Shoulder function following oncoplastic breast conserving surgery-a narrative review.

Background and Objective: The high prevalence of breast cancer survivors makes it very relevant to investigate late morbidity following the treatment. Oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (OPS) has gained great popularity over the past years, and evidence-based knowledge suggest better prognosis for treatment with breast conserving surgery (BCS) compared to mastectomy. The aim was to investigate if OPS causes late effects on an acceptable level compared to what we know about breast surgery causing late effects. Methods: Using the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms "Breast Neoplasms", "shoulder", "oncoplast*", and "reconstruct*", the databases PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were searched on the 6th of June 2023. The literature search was managed in Covidence. We focused on studies describing late effects especially shoulder function including restrictions in mobility, reduced strength, as well as functional impairment. Key Content and Findings: Nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Different kinds of oncoplastic procedures were described-most of them described volume replacement procedures. The knowledge of shoulder morbidity following OPS is limited. The heterogeneity in the selected studies was broad. Some of the studies were small and there was a considerable variation in follow-up time. They described shoulder function based on several different evaluation methods [range of motion (ROM), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH), Quick-DASH (Q-DASH), Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and non-validated subjective questionnaires]. All studies found acceptable levels of shoulder morbidity. Conclusions: The requisite knowledge of late effects following OPS is still not available for unambiguous recommendations. This narrative review has elucidated the knowledge and has reached a conclusion based on review of the existing literature of this item. We found that the risk of decreased shoulder function caused by OPS-volume displacement as well as volume replacement-does not exceed the risk of shoulder problems seen after BCS and mastectomy with or without immediate reconstruction. Therefore, OPS can be considered if conventional BCS is not possible. But the knowledge of shoulder function after OPS is limited, and studies comparing shoulder function after OPS, BCS and mastectomy with or without immediate reconstruction are warranted.

Surgical treatment of breast cancer.

Surgical treatment of breast cancer has changed towards less invasive procedures as summarised in this review. Breast conserving surgery (BCS) and radiotherapy (RT) are now recommended as standard of care. Several flexible marking methods for removal of non-palpable tumours have gradually replaced wire-guided localisation. Neoadjuvant systemic treatment increases tumour shrinkage and BCS and may lead to omission of axillary clearance (AC). The prognostic significance of AC in patients with metastases to 1-2 sentinel nodes at primary surgery is questioned. Results from the SENOMAC trial are expected to change guidelines from AC to axillary RT.

Effectiveness of an expert assessment and individualised treatment compared with a minimal home-based exercise program in women with late-term shoulder impairments after primary breast cancer surgery: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In breast cancer patients, late-term upper limb sequelae, such as shoulder pain and impaired shoulder function, remain common after primary breast cancer surgery. The aim of this trial is to evaluate whether an expert assessment of shoulder impairments, followed by an individualised treatment plan, is superior to a minimal physiotherapeutic rehabilitation program in reducing shoulder symptoms, among women with late-term shoulder impairments after primary breast cancer. METHODS/DESIGN: The study is designed as a stratified, parallel-group, assessor-blinded, randomised, controlled trial conducted in Denmark; 130 participants with late-term shoulder impairments 3-7 years after primary surgery for breast cancer will be recruited. Participants will be randomised (allocation 1:1) to either an expert assessment of shoulder impairments followed by an individualised treatment plan or to follow a minimal physiotherapeutic rehabilitation program delivered in a pamphlet. The primary outcome will be a change in shoulder pain and function from baseline to 12 weeks after initiating the treatment, as measured by the patient-reported outcome Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) questionnaire. DISCUSSION: There has been an insufficient focus in research and clinical practice on late-term shoulder impairment in women following surgery for breast cancer. This trial will focus on interventions towards late-term shoulder impairments and is expected to provide evidence-based knowledge to physiotherapists and women about the management of shoulder pain and impaired shoulder function. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05277909. Registered on 11 March 2022.

Tumescent technique versus electrocautery mastectomy: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most common cancer in Danish women. In 2016 about 1450 (31%) Danish breast cancer patients had a mastectomy. The aim was to compare the frequency of postoperative complications in two methods of surgery, electrocautery dissection and tumescent technique, when performing a mastectomy. METHODS: Open randomized controlled trial of all consecutive primary breast cancer or DCIS female patients who underwent either a simple mastectomy or a modified radical mastectomy in Vejle Hospital, from January 2012 to October 2017. Primary outcomes were seroma production, bleeding, infection and necrosis. Secondary outcomes were duration of surgery and delay of adjuvant treatment caused by complications. Categorical outcome variables were compared between randomization groups using chi-square of Fisher exact test and continuous outcome variables by using Wilcoxon rank test. All analyses were performed at a 5% two-sided significance level. RESULTS: 357 patients met the inclusion criteria. 14 had bilateral mastectomy, i.e. 371 breasts. The two randomization groups consisted of 105 patients/107 breasts operated by tumescent technique and 98 patients/102 breasts operated by electrocautery technique. Tumescent technique produced more seroma though not significant (p = 0.631) (mean 605 vs. 630 ml). Bleeding in the tumescent group was 10.3% vs. 5.9% in the electrocautery group (p = 0.245). Infection (5.9% vs. 7.5% p = 0.645) and necrosis (4.9% vs. 4.7% p = 0.938) was uncommon with no difference between the intervention groups. Infection was most common cause of delay of adjuvant treatment; 3.9% in the electrocautery technique group. No significant difference in duration of surgery (p = 0.392). CONCLUSION: Both techniques are equally safe for simple and modified radical mastectomy.

Subtyping of male breast cancer by PAM50 and immunohistochemistry: a pilot study of a consecutive Danish cohort.

Male breast cancer (MBC) is a rare disease that is still to be fully understood. In female breast cancer, molecular subtyping by gene expression has proven its significance. In this study, we characterize a consecutive cohort of MBC patients surgically treated from 1997 to 2017, identified at our institution (N = 37), and report the association between molecular subtypes found by a surrogate panel of immunohistochemical (IHC) markers, and the PAM50 signature, as well as risk of recurrence score and overall survival for the different subtypes. PAM50 subtypes were determined using the nCounter FLEX system instrument and software. The distribution of molecular subtypes according to the PAM50 signature was as follows: 56% luminal B, 39% luminal A, and 5% basal-like. None of the tumors were HER2-enriched. Using IHC surrogate markers, we found 80% luminal B-like, 15% luminal A-like, and 5% basal-like. None were HER2-positive (non-luminal). We found a strong statistical association between subtypes found by PAM50 signature and the IHC surrogate markers (p < 0.001). Furthermore, we found luminal A tumors to be smaller in size compared to luminal B tumors (p = 0.04). Patients with luminal A subtype tumors had the lowest ROR scores with a mean of 39, whereas patients with luminal B subtype tumors had a mean ROR score of 69. Significant worse overall survival for luminal B tumors compared to luminal A tumors was seen (p = 0.02). Male breast cancer seems to be a mainly luminal disease, with luminal B being the most frequent subtype. Further studies are needed to ensure correct therapeutic strategies for this select group of patients.

Male breast cancer: clinicopathological characterization of a National Danish cohort 1980-2009.

BACKGROUND: To describe relevant pathological parameters of Danish male breast cancer patients (MBCP) diagnosed from 1980 to 2009, and to relate these data to treatment, overall survival (OS) and standardized mortality rate (SMR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The MBCP cohort was defined from national Danish registers. A total of 643 MBCP were identified with tissue available in 457. Among these, 384 were primary operable. Where tissue blocks were available, tumor type, grade, estrogen receptor (ER), progesteron receptor (PgR) and androgen-receptor (AR) status as well as HER 2 and Ki67 were performed. OS was quantified by Kaplan-Meier estimates and SMR was calculated based on mortality rate among patients relative to the mortality rate in the general population. RESULTS: Male breast cancer was more often of ductal type, grade II and a very high proportion were ER and AR positive and HER2 negative. Intrinsic subtypes based on immunohistochemical evaluation showed luminal subtype. Ki67 ratio increased over period of study. OS declined by increased age, bigger tumor size, positive lymph node status, higher grade and Luminal B subtype. Hazard ratio and relative risk of SMR were highest for patients aged < 60 years. CONCLUSION: Male breast cancer is of luminal subtype, but more often Luminal B. Ki67 is crucial in evaluation of subtypes by immunohistochemistry, but have limitations. Subtyping seems to be of major importance. AR also can have a role in future treatment.