Effect of Immediate Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy With and Without Acellular Dermal Matrix Among Women With Breast Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in implant-based breast reconstructions (IBBRs) is established practice. Existing evidence validating ADMs proposed advantages, including improved cosmetics and more single-stage IBBRs, is lacking. Objective: To evaluate whether IBBR with ADM results in fewer reoperations and increased health-related quality of life (HRQoL) compared with conventional IBBR without ADM. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was an open-label, multicenter, randomized clinical trial of women with primary breast cancer who planned for mastectomy and immediate IBBR, with a 2-year follow-up for all participants. Participants were enrolled at 5 breast cancer units in Sweden and the United Kingdom between 2014 and May 2017. Exclusion criteria included previous radiotherapy and neo-adjuvant chemotherapy. Data were analyzed until August 2017. Interventions: Participants were allocated to immediate IBBR with or without ADM. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary trial end point was number of reoperations at 2 years. HRQoL, a secondary end point, was measured as patient-reported outcome measures using 3 instruments from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of life Questionnaire. Results: From start of enrollment on April 24, 2014, to close of trial on May 10, 2017, a total of 135 women were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 50.4 [9.5] years); 64 were assigned to have an IBBR procedure with ADM and 65 to the control group who had IBBR without ADM. There was no statistically significant difference between groups for the primary outcome. Of 129 patients analyzed at 2-year follow-up, 44 of 64 (69%) had at least 1 surgical event in the ADM group vs 43 of 65 (66%) in the control group. In the ADM group, 31 patients (48%) had at least 1 reoperation on the ipsilateral side vs 35 (54%) in the control group. The overall number of reoperations on the ipsilateral side were 42 and 43 respectively. Within the follow-up time of 24 months, 9 patients (14%) in the ADM group had the implant removed compared with 7 (11%) in the control group. We found no significant mean differences in postoperative patient-reported HRQoL domains, including perception of body image (mean difference, 3; 99% CI, -11 to 17; P = .57) and satisfaction with cosmetic outcome (mean difference, 8; 99% CI, -6 to 20; P = .11). Conclusions and Relevance: Immediate IBBR with ADM did not yield fewer reoperations compared with conventional IBBR without ADM, nor was IBBR with ADM superior in terms of HRQoL or patient-reported cosmetic outcomes. Patients treated for breast cancer contemplating ADM-supported IBBR should be informed about the lack of evidence validating ADM's suggested benefits. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02061527.

Implant Based Breast Reconstruction With Acellular Dermal Matrix: Safety Data From an Open-label, Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Trial in the Setting of Breast Cancer Treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate clinical outcomes of using acellular dermal matrix (ADM) with implant based breast reconstructions (IBBRs) in a randomized controlled trial. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The use of ADMs in IBBRs is widespread, but link between ADM and complications remain a controversial topic. In view of reports concerning harm, we present 6-months safety data of ADM-assisted IBBR in the setting of breast cancer treatment. METHODS: An open-label, randomized, controlled trial recruiting patients from 4 centers in Sweden and 1 in UK. Eligible were women with breast cancer planned for mastectomy with immediate IBBR. Participants were randomly allocated to IBBR with or without ADM (Strattice, Branchburg, NJ), with stratification by center in blocks of 6. Main primary endpoint was number of unplanned reoperations at 24 months, and safety expressed as the incidence of adverse events with a 6-month follow-up time for all participants. Analysis were done per protocol using Fisher exact test for complications and reoperations. RESULTS: From start of enrolment on April 24, 2014, to close of trial on May 10, 2017, 135 women were enrolled, of whom 64 with ADM and 65 without ADM were included in the final analysis. Four patients (6%) in each group had reconstructive failure with implant loss, but IBBR with ADM exhibited a trend of more overall complications and reoperations (difference 0·16, 95% CI, -0·01 to 0·32, P = 0·070), and with higher risk of wound healing problems (P = 0·013). CONCLUSIONS: With 6-months follow-up for all participants, immediate IBBR with ADM carried a risk of implant loss equal to conventional IBBR without ADM, but was associated with more adverse outcomes requiring surgical intervention. Further investigation of risk factors and patient selection in a long-term follow-up is warranted.