Defining breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) prevalence and risk factors: A pragmatic approach to lymphedema surveillance.

Introduction: We presented the key findings from Singapore's Changi General Hospital Breast Centre's lymphedema surveillance strategy that used patients' reported symptoms, standard arm circumference measurements and clinical assessment in the diagnosis of breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL). Our secondary aim was to highlight and discuss important elements of a surveillance strategy that can be implemented to track this outcome measure of breast cancer treatment for future research. Method: We conducted a cross-sectional study of 511 breast cancer patients to assess the prevalence of BCRL and its associated risk factors. We defined BCRL prevalence rates based on patients' self-reporting, objective arm circumference measure-ments and clinical diagnosis based on International Society of Lymphology (ISL) staging. Results: The median follow-up of patients was 88.8 months. The cumulative prevalence rate in the cohort was 30.9%. The cohort of BCRL patients were older (58.4 versus [vs] 54.9 years), had higher mean Body Mass Index (27.7 vs 25.2), higher proportion of mastectomy (77% vs 64.3%), axillary clearance, less likely breast reconstruction, higher-grade tumour, more lymph nodes excised, more advanced nodal disease, and had undergone adjuvant chemotherapy. However, clinically apparent BCRL was only 6.5% (33 out of 511 patients). The proportion of clinically significant BCRL in patients undergoing sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) or axillary sampling was 1.7% compared to 9.9% in patients who had undergone axillary clearance. Majority of the BCRL were subclinical or mild in severity. Conclusion: Our study showed that our rates of BCRL were comparable to international rates and highlighted similar patient profiles who were at risk of developing the disease. Having a comprehensive lymphedema surveillance strategy is paramount in paving the way for future studies.

Pilot robotic mastectomy in Singapore (PRoMiSing I) study: first safety and feasibility prospective cohort trial in South East Asia.

BACKGROUND: Robotic mastectomy has been performed worldwide since 2015. The advantages of the robotic approach in nipple-sparing mastectomy have been proven with better visualization and preservation of blood supply to the nipple-areolar complex (NAC), with a lower incidence of necrosis. It also allows smaller incisions for both mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction. To date, no centers in Singapore and Southeast Asia offer robotic mastectomy. We believe that robotic mastectomy is a feasible and safe technique that can be utilized by our population. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to ascertain the surgical outcomes and perform a learning curve analysis in patients undergoing robotic mastectomy in a multi-ethnic South East Asian population. METHODS: A single arm prospective pilot study of eligible patients aged 21-70 years old with early breast cancer or high-risk patients indicated for risk reducing mastectomy who were eligible and consented for robotic mastectomy were enrolled in this trial from 22nd December 2022 to 15th December 2023. RESULTS: A total of 29 consecutive robotic mastectomies were performed. The mean total operative time was 95±10.2 minutes. The average blood loss was 5.7±1.9 ml and the average length of stay was 1.05 days. The mean mastectomy specimen weight was 251 g, and there was no conversion to conventional mastectomy in any case. Furthermore, there were no 30-days morbidity or complications in terms of wound infection requiring intervention, flap and nipple-areolar complex (NAC) necrosis, and postoperative hematoma/bleeding requiring intervention. CONCLUSION: This study contributes to the current evidence that robotic mastectomy is a safe and feasible option, and could prove to be a great alternative to conventional mastectomy. Further prospective trials examining the long-term oncological outcomes of robotic mastectomy will be performed to establish the oncologic safety of this technique in breast cancer treatment.

Modified chest wall lateral intercostal artery perforator (MCW-LICAP) flap: a versatile flap in the era of oncoplastic breast surgery.

BACKGROUND: Breast reconstruction following oncological resection is becoming more common in recent years. In some ladies, implant reconstruction is not ideal due to significant implant visibility or palpability. Autologous reconstruction addresses the limitations of implant reconstruction but results in potential donor site morbidities. To date, there is no clear advantage ascribed to any technique. With appropriate selection, patients with adequate lateral mammary fold have the option of reconstruction with MCW-LICAP flap. We present our techniques and outcomes from a series of 29 patients who underwent MCW-LICAP flap. METHODS: A retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent curative resection for breast cancer with immediate MCW-LICAP flap reconstruction, between July 2018 to April 2022 was conducted. The techniques used with its variations along with video demonstrations are presented. RESULTS: A total of 29 patients underwent 34 procedures. Nineteen breast conserving surgeries and 15 mastectomies were completed, and immediate reconstruction performed in all cases. Twenty-three patients had MCW-LICAP, 1 with a Stacked intercostal artery perforator (STICAP) flap, and 5 had MCW-LICAP combined with a Goldilocks mastectomy. There were no cases of complications requiring re-operation. All patients had acceptable time to adjuvant therapy with a median of 36 days. Learning curve analysis showed a significant reduction in operative time after the 6th case. CONCLUSION: In our preliminary experience, MCW-LICAP flap is a safe, reliable, and versatile oncoplastic reconstruction option.

Long-term oncological outcomes of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery after a 10-year follow-up - a single center experience and systematic literature review.

Aim: While many studies reported the oncological outcomes of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OBCS), there were inherent differences in the study population, surgeons' expertise, and classifications of techniques used. There were also limited studies with long term follow up oncological outcomes beyond 5 years. This current study aimed to compare long-term oncological outcomes of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) following conventional and oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery using volume displacement and replacement techniques. Methods: Between 2009 and 2013, 539 consecutive patients who underwent breast conservation surgery including 174 oncoplastic and 376 conventional procedures were analysed. A systematic review of studies with at least five years of median follow up were performed to compare long term oncological outcomes. Results: At a median follow-up of 82.4 months, there were 23 (4.2%) locoregional recurrences, 17 (3.2%) metachronous contralateral breast cancer, 26 (4.8%) distant metastases, and 13 (2.4%) deaths. The hazard ratio of OBCS for IBTR, DFS and OS were 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21-2.94, p=0.78), 1.59 (95% CI, 0.88 to 2.87, p=0.12), and 2.1 (95% CI, 0.72 to 5.9, p=0.17) respectively. The 10-year IBTR-free, DFS and OS rate were 97.8%, 86.2%, and 95.7% respectively. Conclusion: There remained a dearth in well-balanced comparative studies with sufficient long-term follow-up, and our study reported long-term oncological outcomes for OBCS which were favourable of either VD or replacement techniques.