Surgical and patient-reported outcomes in an Asian female population with or without adjuvant radiotherapy after immediate free perforator flap breast reconstruction: A retrospective review.

Background: The majority of English literature has reported on the somewhat conflicted outcomes of the effect of radiotherapy on immediate breast reconstruction. However, data specifically related to patients of Asian descent has been scarce. This retrospective study aims to shed light on this topic to aid in the management of this group of patients. Methods: All patients who received immediate free perforator flap-based breast reconstruction under a single surgeon over a 10-year period were included in the study. Patient characteristics, oncological and surgical data were collected. Patients were divided into post-mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) and non-PMRT groups. The final aesthetic outcome was assessed by a surgeon-reported outcome questionnaire. Patient satisfaction and psychological outcomes were assessed using validated patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaire (BREAST-Q), breast reconstruction, and postoperative module. Results: A total of 101 women, with an average age of 44.7 ± 8.4 underwent perforator flap-based reconstruction. Fifteen patients received PMRT, with remaining 86 patients in the non-PMRT group. The mean duration of follow-up was over 5 years (p = 0.514). The recurrence rate was acceptable in the PMRT group (3/15, p = 0.129). There were no significant differences in complication rates between the two groups (p = 1.000). The aesthetic outcomes were comparable (p = 0.342). PRO appears to be lower in the PMRT group. Conclusions: Immediate breast reconstruction with PMRT in the local patient cohort is oncologically safe, acceptable complication profile, revision rate, and aesthetic outcome. PRO showed lower scores in several categories, which differ from normative data generated in the Western population. Further studies will need to examine the confounding effects of radiation in this specific population.

Radiation and free flaps: what is the optimal timing?

The debate over when to perform flaps in patients undergoing radiation remains an ongoing dilemma without definitive resolution. Classically, reconstructive surgeons recommended avoiding exposure of autologous flaps to radiotherapy due to concerns over surgical complications and poor aesthetic outcomes. However, delayed reconstruction carries its own risk profile and aesthetic limitations, given the irreversible changes to the breast envelope. Immediate reconstruction not only confers psychosocial benefits but allows for preservation of the native breast skin and footprint. In recent years, a growing body of evidence suggests that with modern radiation techniques, long-term outcomes of immediate vs. delayed autologous reconstruction may be more similar than previously thought. This review examines the advantages and disadvantages of each treatment algorithm and critically evaluates the existing literature on autologous breast reconstruction in the setting of post-mastectomy radiotherapy. Importantly, radiation regimens have varied widely over time and between institutions, introducing significant heterogeneity in published outcomes of flap contracture or fat necrosis after immediate reconstruction. While delayed autologous reconstruction remains a reasonable pathway, the benefits of immediate reconstruction should not be dismissed. Our findings ultimately corroborate the view that immediate flap reconstruction is a sound treatment option that can be safely offered to patients. The decision regarding which pathway to pursue should ultimately be patient-centric and driven by multidisciplinary consensus, rather than by prior dogma.

Post-mastectomy radiotherapy: Impact of bolus thickness and irradiation technique on skin dose.

PURPOSE: To determine 10 MV IMRT and VMAT based protocols with a daily bolus targeting a skin dose of 45 Gy in order to replace the 6 MV tangential fields with a 5 mm thick bolus on alternate days method for post-mastectomy radiotherapy. METHOD: We measured the mean surface dose along the chest wall PTV as a function of different bolus thicknesses for sliding window IMRT and VMAT plans. We analyzed surface dose profiles and dose homogeneities and compared them to our standard 6 MV strategy. All measurements were performed on a thorax phantom with Gafchromic films while dosimetric plans were computed using the Acuros XB algorithm (Varian). RESULTS: We obtained the best compromise between measured surface dose (mean dose and homogeneity) and skin toxicity threshold obtained from the literature using a daily 3 mm thick bolus. Mean surface doses were 91.4 ±â€¯2.8% [85.7% - 95.4%] and 92.2 ±â€¯2.3% [85.6% - 95.2%] of the prescribed dose with IMRT and VMAT techniques, respectively. Our standard 6 MV alternate days 5 mm thick bolus leads to 89.0 ±â€¯3.7% [83.6% - 95.5%]. Mean dose differences between measured and TPS results were < 3.2% for depths as low as 2 mm depth. CONCLUSION: 10 MV IMRT-based protocols with a daily 3 mm thick bolus produce a surface dose comparable to the standard 6 MV 5 mm thick bolus on alternate days method but with an improved surface dose homogeneity. This allows for a better control of skin toxicity and target volume coverage.

The transition in practice to reduce bolus use in post-mastectomy radiotherapy: A dosimetric study of skin and subcutaneous tissue.

To inform clinical practice for women receiving post-mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT), this study demonstrates the dosimetric impact of removing daily bolus on skin and subcutaneous tissue. Two planning strategies were used: clinical field-based (n = 30) and volume-based planning (n = 10). The clinical field-based plans were created with bolus and recalculated without bolus for comparison. The volume-based plans were created with bolus to ensure a minimum target coverage of the chest wall PTV and recalculated without bolus. In each scenario, the dose to superficial structures, including skin (3 mm and 5 mm) and subcutaneous tissue (a 2 mm layer, 3 mm deep from surface) were reported. Additionally, the difference in the clinically evaluated dosimetry to skin and subcutaneous tissue in volume-based plans were recalculated using Acuros (AXB) and compared to the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) algorithm. For all treatment planning strategies, chest wall coverage (V90%) was maintained. As expected, superficial structures demonstrate significant loss in coverage. The largest difference observed in the most superficial 3 mm where V90% coverage is reduced from a mean (± standard deviation) of 95.1% (± 2.8) to 18.9% (± 5.6) for clinical field-based treatments with and without bolus, respectively. For volume-based planning, the subcutaneous tissue maintains a V90% of 90.5% (± 7.0) compared to the clinical field-based planning coverage of 84.4% (± 8.0). In all skin and subcutaneous tissue, the AAA algorithm underestimates the volume of the 90% isodose. Removing bolus results in minimal dosimetric differences in the chest wall and significantly lower skin dose while dose to the subcutaneous tissue is maintained. Unless the skin has disease involvement, the most superficial 3 mm is not considered part of the target volume. The continued use of the AAA algorithm is supported for the PMRT setting.

Dosimetric evaluation of VMAT and helical tomotherapy techniques comparing conventional volumes with clinical target volumes based on new ESTRO ACROP post-mastectomy with immediate implant reconstruction contouring guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The ESTRO-ACROP Consensus Guideline (EACG) recommends implant excluded clinical target volume (CTVp) definitions for post-mastectomy radiation therapy after implant-based immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). The purpose of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of Helical Tomotherapy (HTp) and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMATp) treatment techniques in terms of CTVp coverage and reduced organ at risk (OAR), normal tissue and implant doses when CTVp was used for treatment planning as the target structure instead of conventional CTV. METHODS: Eight left-sided and eight right-sided breast cancer patients who underwent IBR after mastectomy were included in this study. Planning CT data sets were acquired during free breathing and patients were treated with HT technique targeted to conventional CTV. Retrospectively, CTVp was delineated based on EACG by the same radiation oncologist, and treatment plans with HTp and VMATp techniques were generated based on CTVp. For each patient, relevant dosimetric parameters were obtained from three different treatment plans. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference on target coverage in terms of, PTVp-D95, PTVp-Vpres, homogeneity index (p > 0.05) between HTp and VMATp plans. But, the conformity numbers were significantly higher (HTp vs VMATp, 0.69 ± 0.15 vs 0.79 ± 0.12) for VMATp (Z = - 2.17, p = 0.030). While HTp significantly lowered Dmax and Dmean for LAD (LAD-Dmax: χ2 = 12.25, p = 0.002 and LAD-Dmean: χ2 = 12.30, p = 0.002), neither HTp nor VMATp could reduce maximum and mean dose to heart (p > 0.05). Furthermore, heart volume receiving 5 Gy was significantly higher for VMATp when compared to HTp (21.2 ± 9.8 vs 42.7 ± 24.8, p: 0.004). Both techniques succeeded in reducing the mean dose to implant (HTp vs HT, p < 0.001; VMATp vs HT, p < 0.001; VMATp vs HTp, p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Both HTp and VMATp techniques succeeded to obtain conformal and homogeneous dose distributions within CTVp while reducing the mean implant dose. HTp was found to be superior to VMATp with regards to lowering all OAR doses except for CB.

Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy in the Setting of Two-Stage Retropectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Should It be Delivered Before or After Implant Exchange? A Retrospective Analysis on 183 Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) has a primary role in the treatment of locally advanced breast cancer; however, the most appropriate timing of irradiation in immediate tissue expander breast reconstruction (ITEBR) still remains unknown. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on all women undergoing mastectomy and retropectoral ITEBR at Campus Bio-Medico University Hospital in Rome, Italy, between 2010 and 2019. The patients were categorized into three cohorts: patients undergoing PMRT with the tissue expander (TE) in situ, patients with PMRT delivered to the permanent implant (PI), patients who were not administered RT. Complications and failure rates were analysed and compared. Potential predictors of adverse outcomes were analysed. RESULTS: Over 10 years, 183 patients underwent retropectoral ITEBR (55 PMRT-TE, 50 PMRT-PI, 78 no-PMRT). The three groups were well matched with respect to patient- and treatment-related factors (p > 0.05), with the exception of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and irradiation. The mean follow-up was, respectively, 4.58, 7 and 5.75 years. Radiotherapy either to the TE or to the PI was independently associated with failure and conversion to autologous procedures (p < 0.0001). Failure rate was significantly higher when TE was irradiated (p = 0.03). PMRT was associated with severe capsular contracture development (p < 0.00001), the odds being higher when irradiation was delivered after implant exchange (p = 0.04). Increased BMI was significantly associated with failure. CONCLUSIONS: When PMRT is delivered to the TE, the risk of failure is higher (OR 2.77); when the PI is irradiated, reconstruction will more likely be affected by severe capsular contracture (OR 2.7). However, considering that the overall risk of severe capsular contracture correlated to PMRT is higher than failure, we believe that irradiation should be delivered to the TE. Performing a proper capsuloplasty at the time of implant exchange, indeed, allows to correct the deformities related to radiation-induced capsular contracture. Patients with unfavourable outcomes after TE placement and RT, instead, can be directly switched to autologous reconstruction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Outcomes of Immediate Alloplastic Breast Reconstruction in Patients Receiving Post-Mastectomy Radiotherapy.

Background: Immediate alloplastic breast reconstruction is traditionally avoided in patients who require post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). However, a subset of patients who undergo alloplastic reconstruction may unpredictably require adjuvant radiation. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes and complications in patients at our institution who had undergone immediate alloplastic breast reconstruction and received PMRT to either the permanent implant or temporary tissue expander. Materials and Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed looking at patients who underwent immediate alloplastic breast reconstruction over a 10-year period (2009-2019) at our regional breast centre. All patients who underwent immediate alloplastic breast reconstruction and had PMRT were included in the study. Major (wound dehiscence with device exposure, or reconstructive failure) and minor (infection, capsular contracture, revision surgery) complication rates between those patients receiving radiation to a tissue expander versus implant were compared using Fisher exact test (P < .05). Results: Six-hundred ninety-two patients were identified, and 43 patients met inclusion criteria. Of this group, 29 received PMRT to implants and 14 received PMRT to tissue expanders. Complication rates were similar between groups for superficial wound infection (3.4% vs 7.1%), periprosthetic infection (3.4% vs 7.1%), capsular contracture (41.4% vs 21.4%), revision surgery for aesthetics (41.4% vs 21.4%), wound dehiscence and device exposure (3.4% vs 21.3%), and reconstructive failure (10.3% vs 6.7%). Total complication rates were similar between groups (51.7% vs 42.9%). Discussion: Overall 6.4% of patients who underwent immediate alloplastic breast reconstruction required PMRT over a 10-year period. Complication rates for infection, capsular contracture, revision surgery, wound dehiscence and device exposure, and reconstructive failure were similar between both groups. Total complication rates were similar between groups. This information will help to inform decision-making regarding immediate alloplastic reconstruction and expected complications when PMRT is needed.

Historique: D'habitude, on évite la reconstruction mammaire alloplastique immédiate chez les patientes qui ont besoin d'une radiothérapie après la mastectomie (RTAM). Toutefois, un sous-groupe de patientes peut avoir besoin de radiation adjuvante non planifiée. La présente étude visait à comparer les résultats cliniques et les complications chez les patientes de l'établissement des chercheurs, après une reconstruction mammaire alloplastique immédiate et une RTAM sur l'implant permanent ou les expanseurs tissulaires permanents. Matériaux et méthodologie: Les chercheurs ont procédé à une étude de cohorte rétrospective sur une période de dix ans (2009 à 2019) auprès de patientes qui avaient subi une reconstruction mammaire alloplastique immédiate à leur centre régional de traitement du cancer du sein. Toutes les patientes qui avaient subi une telle reconstruction et une RTAM en ont fait partie. Au moyen du test exact de Fisher (p < 0,05), les chercheurs ont comparé les complications majeures (déhiscence des plaies et exposition du dispositif ou échec de la reconstruction) et mineures (infection, contracture capsulaire, chirurgie de reprise) entre les patientes recevant une radiation sur les expanseurs tissulaires et sur l'implant, respectivement. Résultats: Les chercheurs ont extrait 692 patientes, dont 43 respectaient les critères d'inclusion. De ce groupe, 29 ont reçu une RTAM sur les implants et 14, sur les expanseurs tissulaires. Le taux de complication était semblable entre les groupes pour ce qui était de l'infection superficielle de la plaie (3,4 % par rapport à 7,1 %), de l'infection périprosthétique (3,4 % par rapport à 7,1 %), de la contracture capsulaire (41,4 % par rapport à 21,4 %), de la reprise de l'intervention pour des raisons esthétiques (41,4 % par rapport à 21,4 %), de la déhiscence de la plaie et de l'exposition du dispositif (3,4 % par rapport à 21,3 %) et de l'échec de la reconstruction (10,3 % par rapport à 6,7 %). Le taux total de complications était semblable entre les groupes (51,7 % par rapport à 42,9 %). Discussion: Dans l'ensemble, 6,4 % des patients qui ont subi une reconstruction mammaire alloplastique immédiate ont eu besoin d'une RTAM sur une période de dix ans. Le taux de complications d'infection, de contracture capsulaire, de chirurgie de reprise, de déhiscence de la plaie, d'exposition du dispositif et d'échec de la reconstruction était semblable dans les deux groupes, de même que le taux total de complications. Ces données contribueront à éclairer la décision de procéder à une reconstruction alloplastique immédiate et à évaluer les complications possibles en cas de RTAM.

Prepectoral breast reconstruction is safe in the setting of post-mastectomy radiation therapy.

BACKGROUND: Many breast reconstruction patients undergo post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT), which is well known to increase the risk of complications. There is limited data on outcomes and safety of prepectoral breast reconstruction in this setting. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of prepectoral versus subpectoral two-stage breast reconstruction in patients undergoing PMRT. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of two-stage breast reconstructions performed at our institution during a 22-month period. Patients who received PMRT were identified, and two cohorts were created: those who underwent prepectoral versus subpectoral reconstruction. We collected data including patient characteristics, operative variables, and clinical outcomes. Bivariate analyses and multivariable logistic regressions were conducted. RESULTS: We captured 313 patients (492 breasts) that had undergone two-stage reconstruction. A total of 69 breasts received PMRT; 28 were reconstructed prepectorally, and 41 breasts subpectorally. The two cohorts were well matched. We detected no differences in clinical outcomes between the two groups after a median follow-up time of 24 months. There, however, were differences in perioperative variables. Prepectoral reconstruction was associated with a shorter operative time, shorter length of hospital stay, higher cost, and shorter time to final reconstruction. Multivariable logistic regression demonstrated that prepectoral reconstruction is not an independent predictor of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Although radiation is a known risk factor for many complications following breast reconstruction, prepectoral device placement is safe in this high-risk population. Although the rate of capsular contracture is reported to be higher in the general prepectoral population, this was not found in our radiated prepectoral population.

Helical tomotherapy for post-mastectomy radiation therapy with or without breast implant: a single institution experience.

Introduction: We report on our experience of using Helical Tomotherapy (HT) in the context of post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) with or without immediate implant-based breast Reconstruction (IBR). Material and methods: The study included a total of 173 patients who underwent PMRT with HT between 2013 and 2015 in our institution (87 immediate breast reconstructions with retropectoral implants (IBR + ), 86 without reconstructions (IBR-)). The chest wall target volume included subcutaneous tissue and pectoralis muscle and excluded the posterior region of the implant as well as the ribs. Results: Median time to initiation of the first adjuvant treatment from mastectomy was similar between the two groups (p = 0.134). Dose coverage to the chest wall was significantly improved for the IBR + group (V95% = 95.1 % versus 92.0 %; p < 0.0001). The irradiated volume of the ipsilateral lung was significantly decreased in the IBR + group with a median V20Gy of 11.6 %, compared to 15.2 % for the control group (p < 0.0001). The median heart V15Gy was also significantly lower in the IBR + group than in the control group (1.7 vs 2.5 %; p = 0.0280). The reconstruction failure rate was 14.9% (n = 13). After a median follow-up of 65 months, loco regional recurrence rate was low in both groups: 3 patients (3.4%) in the IBR + group and 5 patients (5.8%) in the control group, without any local recurrence in the posterior part of the implant. Conclusions: The presence of a breast implant reduces cardiac and pulmonary doses during Tomotherapy irradiation, without compromising oncological outcomes.

Immediate breast reconstruction has no impact on the oncologic outcomes of patients treated with post-mastectomy radiation therapy: a comparative analysis based on propensity score matching.

PURPOSE: To investigate the impact of immediate breast reconstruction (iBR) on patients treated with post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) using propensity score matching (PSM). METHODS: After a retrospective review of patients treated with PMRT between 2008 and 2017, we included 153 patients who underwent iBR and 872 patients who did not undergo iBR. Among the 153 patients who underwent iBR, 34 received one-stage iBR with autologous tissue and 119 received two-stage iBR. Conventional fractionated PMRT with a total dose of 50-50.4 Gy in 25-28 fractions was performed in all patients. Propensity scores were calculated via logistic regression. RESULTS: Patients who underwent iBR were younger, had early stage disease, and had more frequent hormone receptor-positive tumor than those who did not undergo iBR. After PSM, 127 patients from each group with well-balanced characteristics were selected. With a median follow-up of 67.5 months, iBR led to better 6-year disease-free survival rates compared to no iBR before PSM (84.8% vs. 71.4%, p = 0.003); after PSM, there was no significant difference (84.8% vs. 75.5%, p = 0.130). On multivariable analysis in the matched cohort, iBR was not associated with inferior disease-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.67; p = 0.175). In the sensitivity analysis, iBR was not associated with a lower disease-free survival across all prognostic groups. The 5-year cumulative incidence of iBR failure was 15.0%. CONCLUSION: In patients with adverse pathologic factors planning to receive PMRT, iBR did not compromise oncologic outcomes. In addition, iBR can be considered in patients treated with PMRT with several clinicopathologic risk factors.

Pre-pectoral breast reconstruction: early and long-term safety evaluation of 146 unselected cases of the early pre-pectoral era of a single-institution, including cases with previous breast irradiation and post-mastectomy radiation therapy.

We re-evaluated acute and early-late toxicity-related factors among pre-pectoral immediate tissue expander/implant (TE/I) breast reconstruction (BR) unselected, first-era, cases, including previous breast radiation treatment and post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). A retrospective analysis of 146 (117 therapeutic and 29 prophylactic) pre-pectoral reconstructions, between 2012 and 2016, considered patient-related (age, body mass index [BMI], smoke-history, comorbidity, BRCA mutation), and treatment-related characteristics (previous irradiation, axillary surgery, PMRT, pre- and postoperative chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, and target-therapy). Safety was evaluated as acute and early-late complications, and TE/I failures. At multivariate analysis of the 146 cases (117 patients submitted to BR) a significant factor related to acute toxicity was: BMI ≥ 25 (31.3% [≥ 25] vs 8.8% [< 25]; OR 4.44, 95% CI 1.56-12.6; p = 0.003), while previous breast surgery on ipsilateral side presented a borderline significance (31.6% [previous surgery] vs 7.4% [no previous surgery]; OR 3.74, 95% CI 0.97-14.40; p = 0.055). Factors significantly related to TE/I failure were: current or previous smoking exposition (13.8% [smokers] vs 2.6% [non-smokers]; OR 7.32, 95% CI 1.37-39.08; p = 0.02) and preoperative chemotherapy (18.8% [yes] vs 3.5% [no]; OR 8.16, 95% CI 1.29-51.63; p = 0.026). At 4-year median follow-up, 3 deaths, 5 locoregional recurrences, and 14 distant metastases occurred. Immediate pre-pectoral BR is safe and effective, with low rates of acute and early-late complications. BMI and previous breast surgery were related to higher complications but not failure; smoking and preoperative chemotherapy were related to TE/I explant. Previous RT and PMRT were related neither to early-late toxicity nor failure.

Contemporary surgical management of inflammatory breast cancer: a narrative review.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review is to outline the surgical management of inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) including the clinical decision making, operative approach and current controversies. BACKGROUND: IBC is a rare and aggressive form of breast cancer. Trimodality therapy consisting of neoadjuvant therapy, modified radical mastectomy (MRM) and radiation therapy improves survival and is the recommended course of treatment. Advancements in systemic therapy and de-escalation strategies in non-IBC have accelerated discussions regarding several aspects of care in IBC including feasibility of de-escalation of surgical care, timing of reconstruction and the role of surgery in de novo stage IV disease. We discuss the evidence to support the surgical approach and decision-making in this rare disease. METHODS: We reviewed existing literature using multiple electronic databases and clinical consensus guidelines to identify historical and current publications addressing current management recommendations and clinical controversies in IBC. CONCLUSIONS: Breast conserving surgery (BCS), skin- or nipple-sparing mastectomy should not be performed in IBC as surgical resection to negative margins results in improved locoregional recurrence rates. Level I and II axillary lymph node dissection should be performed regardless of response to therapy and initial nodal status. Reconstruction should be delayed and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) is discouraged in IBC. Surgery may be considered for de novo stage IV IBC patients who demonstrate durable response to neoadjuvant therapy to improve local-regional control.

Radiotherapy in the Management of Non-Metastatic Inflammatory Breast Cancers: A Retrospective Observational Study.

(1) Background: Inflammatory breast cancers (IBC) are characterized by a poor prognosis. This retrospective study aims to describe the clinical outcomes of non-metastatic IBC patients treated with a multidisciplinary approach with neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, surgery, and radiotherapy. (2) Methods: This single-center retrospective study included all women patients diagnosed with non-metastatic IBC between January 2010 and January 2018 at the Institut Curie (Paris, France) and treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, surgery, and radiotherapy. Overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and locoregional free survival (LRRFS) were calculated from the time of diagnosis. Prognostic factors for patient survival were analyzed based on univariate and multivariate regressions. (3) Results: We identified 113 patients with a median age of 51 years. 79.7% had node-positive tumors; triple-negative breast cancers (TNBC) represented 34.6% of the cases. A large majority of patients (91.2%) received adjuvant post-mastectomy while ten patients (8.8%) received preoperative radiotherapy. Non-pathological complete response (non-pCR) was observed in 67.3% of patients. Radiotherapy delivered a median dose of 50 Gy to the breast or the chest wall in 25 fractions. With a median follow-up of 54 months, 5-year OS, DFS and LRRFS were 78% (CI: 70.1-86.8%), 68.1% (59.6-77.7%), and 85.2% (78.4-92.7%), respectively. In multivariate analysis, non-pCR was an adverse prognosis factor for OS, DFS, and LRRFS; pre-operative radiotherapy was an adverse prognosis factor for OS and DFS. Radiation-related adverse events were limited to acute skin toxicity (22% of Grade 2 and 2% of grade 3 dermatitis); no late radiation-induced toxicity was reported. (4) Conclusions: High locoregional control could be achieved with multidisciplinary management of non-metastatic IBC, suggesting the anti-tumor efficacy of radiotherapy in this rare but pejorative clinicopathological presentation. While comparing favorably with historical cohorts, OS and DFS could be potentially improved in the future with the use of new systemic treatments, such as PARP-inhibitors or immunotherapy.

Immediate Breast Reconstruction after mastectomy with polyurethane implants versus textured implants: A retrospective study with focus on capsular contracture.

BACKGROUND: Capsular contracture (CC) is the most common complication following Immediate Breast Reconstruction (IBR) with breast implants. Different implant surfaces were developed aiming to reduce the incidence of CC. We evaluated the incidence and degree of CC after Direct-to-Implant (DTI) IBR with insertion of textured (TE) or polyurethane (PU) covered implants. METHODS: A retrospective review of consecutive patients treated at our Institution with mastectomy and one-stage IBR and implant reconstruction between 2013 and 2018, with or without post mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT), was conducted. Immediate breast reconstruction was performed by implanting 186 PU covered implants and 172 TE implants. RESULTS: Three-hundred-twelve women underwent 358 DTI IBR with PU or TE implants, were analyzed with a median follow-up time of 2.3 years (range 1.0-3.0). The overall rate of CC Baker grade III and IV was 11.8% (95%CI: 8.4-16.3), while, after PU and TE implant placement it was 8.1% (95% CI: 4.1-15.7) and 15.8% (95% CI: 4.1-15.7) [p = 0.009]), respectively. Irradiated breasts developed CC more frequently rather than non-irradiated breasts (HR = 12.5, p < 0.001), and the relative risk was higher in the TE group compared with the PU group (HR = 0.3, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: After mastectomy and one-stage IBR, the use of PU covered implants is associated with a lower incidence of CC compared to TE implants. This advantage is amplified several folds for patients who necessitate PMRT. Footnote: Capsular contracture (CC); Immediate Breast Reconstruction (IBR); Directto- Implant (DTI); Textured (TE); Polyurethane (PU); Post mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT); Nipple Sparing mastectomy (NSM).

Design of a new breast vacuum bag to reduce the global and local setup errors and to reduce PTV margin in post-mastectomy radiation therapy.

To design a new breast vacuum bag to reduce global and local setup errors in post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). A total of 24 PMRT patients were immobilized with an old vacuum bag and 26 PMRT patients were immobilized with a new vacuum bag. The registration results were analysed using four regions of interest (ROI): the global ROI [including the whole region of the planning target volume (PTV), GROI], the supraclavicular area (SROI), the ipsilateral chest wall region (CROI) and the ipsilateral arm region (AROI). The global and local setup errors of the two groups were compared. The global setup errors of the new vacuum group were significantly smaller than those in the old vacuum group with the exception of yaw axes (P < 0.05). The systematic error (Σ) and random error (σ) ranged from 1.21 to 2.13 mm. In the new vacuum group, the local setup errors in the medial-lateral (ML) direction and roll axes for CROI (the Σ and σ ranged from 0.65 to 1.35 mm), and the local setup errors in ML and superior-inferior (SI) directions for SROI were significantly smaller than those in the old vacuum group. The total required PTV margins for the chest wall in ML, SI, and anterior-posterior (AP) were 4.40, 3.12 and 3.77 mm respectively. The new vacuum bag can significantly reduce the global setup errors and local setup errors in PMRT. The respiratory motion of the chest wall was negligible, and the 5 mm PTV margin could cover the local setup errors in PMRT using the new vacuum bag with cone beam CT (CBCT) correction.

Outcome of post-mastectomy radiotherapy after primary systemic treatment in patients with different clinical tumor and nodal stages of breast cancer: a cohort study.

To evaluate the effect of post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) stratified by clinical tumor (T) or nodal (N) staging and determine predictors of overall survival (OS), locoregional recurrence (LRR), distant metastasis, and disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with breast cancer who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and total mastectomy (TM), we enrolled patients who received a diagnosis of breast invasive ductal carcinoma who received NACT followed by TM. Cox regression analysis was employed to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and confidence intervals (CIs). Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses indicated that non-PMRT, Charlson comorbidity index ≥ 2, advanced clinical T or N stage, pathologic partial response, pathologic stationary disease, or pathologic progression disease were poor prognostic factors for OS. Well-differentiated tumor grade, pathologic complete response, and positive hormone receptors were better independent prognostic factors for OS. Adjusted HRs derived from PMRT for breast cancer after NACT and TM were 0.69 (0.53-0.89) and 0.74 (0.59-0.93) in clinical T3 and T4, respectively. aHRs derived from PMRT for breast cancer after NACT and TM were 0.67 (0.45-0.99), 0.75 (0.62-0.92), and 0.77 (0.60-0.98) in clinical N0, N1, N2-3, respectively. The aHRs (95% CI) of the PMRT group to the non-PMRT group for LRR-free survival and DFS were improved significantly. Our study indicated that PMRT significantly improved OS in clinical T3N0-T4N3 and for LRR-free survival and DFS in clinical T2N0-T4N3 from those of non-PMRT patients regardless of pathologic response and other predictors.

A dosimetry study of post-mastectomy radiation therapy with AeroForm tissue expander.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the dosimetric effects of the AeroFormTM (AirXanpders®, Palo Alto, CA) tissue expander in-situ for breast cancer patients receiving post-mastectomy radiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A film phantom (P1) was constructed by placing the metallic canister of the AeroForm on a solid water phantom with EBT3 films at five depths ranging from 2.6 mm to 66.2 mm. A breast phantom (P2), a three-dimensional printed tissue-equivalent breast with fully expanded AeroForm in-situ, was placed on a thorax phantom. A total of 21 optical luminescent dosimeters (OLSDs) were placed on the anterior skin-gas interface and the posterior chest wall-metal interface of the AeroForm. Both phantoms were imaged with a 16-bit computed tomography scanner with orthopedic metal artifact reduction. P1 was irradiated with an open field utilizing 6 MV and 15 MV photon beams at 0°, 90°, and 270°. P2 was irradiated using a volumetric modulated arc therapy plan with a 6 MV photon beam and a tangential plan with a 15 MV photon beam. All doses were calculated using Eclipse (Varian, Palo Alto, CA) with AAA and AcurosXB (AXB) algorithms. RESULTS: The average dose differences between film measurements and AXB in the region adjacent to the canister in P1 were within 3.1% for 15 MV and 0.9% for 6 MV. Local dose differences over 10% were also observed. In the chest wall region of P2, the median dose of OLSDs in percentage of prescription dose were 108.4% (range 95.4%-113.0%) for the 15MV tangential plan and 110.4% (range 99.1%-113.8%) for the 6MV volumetric modulated arc therapy plan. In the skin-gas interface, the median dose of the OLSDs were 102.3% (range 92.7%-107.7%) for the 15 MV plan and 108.2% (range 97.8-113.5%) for the 6 MV plan. Measured doses were, in general, higher than calculated doses with AXB calculations. The AAA dose algorithms produced results with slightly larger discrepancies between measurements compared with AXB. CONCLUSIONS: The AeroForm creates significant dose uncertainties in the chest wall-metal interface. The AcurosXB dose calculation algorithm is recommended for more accurate calculations. If possible, post-mastectomy radiation therapy should be delivered after the permanent implant is in place.

The 2018 assisi think tank meeting on breast cancer: International expert panel white paper.

We report on the second Assisi Think Tank Meeting (ATTM) on breast cancer which was held under the auspices of the European Society for RadioTherapy & Oncology (ESTRO). In discussing in-depth current evidence and practice it was designed to identify grey areas in diverse forms of the disease. It aimed at addressing uncertainties and proposing future trials to improve patient care. Before the meeting, three key topics were selected: 1) primary systemic therapy, mastectomy, breast reconstruction and post-mastectomy radiation therapy, 2) therapeutic options in ductal carcinoma in situ, and 3) therapy de-escalation in early stage breast cancer. Clinical practice in these areas was investigated by means of an online questionnaire. The time lapse period between the survey and the meeting was used to review the literature and on-going clinical trials. At the ATTM both were discussed in depth and research protocols were proposed.

Analysis of local setup errors of sub-regions in cone-beam CT-guided post-mastectomy radiation therapy.

The purpose of the study was to quantify local setup errors and evaluate the planning target volume (PTV) margins for sub-regions in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-guided post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). The local setup errors of 20 patients undergoing CBCT-guided PMRT were analysed retrospectively. Image registration between CBCT and planning CT was performed using four sub-regions of interest (ROIs): the supraclavicular area (SROI), ipsilateral chest wall region (CROI), ipsilateral chest wall plus supraclavicular region (SROI + CROI) and vertebral region (TROI). Bland-Altman analysis, correlation, local setup errors and PTV margins among these ROIs were evaluated. There was no significant consistency or correlation for registration results between the TROI and the CROI or SROI regions on any translational axis. When using the SROI + CROI as the ROI, the systematic error (Σ) and random error (σ) of the local setup errors for the CROI region were 1.81, 1.19 and 1.76 mm and 1.84, 2.64 and 3.00 mm along the medial-lateral (ML), superior-inferior (SI) and anterior-posterior (AP) directions, respectively. The PTV margins for the CROI region were 5.80, 4.82 and 6.50 mm. The Σ and σ of the local setup errors for the SROI region were 1.29, 1.15 and 0.77 mm and 1.96, 2.65 and 2.2 mm, respectively, and the PTV margins were 4.59, 4.73 and 3.47 mm. Large setup errors and local setup errors occur in PMRT. The vertebral body should not be a position surrogate for the supraclavicular region or chest wall. To compensate for the local setup errors, different PTV margins are required, even with CBCT guidance.