Mastectomía preservadora de piel con colgajo dermograso desepitelizado (técnica de Spira modificada) y reconstrucción mediante implante directo / Nipple sparing mastectomy with a de-epithelialized derma-fat flap (modified Spira technique) and direct-to implant reconstruction

Introducción: La técnica de Spira es un tipo de mastectomía preservadora de piel que permite la reconstrucción inmediata (RMI), ideal en mamas ptósicas. Si bien, persiste controversia sobre resultados oncológicos en el cáncer de mama. El objetivo es analizar complicaciones, secuelas cosméticas, causas de reintervención y resultados oncológicos. Métodos: Estudio observacional retrospectivo de pacientes intervenidas durante 2003-2018 en nuestro centro. La población de estudio la constituyen pacientes con carcinoma de mama o sometidas a mastectomía profiláctica por alto riesgo, en las que se realizó una mastectomía preservadora de piel con colgajo dermograso desepitelizado (técnica de Spira modificada) y reconstrucción mediante implante directo. Se analiza la presencia de complicaciones precoces y tardías, secuelas, recidiva tumoral y supervivencia. Resultados: Se realizaron 247 mastectomías con reconstrucción en 139 pacientes, 216 bilaterales (87,4%) y 31 unilaterales (12,5%); 121 terapéuticas (49%) y 126 profilácticas (51%). La mediana de seguimiento fue de 81 meses. Se observaron complicaciones en un 16,2%; necrosis cutánea en 5,3% y cinco casos de necrosis del CAP (2%). La tasa de reintervención por secuelas cosméticas fue del 17,4% (la más frecuente fue contractura capsular 11,3%) y, de ellas, el 39,3% recibieron RT. La tasa de recidiva fue del 14% (0,8% cutánea, 3,3% locorregional y 9,9% a distancia). Ocho pacientes fallecieron (6,6%). La SLE y SG fue del 92,6% y 93,3% a cinco años. Conclusión: La técnica de Spira constituye una opción segura y ofrece buenos resultados cosméticos y oncológicos como tratamiento y profilaxis de cáncer de mama en mamas ptósicas de moderado a gran tamaño. (AU)

Introduction: Spira technique is a type of nipple-sparing mastectomy that allows immediate reconstruction (IBR), ideal for ptosic breasts. Although, controversy persists regarding oncological results in breast cancer. The aim is to analyze complications, cosmetic outcomes, causes of reoperation and oncological results. Methods: Retrospective observational analysis of patients undergone surgery during 2003-2018 in our center. Study population is based on patients with breast carcinoma or undergoing prophylactic mastectomy due to high-risk, in which a skin-sparing mastectomy with a de-epithelialized derma-fat flap (modified Spira technique) and direct to implant reconstruction was performed. Short and long-term complications, sequelae, tumor recurrence and survival rates are analyzed. Results: A total of 247 mastectomies with immediate reconstruction in 139 patients, 216 bilateral (87.4%) and 31 unilateral (12.5%) were performed. 121 therapeutic (49%) and 126 prophylactic (51%). Median follow-up 81 months. Complications were observed in 16.2%; skin necrosis 5.3% and 5 cases of NAC necrosis (2%). Reoperation rate due to cosmetic sequelae was 17.4% (capsular contracture was the most frequent,11.3%) and a 39.3% of these patients have received RT. Recurrence of 14% (0.8% skin, 3.3% locoregional and 9.9% metastatic), 8 patients died (6.6%). Rates of FSD and OS were 92.6% and 93.3% respectively. Conclusion: Spira mastectomy is a safe option and provides good cosmetic and oncologic results as breast cancer treatment and prophylaxis in moderate-large ptosic breasts. (AU)

Nipple sparing mastectomy with a de-epithelialized derma-fat flap (modified Spira technique) and direct-to implant reconstruction. / Mastectomía preservadora de piel con colgajo dermograso desepitelizado (técnica de Spira modificada) y reconstrucción mediante implante directo.

INTRODUCTION: Spira technique is a type of nipple-sparing mastectomy that allows immediate reconstruction (IBR), ideal for ptosic breasts. Although, controversy persists regarding oncological results in breast cancer. The aim is to analyze complications, cosmetic outcomes, causes of reoperation and oncological results. METHODS: Retrospective observational analysis of patients undergone surgery during 2003-2018 in our center. Study population is based on patients with breast carcinoma or undergoing prophylactic mastectomy due to high-risk, in which a skin-sparing mastectomy with a de-epithelialized derma-fat flap (modified Spira technique) and direct to implant reconstruction was performed. Short and long-term complications, sequelae, tumor recurrence and survival rates are analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 247 mastectomies with immediate reconstruction in 139 patients, 216 bilateral (87.4%) and 31 unilateral (12.5%) were performed. 121 therapeutic (49%) and 126 prophylactic (51%). Median follow-up 81 months. Complications were observed in 16.2%; skin necrosis 5.3% and 5 cases of NAC necrosis (2%). Reoperation rate due to cosmetic sequelae was 17.4% (capsular contracture was the most frequent,11.3%) and a 39.3% of these patients have received RT. Recurrence of 14% (0.8% skin, 3.3% locoregional and 9.9% metastatic), 8 patients died (6.6%). Rates of FSD and OS were 92.6% and 93.3% respectively. CONCLUSION: Spira mastectomy is a safe option and provides good cosmetic and oncologic results as breast cancer treatment and prophylaxis in moderate-large ptosic breasts.

Mastectomía ahorradora de piel y pezón en carcinoma ductal in situ. Seguridad oncológica a 10 años / Nipple-sparing mastectomy in ductal carcinoma in situ. Oncological results over a 10-year period

OBJETIVO: El objetivo es evaluar la seguridad oncológica a 10 años de la mastectomía ahorradora de piel y pezón (MAP) en pacientes con carcinoma ductal in situ (CDIS). MÉTODO: Análisis observacional retrospectivo. Se realizaron 35 MAP en pacientes con CDIS durante 2005-2018. Evaluamos resultados histológicos, oncológicos y de morbilidad. RESULTADOS: Las indicaciones más frecuentes fueron márgenes afectos tras tumorectomía (31,5%), multifocalidad/multicéntricidad (22,8%), tumor >3 cm (8,6%) correlación desfavorable tamaño tumoral/mama (8,6%) y decisión de la paciente (8,6%). La técnica más usada fue incisión lateral externa en 11 pacientes, seguida de técnica de Spira en nueve casos. La presencia de CDIS se confirmó en 22 pacientes y en 11 no se encontró tumor en la pieza de mastectomía. La tasa de complicaciones fue 22,8%. Tras una mediana de seguimiento de 104 meses (DE 69,9) no se observó necrosis del pezón. Un 20% de pacientes precisó reintervención a largo plazo. Once pacientes (31,4%) recibieron tratamiento adyuvante (QT y/o RT). Solamente una paciente presentó recurrencia local (2,8%) 28 meses tras la intervención. Una paciente presentó metástasis tras 78 meses de SLE. Las tasas de SLE y SG fueron 94,3% y 97,22%. El análisis univariante mostró dos factores de riesgo de recurrencia: edad <40 [OR (IC95) 2,529 (1,230 - 5,199)] y márgenes afectos [OR (IC95) 5,242 (2,041 - 13,464)]. CONCLUSIÓN: La MAP es factible y segura en pacientes con CDIS no candidatas a cirugía conservadora

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the oncological safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) in patients with ductal in situ carcinoma (DCIS) over a 10-year period. METHOD: Retrospective observational analysis. A total of 35 NSM were performed in patients with DCIS from 2005 - 2018. We assessed the histological, oncological and morbidity results. RESULTS: The most frequent indications were margin involvement after lumpectomy (31.5%), multifocality / multicentricity (22.8%), tumour size >3 cm (8.6%) unfavourable tumour / breast size correlation (8.6%) and patient choice (8.6%). The most commonly used technique was external lateral incision in 11 patients, followed by the Spira technique in 9 patients. DCIS was confirmed in 22 patients and no tumour was found in mastectomy specimen in 11 patients. The complication rate was 22.8%. After a median follow-up of 104 months (SD 69.9) there was no nipple necrosis. In all, 20% of the patients required long-term reintervention. Eleven patients (31.4%) underwent adjuvant treatment (chemotherapy and / or radiotherapy). Only one patient showed local recurrence (2.8%) 28 months after the intervention. One patient developed metastases after 78 months of disease-free survival (DFS). DFS and overall survival rates were 94.3% and 97.22%. Univariate analysis showed two risk factors for recurrence: age <40 years [OR (95% CI) 2.529 (1.230-5.199)] and margin involvement [OR (95% CI) 5.242 (2.041 - 13.464)]. CONCLUSION: NSM is safe and feasible in patients with DCIS who are not candidates for conservative surgery

Reconstrucción inmediata mediante implante directo tras quimioterapia neoadyuvante. ¿Es una práctica segura? / Direct-to-implant breast reconstruction after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: A safe option?

Introducción: La reconstrucción inmediata (RMI) tras mastectomía en pacientes que han recibido quimioterapia neoadyuvante (QTNA) sigue siendo controvertida. El objetivo de este estudio es analizar y comparar resultados oncológicos y las tasas de complicaciones y reintervención en pacientes sometidas a QTNA y un grupo control. Métodos: Análisis observacional retrospectivo de casos-controles. Pacientes con cáncer de mama intervenidas de mastectomía bilateral con RMI (MBRMI) mediante prótesis directa durante el periodo 2000-2016. Grupo que recibió QTNA emparejadas máximo 1:5 respecto a las pacientes sin QTNA (grupo control). Evaluamos diferencias entre grupos mediante test χ2 o Fisher (variables cualitativas), U de Mann-Whitney o t de Student (variables cuantitativas). Análisis de supervivencia mediante curvas de Kaplan-Meier y test de log-rank (SPSS 22.0). Resultados: Un total de 171 pacientes con MBRMI, 62 pacientes (36,3%) tras QTNA y 109 pacientes (63,7%) en grupo control sin QTNA. Mediana de seguimiento de 52,0 (RIQ: 23,0-94,0) meses. La indicación para practicar una MBRMI más frecuente en ambos grupos es la elección de la paciente (32,7%). No hay diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre los grupos en cuanto a tasa de complicaciones (24,2% en el grupo QTNA y 19,3% en el grupo control [p = 0,44]). Sí existen diferencias en resultados oncológicos. Las pacientes del grupo QTNA tienen 3 veces más riesgo que las pacientes del grupo control de presentar recidiva en un momento determinado del tiempo (3,009 [1,349-6,713]) según el análisis univariante. Conclusiones: La RMI mediante prótesis directa tras mastectomías ahorradoras de piel es una opción viable de tratamiento para pacientes con cáncer de mama que reciben QTNA

Introduction: Immediate reconstruction (IBR) after mastectomy in patients who have received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) remains controversial. The aim of this study is to analyze and compare oncological results as well as complication and reoperation rates in patients undergoing NACT and a control group. Methods: Retrospective observational case-control study of patients with breast cancer who underwent bilateral mastectomy and direct-to-implant IBR (BMIBR) from 2000-2016. The group that received NACT was matched 1:5 to patients without NACT (Control group). We evaluated differences between groups using the χ2 or Fisher test (qualitative variables), Mann-Whitney U or Student's t-test (quantitative variables). The survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank test (SPSS 22.0). Results: The study included a total of 171 patients with BMIBR: 62 patients (36.3%) after NACT and 109 patients (63.7%) in the control group without NACT. Median follow-up was 52.0 (IQR: 23.0-94.0) months. In both groups, the indication for BMIBR was patient choice (32.7%). There were no statistically significant differences between groups in terms of complication rate (24.2% in the NACT group and 19.3% in the control group [P = .44]), but differences in oncological results were found. Patients in the NACT Group had three times more risk of recurrence at a given time than patients in the control group (3.009 [1.349-6.713]) according to the univariate analysis. Conclusions: Direct-to-implant IBR after skin-sparing mastectomy is a viable option for breast cancer patients undergoing NACT

Direct-to-implant breast reconstruction after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: A safe option? / Reconstrucción inmediata mediante implante directo tras quimioterapia neoadyuvante. ¿Es una práctica segura?

INTRODUCTION: Immediate reconstruction (IBR) after mastectomy in patients who have received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) remains controversial. The aim of this study is to analyze and compare oncological results as well as complication and reoperation rates in patients undergoing NACT and a control group. METHODS: Retrospective observational case-control study of patients with breast cancer who underwent bilateral mastectomy and direct-to-implant IBR (BMIBR) from 2000-2016. The group that received NACT was matched 1:5 to patients without NACT (Control group). We evaluated differences between groups using the χ2 or Fisher test (qualitative variables), Mann-Whitney U or Student's t-test (quantitative variables). The survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank test (SPSS 22.0). RESULTS: The study included a total of 171 patients with BMIBR: 62 patients (36.3%) after NACT and 109 patients (63.7%) in the control group without NACT. Median follow-up was 52.0 (IQR: 23.0-94.0) months. In both groups, the indication for BMIBR was patient choice (32.7%). There were no statistically significant differences between groups in terms of complication rate (24.2% in the NACT group and 19.3% in the control group [P=.44]), but differences in oncological results were found. Patients in the NACT Group had three times more risk of recurrence at a given time than patients in the control group (3.009 [1.349-6.713]) according to the univariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Direct-to-implant IBR after skin-sparing mastectomy is a viable option for breast cancer patients undergoing NACT.