologists. Fifty-two percent of surgeons and 28% of radiologists felt women should not be informed of their breast density scores considering the lack of National Health Service-funded supplementary imaging. Almost all respondents of this survey called for guidelines regarding the reporting and management of UK patients with increased breast density (90%). Density notification is becoming increasingly central to breast screening, and our results highlight an urgent need for a national consensus.

A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on complications following immediate breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: The impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) on surgical outcomes following immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) remains unclear. While it is generally considered safe practice to perform an IBR post NACT, reported complication rates in published data are highly variable with the majority of studies including fewer than 50 patients in the NACT and IBR arm. To evaluate this further, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of NACT on autologous and implant based immediate breast reconstructions. We aimed to assess for differences in the post-operative course following IBR between patients who received NACT with those who did not. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched from 1995 to Sept 2, 2020 to identify articles that assessed the impact of NACT on IBR. All included studies assessed outcomes following IBR. Only studies comparing reconstructed patients receiving NACT to a control group of women who did not receive NACT were included. Unadjusted relative risk of outcomes between patients who received or did not receive NACT were synthesized using a fixed-effect meta-analysis. The evidence was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale scores and GRADE. Primary effect measures were risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: A total 17 studies comprising 3249 patients were included in the meta-analyses. Overall, NACT did not increase the risk of complications after immediate breast reconstructions (risk ratio [RR]: 0.91, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.11, p = 0.34). There was a moderate, but not significant, increase in flap loss following NACT compared with controls (RR: 1.23, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.18, p = 0.47; I2 = 0%). Most notably, there was a statistically significant increase in implant/expander loss after NACT (RR: 1.54, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.29, p = 0.03; I2 = 34%). NACT was not shown to significantly increase the incidence of hematomas, seromas or wound complications, or result in a significant delay to commencing adjuvant therapy (RR: 1.59, 95% CI 0.66 to 3.87, p = 0.30). CONCLUSION: Immediate breast reconstruction after NACT is a safe procedure with an acceptable post-operative complication profile. It may result in a slight increase in implant loss rates, but it does not delay commencing adjuvant therapy.

Correlation Between Oncotype DX, PREDICT and the Nottingham Prognostic Index: Implications for the Management of Early Breast Cancer.

Introduction Breast cancer remains the most common cancer diagnosis in the UK. The current clinical practice utilises two different types of modalities to estimate the prognosis, risk of recurrence and benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy treatment in patients with early breast cancer. The first set of modalities includes risk calculators based on clinicopathological features, e.g. PREDICT or the Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI); the second includes genetic profiling of tumour tissue using Oncotype DX (ODX; Genomic Health, Redwood City, CA) testing. PREDICT, NPI and ODX stratify breast cancers into high-, intermediate- and low-risk categories to help guide adjuvant chemotherapy treatment decisions. This study compares PREDICT, NPI and ODX Recurrence Scores (RS), with the aim of assessing 1) the correlation between the RS for PREDICT, NPI and ODX and 2) whether early breast cancer patients are stratified into similar risk categories by all three modalities. Methods This retrospective study included early breast cancer patients treated at a National Health Service (NHS) hospital over a 12-month period (October 1, 2017 to September 30, 2018). Inclusion criteria: consecutive patients with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative and lymph node-negative breast cancer. All patients were discussed at the local multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting and underwent ODX testing. Exclusion criteria: patients without ODX test scores; patients with an in-breast recurrence; patients who did not undergo a sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB); and patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) only. NPI and PREDICT scores were calculated for each patient using online tools, and ODX data was obtained through Genomic Health and MDT records. Patients were risk-stratified into high, intermediate and low risk of recurrence groups based on their PREDICT, NPI and ODX scores. The thresholds for risk stratification were based on current practice, which is evidence-based. Correlations between PREDICT, NPI and ODX scores were analysed using Spearman's correlation coefficient. Results Forty-six patients (mean age: 56 years), with a total of 57 early breast cancers, underwent ODX testing. Risk categories generated by PREDICT very strongly correlated with NPI for all patients (r=0.92; P<0.0001). However, the RS generated by ODX testing only strongly correlated for patients with low-risk PREDICT scores (r=0.51; P=0.0134), while no correlation between RS and PREDICT was observed for patients with intermediate- or high-risk PREDICT scores (r=-0.0064; P=0.9767). Similar results were seen between NPI and RS. Overall, only 19/46 (41.3%) patients had an RS which corresponded to PREDICT risk category, while 18/46 (39.1%) patients had an RS that indicated a higher risk of recurrence than PREDICT, and 9/46 (19.6%) patients had an RS indicating a lower risk of recurrence than PREDICT. Similar results were found when comparing RS and NPI. Conclusion The risk of recurrence estimated by ODX in patients deemed low risk by PREDICT or NPI highly correlated, while no such correlation existed in patients with an estimated intermediate- or high-risk breast cancer. In PREDICT- or NPI-estimated intermediate- and high-risk patients, ODX provided valuable additional prognostic information to guide adjuvant treatment, while the potential avoidance of ODX testing in low-risk patients presents significant cost-savings.

The Utility of Oncotype DX for Adjuvant Chemotherapy Treatment Decisions in Estrogen Receptor-positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-negative, Node-negative Breast Cancer.

Introduction Breast cancer is the most common cancer diagnosis in the UK. Recently, there has been a reduction in breast cancer-specific mortality and recurrence attributed, in part, to the delivery of adjuvant chemotherapy. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends the use of genetic profiling with Oncotype DX (ODX) to guide decisions to offer adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery in intermediate-risk early breast cancer patients. This study aimed to evaluate the utility of ODX testing in routine clinical practice in a National Health Service (NHS) hospital.  Methods Consecutive early breast cancer patients, identified through the multidisciplinary team (MDT) records, treated in our institution over 12 months (October 2017-September 2018) were included. PREDICT and Nottingham prognostic index (NPI) scores (from online clinicopathological recurrence risk tools) were calculated for each patient, and ODX data obtained through Genomic Health, Inc. (Redwood City, California). Patients were divided into two groups, those that underwent ODX testing (ODX group) and those that did not (non-ODX group). Descriptive statistics were used to analyse patient and tumour characteristics. The Gaussian distribution of each data set was assessed using the Anderson-Darling test. For comparisons between patient groups, the non-parametric equivalent of the two-tailed t-test (Mann-Whitney) was used. Dichotomous variables (e.g. chemotherapy decisions) were compared using chi-squared tests. Results One-hundred thirty-three patients (mean age 62 years) treated for 152 early breast cancers, were included in the final analysis. Breast cancers in the ODX group were of greater median tumour size (24 vs 16 mm; P<0.0001) and higher median tumour grade (3 vs 2; P<0.0001). PREDICT scores (3 vs 1, P<0.0001) and NPI scores (3.40 vs 2.30, P<0.0001) for the ODX group were also significantly higher than the non-ODX group. A greater proportion of patients were offered chemotherapy in the ODX group (39.9% vs 6.9%, P<0.001). However, for the PREDICT-calculated intermediate-risk patients, ODX testing resulted in a lower proportion of patients being offered chemotherapy compared to the intermediate-risk patients who were not genetically profiled (54.5% vs 83.3%, P=0.3547), although this result was not statistically significant. Conclusions Patients selected for ODX testing were younger, with significantly higher-grade and larger-sized tumours compared to patients not selected for genetic profiling. ODX testing significantly impacted the delivery of chemotherapy, as the recurrence score generated through ODX testing guided the final decision.