Skin-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) is a surgical technique that aims to maximize skin preservation, facilitate breast reconstruction, and improve cosmetic outcomes. Despite its use in clinical practice, the benefits and harms related to SSM are not well established. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of skin-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of breast cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Breast Cancer's Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov on 9 August 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomized or non-randomized studies (cohort and case-control) comparing SSM to conventional mastectomy for treating ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or invasive breast cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were local recurrence free-survival, adverse events (including overall complications, breast reconstruction loss, skin necrosis, infection and hemorrhage), cosmetic results, and quality of life. We performed a descriptive analysis and meta-analysis of the data. MAIN RESULTS: We found no RCTs or quasi-RCTs. We included two prospective cohort studies and twelve retrospective cohort studies. These studies included 12,211 participants involving 12,283 surgeries (3183 SSM and 9100 conventional mastectomies). It was not possible to perform a meta-analysis for overall survival and local recurrence free-survival due to clinical heterogeneity across studies and a lack of data to calculate hazard ratios (HR).  Based on one study, the evidence suggests that SSM may not reduce overall survival for participants with DCIS tumors (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.02; P = 0.06; 399 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or for participants with invasive carcinoma (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.38; P = 0.44; 907 participants; very low-certainty evidence). For local recurrence-free survival, meta-analysis was not possible, due to high risk of bias in nine of the ten studies that measured this outcome. Informal visual examination of effect sizes from nine studies suggested the size of the HR may be similar between groups. Based on one study that adjusted for confounders, SSM may not reduce local recurrence-free survival (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.42; P = 0.48; 5690 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  The effect of SSM on overall complications is unclear (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.46; P = 0.07, I2 = 88%; 4 studies, 677 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Skin-sparing mastectomy may not reduce the risk of breast reconstruction loss (RR 1.79, 95% CI 0.31 to 10.35; P = 0.52; 3 studies, 475 participants; very low-certainty evidence), skin necrosis (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.12; P = 0.22, I2 = 33%; 4 studies, 677 participants; very low-certainty evidence), local infection (RR 2.04, 95% CI 0.03 to 142.71; P = 0.74, I2 = 88%; 2 studies, 371 participants; very low-certainty evidence), nor hemorrhage (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.47 to 3.27; P = 0.67, I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 677 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence due to the risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency among the studies. There were no data available on the following outcomes: systemic surgical complications, local complications, explantation of implant/expander, hematoma, seroma, rehospitalization, skin necrosis with revisional surgery, and capsular contracture of the implant. It was not possible to perform a meta-analysis for cosmetic and quality of life outcomes due to a lack of data. One study performed an evaluation of aesthetic outcome after SSM: 77.7% of participants with immediate breast reconstruction had an overall aesthetic result of excellent or good versus 87% of participants with delayed breast reconstruction. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on very low-certainty evidence from observational studies, it was not possible to draw definitive conclusions on the effectiveness and safety of SSM for breast cancer treatment. The decision for this technique of breast surgery for treatment of DCIS or invasive breast cancer must be individualized and shared between the physician and the patient while considering the potential risks and benefits of available surgical options.

Nipple- and areola-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy and areola-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of breast cancer are still questionable. It is estimated that the local recurrence rates following nipple-sparing mastectomy are very similar to breast-conserving surgery followed by radiotherapy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy and areola-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer in women. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase (via OVID) and LILACS (via Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde [BVS]) using the search terms "nipple sparing mastectomy" and "areola-sparing mastectomy". Also, we searched the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov. All searches were conducted on 30th September 2014 and we did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) however if there were no RCTs, we expanded our criteria to include non-randomised comparative studies (cohort and case-control studies). Studies evaluated nipple-sparing and areola-sparing mastectomy compared to modified radical mastectomy or skin-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive breast cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors (BS and RR) performed data extraction and resolved disagreements. We performed descriptive analyses and meta-analyses of the data using Review Manager software. We used Cochrane's risk of bias tool to assess studies, and adapted it for non-randomised studies, and we evaluated the quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 cohort studies, evaluating a total of 6502 participants undergoing 7018 procedures: 2529 underwent a nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM), 818 underwent skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) and 3671 underwent traditional mastectomy, also known as modified radical mastectomy (MRM). No participants underwent areola-sparing mastectomy. There was a high risk of confounding for all reported outcomes. For overall survival, the hazard ratio (HR) for NSM compared to SSM was 0.70 (95% CI 0.28 to 1.73; 2 studies; 781 participants) and the HR for NSM compared to MRM was 0.72 (95% CI 0.46 to 1.13; 2 studies, 1202 participants). Local recurrence was evaluated in two studies, the HR for NSM compared to MRM was 0.28 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.68; 2 studies, 1303 participants). The overall risk of complications was different in NSM when compared to other types of mastectomy in general (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.82, 2 studies, P = 0.03; 1067 participants). With respect to skin necrosis, there was no evidence of a difference with NSM compared to other types of mastectomy, but the confidence interval was wide (RR 4.22, 95% CI 0.59 to 30.03, P = 0.15; 4 studies, 1948 participants). We observed no difference among the three types of mastectomy with respect to the risk of local infection (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.09, P = 0.91, 2 studies; 496 participants). Meta-analysis was not possible when assessing cosmetic outcomes and quality of life, but in general the NSM studies reported a favourable aesthetic result and a gain in quality of life compared with the other types of mastectomy. The quality of evidence was considered very low for all outcomes due to the high risk of selection bias and wide confidence intervals. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The findings from these observational studies of very low-quality evidence were inconclusive for all outcomes due to the high risk of selection bias.

Intraoperative full-dose of partial breast irradiation with electrons delivered by standard linear accelerators for early breast cancer.

Purpose. To assess feasibility, efficacy, toxicity, and cosmetic results of intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) with electrons delivered by standard linear accelerators (Linacs) during breast conserving surgeries for early infiltrating breast cancer (BC) treatment. Materials and Methods. A total of 152 patients with invasive ductal carcinoma (T ≤ 3.0 cm) at low risk for local relapses were treated. All had unicentric lesions by imaging methods and negative sentinel node. After a wide local excision, 21 Gy were delivered on the parenchyma target volume with electron beams. Local recurrences (LR), survival, toxicity, and cosmetic outcomes were analyzed. Results. The median age was 58.3 years (range 40-85); median follow-up was 50.7 months (range 12-101.5). There were 5 cases with LR, 2 cases with distant metastases, and 2 cases with deaths related to BC. The cumulative incidence rates of LR, distant metastases, and BC death were 3.2%, 1.5%, and 1.5%, respectively. Complications were rare, and the cosmetic results were excellent or good in most of the patients. Conclusions. IORT with electrons delivered by standard Linacs is feasible, efficient, and well tolerated and seems to be beneficial for selected patients with early infiltrating BC.

Supportive care during treatment for breast cancer: resource allocations in low- and middle-income countries. A Breast Health Global Initiative 2013 consensus statement.

Breast cancer patients may have unmet supportive care needs during treatment, including symptom management of treatment-related toxicities, and educational, psychosocial, and spiritual needs. Delivery of supportive care is often a low priority in low- and middle-income settings, and is also dependent on resources available. This consensus statement describes twelve key recommendations for supportive care during treatment in low- and middle-income countries, identified by an expert international panel as part of the 5th Breast Health Global Initiative (BHGI) Global Summit for Supportive Care, which was held in October 2012, in Vienna, Austria. Panel recommendations are presented in a 4-tier resource-stratified table to illustrate how health systems can provide supportive care services during treatment to breast cancer patients, starting at a basic level of resource allocation and incrementally adding program resources as they become available. These recommendations include: health professional and patient and family education; management of treatment related toxicities, management of treatment-related symptoms of fatigue, insomnia and non-specific pain, and management of psychosocial and spiritual issues related to breast cancer treatment. Establishing supportive care during breast cancer treatment will help ensure that breast cancer patients receive comprehensive care that can help 1) improve adherence to treatment recommendations, 2) manage treatment-related toxicities and other treatment related symptoms, and 3) address the psychosocial and spiritual aspects of breast cancer and breast cancer treatments.

Supportive care after curative treatment for breast cancer (survivorship care): resource allocations in low- and middle-income countries. A Breast Health Global Initiative 2013 consensus statement.

Breast cancer survivors may experience long-term treatment complications, must live with the risk of cancer recurrence, and often experience psychosocial complications that require supportive care services. In low- and middle-income settings, supportive care services are frequently limited, and program development for survivorship care and long-term follow-up has not been well addressed. As part of the 5th Breast Health Global Initiative (BHGI) Global Summit, an expert panel identified nine key resources recommended for appropriate survivorship care, and developed resource-stratified recommendations to illustrate how health systems can provide supportive care services for breast cancer survivors after curative treatment, using available resources. Key recommendations include health professional education that focuses on the management of physical and psychosocial long-term treatment complications. Patient education can help survivors transition from a provider-intense cancer treatment program to a post-treatment provider partnership and self-management program, and should include: education on recognizing disease recurrence or metastases; management of treatment-related sequelae, and psychosocial complications; and the importance of maintaining a healthy lifestyle. Increasing community awareness of survivorship issues was also identified as an important part of supportive care programs. Other recommendations include screening and management of psychosocial distress; management of long-term treatment-related complications including lymphedema, fatigue, insomnia, pain, and women's health issues; and monitoring survivors for recurrences or development of second primary malignancies. Where possible, breast cancer survivors should implement healthy lifestyle modifications, including physical activity, and maintain a healthy weight. Health professionals should provide well-documented patient care records that can follow a patient as they transition from active treatment to follow-up care.

Radicality effect of adding an interpectoral to a subpectoral approach for dissection of level III axillary lymph nodes in breast cancer.

AIMS AND BACKGROUND: The extent of axillary lymph node dissection for breast cancer treatment is tailored to each patient. When the surgeon assumes that full dissection, including level III, is needed, there are basically two ways for reaching the apical nodes while preserving the pectoralis muscles: a subpectoral approach, below the joined pectoralis muscles, and another that includes an additional interpectoral dissection between the muscles. We conducted a study to evaluate the radicality of dissection using these two approaches. METHODS: To determine whether the harvest of level III axillary lymph nodes is equivalent with the different approaches, we prospectively studied 75 patients with breast cancer. Careful axillary lymph node dissection was done to as radical an extent as possible, first below the lateral edge of the joined pectoralis muscles (subpectoral approach) and sequentially after opening the space between the muscles (additional interpectoral approach). The number of patients with extra level III nodes retrieved by the addition of an interpectoral dissection as well as the number of complementary nodes obtained in such patients were determined. RESULTS: We excised 1701 axillary lymph nodes in 75 patients (mean, 22.7). Using first the subpectoral approach, we resected 259 level III nodes in 68 patients (mean, 3.8); in 56 patients, we removed 132 additional level III nodes using the supplementary interpectoral approach (mean, 2.4). In 7 patients (9.3%), we found at least one metastatic node with the interpectoral approach. Two of these patients had positive level III nodes that were discovered only by addition of the interpectoral dissection. CONCLUSIONS: The dissection of level III axillary nodes is more radical when an additional interpectoral dissection is performed after a subpectoral approach has been used. The exclusive subpectoral approach frequently leaves residual nodes at the apex of the axilla.

Nomograms for predicting the risk of arm lymphedema after axillary dissection in breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Lymphedema (LE) after axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) is a multifactorial, chronic, and disabling condition that currently affects an estimated 4 million people worldwide. Although several risk factors have been described, it is difficult to estimate the risk in individual patients. We therefore developed nomograms based on a large data set. METHODS: Clinicopathologic features were collected from a prospective cohort comprising 1,054 women with unilateral breast cancer undergoing ALND as part of their surgical treatment from August 2001 to November 2002. LE was defined as a volume difference of at least 200 ml between arms at 6 months or more after surgery. The cumulative incidence of LE was ascertained by the Kaplan-Meier method, and Cox proportional hazard models were used to predict the risk of developing LE on the basis of the available data at each time point: model 1, preoperatively; model 2, within 6 months from surgery; and model 3, at 6 months or later after surgery. RESULTS: The 5 year cumulative incidence of LE was 30.3%. Independent risk factors for LE were age, body mass index, ipsilateral arm chemotherapy infusions, level of ALND, location of radiotherapy field, development of postoperative seroma, infection, and early edema. When applied to the validation set, the concordance indices were 0.706, 0.729, and 0.736 for models 1, 2, and 3, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed nomograms can help physicians and patients predict the 5 year probability of LE after ALND for breast cancer. Free online versions of the nomograms are available at http://www.lymphedemarisk.com/ .

Radiografia intraoperatória do espécime de biópsia radioguiada de lesão não-palpável de mama por meio de aparelho dedicado(Faxitron) / Intraoperative radiography of radioguided biopsy of non-palpable breast lesions specimes by a dedicated equipment (Flaxitron)

Objetivo: Apresentar experiência com o uso de aparelho dedicado para radiografia de espécimes de biópsias cirúrgicas de mama (Faxitron®), com ênfase na confirmação do achado do alvo cirúrgico na amostra tecidual. Métodos: De março de 2010 a março de 2011 foram realizadas 112 biópsias radioguiadas de lesões nao-palpáveis de mama, nas quais houve necessidade de radiografia da peça operatória para avaliação do acerto da retirada do alvo cirúrgico (microcalcificações, ,nódulos ou clips aplicados após mamotomia). Todas as lesões foram marcadas pelo método radioguiado (ROLL) e as radiografias da peça feitas por meio de aparelho dedicado, localizado no centro cirúrgico. Resultados: As imagens foram obtidas em tela de computador quase que instantaneamente, após cerca de 30 segundos, e tiveram excelente qualidade visual. O alvo cirúrgico esteve presente na primeira amostra em 109 dos 112 casos (97,3%), sendo que nos demais foi necessária pelo menos mais uma ampliação da biópsia para a remoção da lesão. Conclusões: A técnica de biópsia radioguiada de lesões nao-palpáveis de mama é altamente eficiente, mas a monitorização radiográfica da peça é fundamental para assegurar o acerro na remoção do alvo cirúrgico. A radiografia do espécime cirúrgico de biópsias de mama pelo aparelho Faxitron® é fácil, segura e muito rápida.

Objectives: To report the experience with the use of a dedicated machine for breast specimens radiography (Faxitron®). Methods: From March 2010 to March 2011, 112 radioguided breast biopsies (ROLL) for non-palpable lesions were performed. In all cases, the excised tissue samples were radiographed by the dedicated equipment, inside the Surgical Center area. Results: The images were seen in a computer monitor screen almost instantaneously (after about 30 seconds) and showed excellent visual quality. The surgical targets were observed in the first specimen in 109 of the 112 cases (97.3%). In the other cases, supplementary excisions were needed to allow the target removal. Conclusions: The radioguided occult lesion localization technique for non-palpable breast lesions is highly efficient, but the specimen radiographic confirmation is mandatory to check the target removal. The radiography of breast biopsies specimens through the equipment (Faxitron®) is easy, safe and very fast.

Linfedema após o câncer de mama - da epidemiologia ao tratamento / Lymphedema after breast cancer - from epidemiology to treatment

O linfedema é uma condição incurável e incapacitante e afeta aproximadamente 5 mil novos pacientes com câncer de mama ao ano no Brasil. Além do impacto social e psicológico, essa mortalidade tem grande impacto na saúde pública em consequência de sua elevada prevalência e do bom prognóstico do câncer de mama. Mesmo sendo uma morbidade de sequela do tratamento oncológico, o linfedema, de certa forma, infelizmente, tem siso negligenciado pelos profissionais da sáude. Essa desconsideração por essa indesejável doença causa atrasos no diagnóstico, discordâncias na abordagem terapêutica e consequentemente pior prognóstico do linfedema. Este artigo de revisão ressalta os aspectos mais relevantes sobre o linfedema pós-linfadectomia.

Lymphedema is an incurable and disabling condition. In Brazil, it affects approximately 5000 new breast cancer patients per year. Despite its social and psychological impact, it has a major impact in public health care, because of its high prevalence and the good prognosis of breast cancer patients. Nevertheless lymphedema is a morbidity associated with the surgical treatment; it has been unfortunately disregarded by health professionals. This negligence causes delayed diagnoses, discrepancies in treatment approaches and consequently a poorer prognosis of the lymphedema. This review highlights the most relevant aspects of the post-lymphadenectomy lymphedema

Doctor, what are my chances of having a positive sentinel node? A validated nomogram for risk estimation.

PURPOSE: Lymph node metastasis is a multifactorial event. Several variables have been described as predictors of lymph node metastasis in breast cancer. However, it is difficult to apply these data-usually expressed as odds ratios-to calculate the probability of sentinel lymph node (SLN) metastasis for a specific patient. We developed a user-friendly prediction model (nomogram) based on a large data set to assist in predicting the presence of SLN metastasis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Clinical and pathologic features of 3,786 sequential SLN biopsy procedures were assessed with multivariable logistic regression to predict the presence of SLN metastasis in breast cancer. The model was subsequently applied to 1,545 sequential SLN biopsies. A nomogram was created from the logistic regression model. A computerized version of the nomogram was developed and is available on the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (New York, NY) Web site. RESULTS: Age, tumor size, tumor type, lymphovascular invasion, tumor location, multifocality, and estrogen and progesterone receptors were associated with SLN metastasis in multivariate analysis. The nomogram was accurate and discriminating, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.754 when applied to the validation group. CONCLUSION: Newly diagnosed breast cancer patients are increasingly interested in information about their disease. This nomogram is a useful tool that helps physicians and patients to accurately predict the likelihood of SLN metastasis.