How do breast cancer surgery scars impact survivorship? Findings from a nationwide survey in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The surgical treatment of breast cancer has been associated with negative consequences for patients' body image, sexual functioning, mental health, and social adjustment. Recent advances in the surgical approach to breast cancer allow the oncologic surgeon to safely optimize cosmetic outcomes. Little is known about the possible relevance of surgical scars. The aim of this research was to gather the perspective of breast cancer survivors themselves on the issue of surgical scars and their negative impact on survivorship. METHODS: An internet survey was conducted nationwide in the United States among women who reported being surgically treated by lumpectomy, mastectomy, or both procedures for breast cancer. To improve generalizability, census-based enrollment quotas were applied for geographic region, health insurance, and income. RESULTS: The five hundred respondents reported lumpectomy only (n = 215), mastectomy only (n = 140), or both surgeries (n = 132). In response to the statement, "I do not like the location of my surgical scar", 64% of lumpectomy-only respondents and 67% of mastectomy-only respondents agreed somewhat or strongly. Only 26% of lumpectomy respondents and 14% of mastectomy respondents reported minimal or no negative impact as a consequence of the surgical scars. CONCLUSION: Consistent with previous literature, this nationwide US survey shows that the majority of women feel negatively affected by their breast cancer surgery scars. Surgeons should consider this outcome when planning surgery, which may improve patients' survivorship journey.

A novel, adaptable, radiographically opaque, multi-plane continuous filament marker for optimizing tissue identification, radiation planning, and radiographic follow-up.

BACKGROUND: In breast cancer treatment, marking the tumor bed is an important aspect of the surgical component of therapy. Clear delineation of the tumor bed allows radiation oncologists a defined target for planning and delivering postoperative radiation therapy (XRT). Tumor bed marking also allows radiographic follow-up of the tumor bed on subsequent breast imaging. The aim of this assessment is to evaluate the ease and feasibility of utilizing a tumor bed filament marker (VeraFormÒ, Videra Surgical inc., USA) as a marker in post-operative benign surgical sites and malignant breast surgical tumor beds in breast cancer surgery. METHODS: The filament marker is a novel radiopaque surgical filament that in lieu of clips and other markers is implanted in the surgical tumor bed during breast surgery. Following development of the filament marker, the researchers used breast phantoms and radiographic images to develop a series of geometric patterns of placement options that optimize comprehensive multi-plane radiographic interpretation of the exact tumor bed or surgical margin. Three breast surgeons at 3 separate institutions then used this filament as a continuous multi-plane marker in 20 patients during breast conservation surgery. In these patients, the filament marker was thus used to mark the tumor bed (breast cancer surgery) or surgical site (benign breast disease) instead of the more traditional devices such as clips or other metallic open framework devices. We then assessed 2 important factors related to this device; (I) the ease, feasibility, and accuracy of in vivo placement with oncoplastic and non-oncoplastic breast conservation surgery techniques; (II) the radiographic footprint this device left on standard imaging protocols of post-operative mammogram (MMG), computed tomography (CT) scan, breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations, and ultrasounds (USs) for both routine follow-up imaging and for standard radiation planning. RESULTS: There were no adverse events reported with the use of this device. The cases were then reviewed by a multidisciplinary team that included the original surgeon, a breast radiologist, and radiation oncologist. Their unanimous evaluation was that the filament marker clearly delineated all sides and planes of the tumor bed (cancer surgery) or surgical site (benign disease). Regardless of surgical technique utilized, this information provided precise 3D guidance for radiation planning and delivery as well as radiographic follow-up. The surgeons involved reported that delineating the bed with the filament marker was a quick and easy procedure and did not interfere with performing the planned surgical technique. Radiologists, surgeons, and radiation oncologists found that the filament marker was not only radiographically opaque on CT and MMG, but also caused no significant artifact on CT, MRI, US, or MMG. CONCLUSIONS: The continuous multi-plane filament marker is a new device that fulfills the heretofore unmet need for safe and improved tumor bed and tissue site marking. It is an easy to place, non-palpable continuous multi-plane radiographic opaque tissue marker that seems to better delineate the tumor bed, regardless of type of breast surgery performed, while providing a more accurate 3D image for radiation planning and radiographic follow-up on MMG MRI, CT and US.

Evidence based outcomes of the American Society of Breast Surgeons Nipple Sparing Mastectomy Registry.

BACKGROUND: The American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) Nipple Sparing Mastectomy Registry (NSMR) is a prospective, non-randomized, IRB approved, multi-institutional registry. The purpose of this Registry is to provide a large, prospective, non-randomized database of patient characteristics, tumor characteristics, surgical technique, and outcome (both aesthetic and oncologic) of the nipple sparing mastectomy (NSM). METHODS: Data is entered into the ASBrS NSMR, housed within the Mastery of Surgery Program, after patients consent to participation. Each investigator routinely offers NSM in their practice has obtained IRB approval and completed forms of agreement to participate in the ASBrS NSMR. RESULTS: This data set represents a total of 1,935 NSMs performed on 1,170 patients by 98 investigators from 70 institutions/sites. Of the 1,935 NSMs: 833 were performed for an indication of cancer [594 invasive carcinoma and 239 for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)] and 1,102 were prophylactic. Of the 1,170 total patients, 352 underwent a unilateral and 818 underwent a bilateral NSM. Recurrence at a mean follow-up of 31 months/median follow-up of 27 months, with a range of 9.7 to 58.3 months since surgery was 1.4% with no recurrences at the nipple or nipple areola complex (NAC). Cancer occurrence (0.3%) also did not involve the nipple/NAC. Overall patient satisfaction of excellent/good: 94.9% and overall cosmesis (surgeon rated) of excellent/good was 96.4%. Overall infection rates included flap infection of 4.4%, NAC complication rate of 4.5% (defined as necrosis/other or ischemia/epidermolysis requiring surgery), and a 10% rate of NAC epidermolysis with full recovery. CONCLUSIONS: NSMs were performed on breasts with a variety of sizes and degrees of ptosis, via multiple incisions, dissection and reconstruction techniques with low complication rates and high patient satisfaction and surgeon rated cosmesis.

How Well Informed Do Patients Feel about Their Breast Cancer Surgery Options? Findings from a Nationwide Survey of Women after Lumpectomy and/or Mastectomy.

BACKGROUND: Women diagnosed with breast cancer often describe the process of treatment decision making as bewildering and worrisome. Patients who do not feel completely informed about their surgical options might make choices that are suboptimal or regretted later. The Institute of Medicine has called for more research on why breast cancer patients are inadequately informed about treatment options. The aims of the study were to explore how women become informed about their breast cancer surgery treatment options and to identify improvement opportunities. STUDY DESIGN: A nationwide internet survey was conducted among women who reported being surgically treated by lumpectomy only (n = 215), mastectomy only (n = 140), or by both procedures (n = 132) for breast cancer. To improve generalizability, Census-based enrollment quotas were applied for geographic region, health insurance, and income. RESULTS: Only 47% (95% CI 41% to 54%) of lumpectomy-only patients, 67% (95% CI 59% to 75%) of mastectomy-only patients, and 28% (95% CI 21% to 35%) of patients having both procedures said they felt "completely informed" about treatment options before their operations. "Making a quick decision" was more important than "thoroughly researching all options" for 35% of lumpectomy-only patients, 31% of mastectomy-only patients, and 22% of patients having both procedures. Nearly all women used some other source of information to research treatment options. Lumpectomy-only and mastectomy-only patients who relied on their surgeon's recommendation without additional research were significantly less likely to report feeling "completely informed" (odds ratio 0.6; 95% CI 0.4 to 0.9; p < 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Many women who had surgery for breast cancer did not feel completely informed about their surgical options. This appears to be due, in part, to a false sense of urgency and perhaps insufficient or misdirected information gathering by patients. The responsibility for fully informing patients about their treatment options must be better fulfilled by surgeons.

A step-by-step oncoplastic breast conservation surgical atlas of reproducible dissection techniques and anatomically ideal incision placement.

PURPOSE: To develop an atlas for oncoplastic surgery (OPS) with template dissection techniques via anatomically ideal incisions for breast conservation surgery. The evolution of breast conservation techniques has evolved from placing an incision directly over the lesion to the incorporation of a thoughtful decision making process utilizing oncoplastic surgical (OPS) techniques to combining OPS with incision placement in anatomically advantageous sites. The high survival rates of breast cancer and effect of breast surgery on quality of life reinforce emphasis of optimal oncologic as well as aesthetic outcome. OPS results in greater patient satisfaction, fewer surgeries, and is oncologically safe. Today's breast surgeon is tasked with optimizing both oncologic and aesthetic outcomes. METHODS: Presentation of reproducible dissection techniques and incision placement strategies to afford surgeons a step-by-step approach of OPS via anatomically ideal incisions in breast conservation surgery. RESULTS: Demonstration of reproducible techniques to facilitate the decision making process of optimal breast conservation surgery, eliminate knowledge gaps for surgeons, optimize outcome for individuals undergoing breast conservation surgery, and decrease disparity of care. CONCLUSION: Adoption of OPS techniques utilizing an anatomically ideal incision in breast conservation surgery is a feasible and reproducible practice for breast surgeons. Application of these techniques results in maintained optimal shape, size, and contour without the typical overlying skin envelope scars. OPS techniques performed under the skin envelope result in expected OPS oncologic and aesthetic outcomes with the addition of the resulting scar(s) in anatomically discrete position(s).

Advanced locoregional therapies in breast.

BACKGROUND: Advanced locoregional therapies continue to advance the treatment of breast cancer. These techniques are geared towards optimizing oncologic and aesthetic outcome as well as decreasing and treating morbidity. We present a selection of specialized locoregional therapies dedicated to the optimization of breast cancer treatment. METHODS: Locoregional therapies for breast cancer are presented to address breast conservation techniques, lipofilling techniques, reconstruction techniques for nipple-sparing mastectomy, re-irradiating the breast, axillary reverse mapping, and vascularized lymph node transfer. RESULTS: We present a synopsis of identified breast locoregional therapies targeted to address optimal oncologic and aesthetic outcome as well as decrease and treat morbidity.