Effect of surgical complications on outcomes in breast cancer patients treated with mastectomy and immediate reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Operative complications affect recurrence in non-breast malignancies. Rising rates of mastectomy with immediate reconstruction and their increased post-operative complications fuel concerns for poorer outcome in breast cancer (BC). We sought to determine the effect of complications on recurrence in BC patients. METHODS: A single-institution retrospective review was conducted of incident BC treated with mastectomy and immediate reconstruction. Overall survival and recurrence were compared between patients with complications to those without. RESULTS: Of 201 patients (350 mastectomies, 86 nipple-sparing), 62 (30.8%) had a surgical complication. Patients with complications were older, but groups were similar for type of reconstruction, tobacco use, hormone receptor status, HER2, lymphovascular invasion, and pathologic stage (all p > 0.05). Twenty-two complications (10.9%) were infection, 5 (2.5%) dehiscence, 14 flap necrosis (7%), 21 hematomas (10.4%), and 8 nipple necroses (9%). Recurrence occurred in 18 (8.9%) patients: 4 local, 2 regional, and 12 distant. After 8.9 years of median follow-up, patients with complications trended towards higher recurrence (hazard ratio (HR) 2.23, log-rank p = 0.08, Cox regression p = 0.05), particularly with nipple necrosis (HR 3.28, log-rank p = 0.09, regression p = 0.06). Patients with other complications had similar recurrence-free survival to those without (all p > 0.05). Higher stage (HR 13.66, log-rank p = 0.03) and adjuvant radiation (HR 2.78, log-rank p = 0.04) cases were more likely to recur. Patients with complications had similar overall survival to those without (log-rank p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: BC patients with surgical complications do not have lower overall survival. This finding may be due to the improved prognosis compared to non-breast malignancies.

Usefulness of comprehensive cardiothoracic computed tomography in the evaluation of acute undifferentiated chest discomfort in the emergency department (CAPTURE).

Newer cardiac computed tomographic (CT) technology has permitted comprehensive cardiothoracic evaluations for coronary artery disease, pulmonary embolism, and aortic dissection within a single breath hold, independent of the heart rate. We conducted a randomized diagnostic trial to compare the efficiency of a comprehensive cardiothoracic CT examination in the evaluation of patients presenting to the emergency department with undifferentiated acute chest discomfort or dyspnea. We randomized the emergency department patients clinically scheduled to undergo a dedicated CT protocol to assess coronary artery disease, pulmonary embolism, or aortic dissection to either the planned dedicated CT protocol or a comprehensive cardiothoracic CT protocol. All CT examinations were performed using a 64-slice dual source CT scanner. The CT results were immediately communicated to the emergency department providers, who directed further management at their discretion. The subjects were then followed for the remainder of their hospitalization and for 30 days after hospitalization. Overall, 59 patients (mean age 51.2 ± 11.4 years, 72.9% men) were randomized to either dedicated (n = 30) or comprehensive (n = 29) CT scanning. No significant difference was found in the median length of stay (7.6 vs 8.2 hours, p = 0.79), rate of hospital discharge without additional imaging (70% vs 69%, p = 0.99), median interval to exclusion of an acute event (5.2 vs 6.5 hours, p = 0.64), costs of care (p = 0.16), or the number of revisits (p = 0.13) between the dedicated and comprehensive arms, respectively. In addition, radiation exposure (11.3 mSv vs 12.8 mSv, p = 0.16) and the frequency of incidental findings requiring follow-up (24.1% vs 33.3%, p = 0.57) were similar between the 2 arms. Comprehensive cardiothoracic CT scanning was feasible, with a similar diagnostic yield to dedicated protocols. However, it did not reduce the length of stay, rate of subsequent testing, or costs. In conclusion, although this "triple rule out" protocol might be helpful in the evaluation of select patients, these findings suggest that it should not be used routinely with the expectation that it will improve efficiency or reduce resource use.