Oncoplastic surgery in the USA: a review of where we started, where we are today and where we are headed.

The surgical management of breast cancer has evolved tremendously over the last century and now includes oncoplastic techniques that improve both cosmetic and oncologic outcomes for patients. The purpose of this review is to provide the reader with a broad overview of the history of oncoplastic breast surgery in the United States (USA), and to summarize important patient factors and technical innovations for optimal operative planning in the era of multimodal treatment of breast cancer. The indications for oncoplastic surgery (OPS) have broadened significantly as more women pursue breast conservation with preservation of their native breast tissue. The operative philosophy of OPS is based on fundamental reconstructive principles, with technique selection based largely on tumor size and location. Reduction mammoplasty and mastopexy techniques have become some of the most utilized procedures in OPS due to their versatility to address tumors in almost all areas of the breast. Volume replacement techniques with locoregional perforator flaps continue to gain popularity as a single-stage reconstructive option for women with large tumor to breast ratios, especially with specialized plastic surgeons at high volume, academic centers. The oncologic advantages of OPS have allowed women to avoid mastectomy with improved margin control, re-excision rates, and equivalent overall survival all while preserving the aesthetic outcomes for these patients. Despite the proven benefits of OPS, numerous healthcare systems barriers including insurance status, geographic location, referral patterns, and racial disparities all continue to play a role in access to surgical sub-specialized breast oncology care demonstrating the need for ongoing research and education about oncoplastic principles.

Impact of Oncoplastic Surgery on Oncologic Outcomes in Patients with Breast Cancer.

Background: For patients with breast cancer, oncoplastic surgery (OPS) serves as a valuable technique that allows for immediate reconstruction at the time of resection. While the aim of OPS is to improve breast cosmesis, it is critical to ensure OPS does not negatively impact appropriate cancer treatment. Methods: Based on current literature, this study provides a broad overview on the potential oncologic advantages of OPS for patients diagnosed with breast cancer. Results: OPS has been shown to be a safe and reliable approach with oncologic advantages. More specifically, OPS broadens the indications for breast conservation therapy (BCT); allows for a more generous margin of resection, thus decreasing rates of re-excision; and provides the opportunity to sample additional breast tissue, which may detect occult disease. Reduction mammaplasty may also decrease the risk for developing breast cancer. Importantly, in the era of multimodality therapy, long-term oncologic outcomes and postoperative surveillance algorithms appear to be similar when comparing patients who undergo OPS and BCT. Conclusions: For patients with breast cancer, oncoplastic surgery has emerged as a valuable technique to improve breast cosmesis while achieving optimal oncologic outcomes. As the landscape of breast oncology continues to evolve, it is critical for a multidisciplinary team to be involved to guide management and reconstructive strategies.

Did Medicaid Expansion Mitigate Disparities in Post-mastectomy Reconstruction Rates?

BACKGROUND: Patient and socioeconomic factors both contribute to disparities in post-mastectomy reconstruction (PMR) rates. We sought to explore PMR patterns across the US and to determine if PMR rates were associated with Medicaid expansion. METHODS: The NCDB was used to identify women who underwent PMR between 2004-2016. The data was stratified by race, state Medicaid expansion status, and region. A multivariate model was fit to determine the association between Medicaid expansion and receipt of PMR. RESULTS: In comparison to Caucasian women receiving PMR in Medicaid expansion states, African American (AA) women in Medicaid expansion states were less likely to receive PMR (OR .96 [.92-1.00] P < .001). Patients in the Northeast (NE) had better PMR rates vs any other region in the US, for both Caucasian and AA women (Caucasian NE ref, Caucasian-South .80 [.77-.83] vs AA NE 1.11 [1.04-1.19], AA-South (.60 [.58-.63], P < .001). Interestingly, AA patients residing in the NE had the highest receipt of PMR 1.11 (1.04-1.19), even higher than their Caucasian counterparts residing in the same region (ref). Rural AA women had the lowest rates of PMR vs rural Caucasian women (.40 [.28-.58] vs .79 [.73-.85], P < .001]. DISCUSSION: Racial disparities in PMR rates persisted despite Medicaid expansion. When stratified by region, however, AA patients in the NE had higher rates of PMR than AA women in other regions. The largest disparities were seen in AA women in the rural US. Breast cancer disparities continue to be a complex problem that was not entirely mitigated by improved insurance coverage.