Expanded Indications for Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Immediate Breast Reconstruction in Patients Older Than 60 Years.

INTRODUCTION: Although nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) and immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) have long been praised for excellent cosmetic results and the resultant psychosocial benefits, the feasibility and safety of these procedures in patients older than 60 years have yet to be demonstrated in a large population. METHODS: Patients undergoing NSM with or without IBR at the MedStar Georgetown University Hospital between 1998 and 2017 were included. Patient demographics, surgical intervention, and complication and recurrence events were retrieved from electronic medical records. Primary outcomes were recurrence and complication rates by age groups older and younger than 60 years. RESULTS: There were 673 breasts from 397 patients; 58 (8.6%) older than 60 years and 615 (91.4%) younger than 60 years with mean follow-up of 5.43 (0.12) years. The mean age for those older than 60 was 63.9 (3.3) years, whereas that for those younger than 60 was 43.1 (7.9) years (P < 0.001). The older than 60 group had significantly higher prevalence of diabetes, rates of therapeutic (vs prophylactic) and unilateral (vs bilateral) NSM, and mastectomy weight. However, there were no significant differences by age group in complication rates or increased risk of locoregional or distant recurrence with age. CONCLUSIONS: Based on similar complication profiles in both age groups, we demonstrate safety and feasibility of both NSM and IBR in the aging population. Despite increased age and comorbidity status, appropriately selected older women were able to achieve similar outcomes to younger women undergoing NSM with or without IBR.

Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy With Immediate Reconstruction After Breast-Conserving Therapy and Radiation: Complications and Oncologic Safety.

INTRODUCTION: Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) offers improved, patient-centered outcomes with demonstrated oncologic safety ( Ann Surg Oncol 2020;27:344-351). Indications for NSM continue to expand to patients outside of the traditional eligibility criteria, including those with prior breast-conserving therapy (BCT) with radiotherapy. Currently, limited data exist evaluating both short- and long-term outcomes in patients proceeding to NSM after prior BCT. METHODS: All patients undergoing bilateral NSM in a single institution from 2002 through 2017 with history of prior BCT were included in the final cohort, without exclusions. A retrospective chart review was performed to identify patient demographics, operative details, and complications. Outcomes assessed included early complications (<30 days from NSM), late complications (>30 days), rates of prosthetic failure, unplanned reoperations, and reconstructive failures, as well as oncologic safety. Student t , χ 2 , and Fisher exact tests were used to analyze outcomes of paired (BCT vs non-BCT) breasts within each patient. RESULTS: A total of 17 patients undergoing 34 NSMs were included. Each had a history of BCT and either ipsilateral breast recurrence (64.7%), risk-reducing NSM (23.5%), or a new contralateral primary cancer (11.8%). The cohort had a mean age of 51.1 years. With regard to acute complications (ischemia, infection, nipple-areolar complex or flap ischemia or necrosis, and wound dehiscence), there was no significant difference noted between breasts with prior BCT versus no prior BCT overall (41.2% vs 35.3%, respectively; P = 0.724). Complications occurring after 30 days postoperatively (capsular contracture, contour abnormality, animation deformity, bottoming out, rotation, and rippling) in prior BCT breasts versus no prior BCT had no significant differences overall (58.8% vs 41.2% respectively; P = 0.303). The mean follow-up was 5.5 years, during which no patients had a reported locoregional or distant recurrence in either breast. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences in early or late complications were identified between breasts in patients undergoing bilateral NSM with a history of unilateral BCT and XRT. In the 5.5 years of follow-up, there were no recurrences, lending support to NSM for management of recurrent disease in addition to National Comprehensive Cancer Network-recommended total mastectomy. We propose that NSM should not be contraindicated in patients exposed to radiation with BCT.

Literature review and guide for optimal position in implant-based breast reconstruction.

Background and Objective: Identification of ideal candidates for prepectoral versus retropectoral implant-based breast reconstruction relies on careful preoperative risk assessment and intraoperative flap evaluation. Few guidelines exist to guide the surgeon's decision-making process when evaluating the preferred plane for implant placement. Methods: A literature review was performed to develop clinical decision-making algorithms for direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) for patients undergoing prophylactic or therapeutic nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) based on patient characteristics, surgical techniques, and outcomes. Key Content and Findings: Prepectoral reconstruction is most suitable for patients with small breasts or macromastia with desire for breast reduction, low-grade ptosis, smaller implant sizes, those undergoing PMRT, and for those who aim to mitigate animation deformity and capsular contracture. Retropectoral reconstruction may be recommended for patients with larger breasts with no desire for size change requiring additional prosthesis support, and in patients who aim to reduce likelihood of rippling and need for subsequent fat grafting procedures to address contour abnormalities. Conclusions: Careful preoperative and intraoperative assessment of reconstruction options for patients undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction is necessary to mitigate complications and produce superior aesthetic outcomes. Decision algorithms may be used to determine ideal surgical techniques based on patient factors, like radiation history and planning, breast size and ptosis, and patient preferences.

Direct-to-Implant versus Immediate Free Flap Reconstruction after Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Both direct-to-implant (DTI) and immediate free flap (FF) breast reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) have been described in the literature. However, there is a paucity of comparative studies between these two techniques. Furthermore, existing studies do not control for factors influencing ischemic complications. METHODS: A retrospective review of all NSMs performed at a single institution between January of 2014 and January of 2020 was performed. Immediate FF reconstructions were propensity score matched using probit regression to identify a comparable DTI cohort based on mastectomy weight, smoking, age, and history of radiotherapy. Primary outcomes of interest were 30-day ischemic complications. RESULTS: One hundred eight NSMs performed in 79 patients were included. Average age was 45.7 ± 10.5 years and mean body mass index was 27.1 ± 4.8 kg/m 2 . There were 54 breasts in both the DTI group and the immediate FF group. Median mastectomy weight in the DTI group was 508 g (interquartile range, 264 g) as compared with 473 g (interquartile range, 303 g) in the FF group ( P = 0.792). There was no significant difference in the rate of partial nipple-areola complex necrosis in the DTI and FF groups (5.6% versus 3.7%, respectively; P = 0.500) or mastectomy flap necrosis (5.6% versus 11.1%; P = 0.297). Both the DTI and FF groups had a total nipple-areola complex necrosis rate of 1.9% ( P = 0.752). CONCLUSION: Both DTI and immediate FF reconstruction can be safely offered to patients undergoing NSM while providing the benefit of a single reconstructive procedure. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Review of Autologous Fat Grafting in Postmastectomy Reconstruction Patients: Nonroutine Diagnostics and Oncologic Safety.

Autologous fat grafting (FG) is increasingly used as an adjunctive reconstruction technique to augment volume, achieve symmetry, and improve contour deformities. This study aims to characterize the oncologic and surgical safety of FG in women undergoing autologous breast reconstruction (ABR) or implant-based reconstruction (IBR). Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed for all patients undergoing FG at a multi-site single health system between 2015 to 2018. A total of 228 eligible breasts from 155 patients were identified using Current Procedural Terminology codes. Patients were divided by reconstructive technique. Bivariate analyses compared baseline characteristics and post-FG outcomes. Results: Mean age for patients undergoing ABR (129 breasts) was 52.8 years compared to 48.6 years for those undergoing IBR (99 breasts; P = 0.002). A heavier volume of fat was grafted per ABR breast (143.8mL) than per IBR breast (102.2mL; P = 0.002). Forty-seven (20.6%) breasts required FG revision, more frequently in ABR breasts (31.0%) than IBR breasts (7.1%; P < 0.001). Following FG, 17.5% of patients experienced a palpable mass, and 18.9% of breasts underwent nonroutine diagnostics or procedures, with no difference between ABR and IBR groups. Most biopsies noted benign findings such as fat necrosis (2.2%) or a benign mass (0.9%), with recurrence only noted in two patients (0.9%). Mean follow-up was 20.4 months. Conclusion: FG is a safe, surgically simple procedure more commonly performed in ABR breasts. FG use in ABR and IBR breasts is oncologically safe, with no impairment in breast surveillance and low rates of locoregional recurrence, but possibly increased incidence of nonroutine imaging and biopsies.

Association of Residual Ductal Carcinoma In Situ With Breast Cancer Recurrence in the Neoadjuvant I-SPY2 Trial.

Importance: Pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in breast cancer strongly correlates with overall survival and has become the standard end point in neoadjuvant trials. However, there is controversy regarding whether the definition of pCR should exclude or permit the presence of residual ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Objective: To examine the association of residual DCIS in surgical specimens after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer with survival end points to inform standards for the assessment of pathologic complete response. Design, Setting, and Participants: The study team analyzed the association of residual DCIS after NAC with 3-year event-free survival (EFS), distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS), and local-regional recurrence (LRR) in the I-SPY2 trial, an adaptive neoadjuvant platform trial for patients with breast cancer at high risk of recurrence. This is a retrospective analysis of clinical specimens and data from the ongoing I-SPY2 adaptive platform trial of novel therapeutics on a background of standard of care for early breast cancer. I-SPY2 participants are adult women diagnosed with stage II/III breast cancer at high risk of recurrence. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive taxane and anthracycline-based neoadjuvant therapy with or without 1 of 10 investigational agents, followed by definitive surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures: The presence of DCIS and EFS, DRFS, and LRR. Results: The study team identified 933 I-SPY2 participants (aged 24 to 77 years) with complete pathology and follow-up data. Median follow-up time was 3.9 years; 337 participants (36%) had no residual invasive disease (residual cancer burden 0, or pCR). Of the 337 participants with pCR, 70 (21%) had residual DCIS, which varied significantly by tumor-receptor subtype; residual DCIS was present in 8.5% of triple negative tumors, 15.6% of hormone-receptor positive tumors, and 36.6% of ERBB2-positive tumors. Among those participants with pCR, there was no significant difference in EFS, DRFS, or LRR based on presence or absence of residual DCIS. Conclusions and Relevance: The analysis supports the definition of pCR as the absence of invasive disease after NAC regardless of the presence or absence of DCIS. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01042379.

A Critical Appraisal of Late Complications of Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Breast Reconstruction Following Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy.

BACKGROUND: Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) offers improved aesthetics without compromising oncologic safety. Subpectoral breast reconstruction has long been standard practice, although prepectoral reconstruction has recently resurged in popularity. Due to this recent paradigm shift, studies comparing long-term outcomes by reconstructive plane are lacking. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted on consecutive NSMs with implant-based reconstruction in either the prepectoral or subpectoral plane from 2014 to 2018. Patient demographics, implant specifications, and operative details were collected to evaluate primary outcomes of prosthetic failure and unplanned reoperations by reconstructive plane. Secondary outcomes included animation deformity, capsular contracture, rippling, plane change, and minor revisions, including fat grafting. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 405 NSMs were performed on 228 women (subpectoral = 202, prepectoral = 203), with a mean follow-up of 2.1 years (standard deviation 1.1). During the study period (2014-2018), a shift from subpectoral to predominantly prepectoral mastectomies occurred in 2017. Prepectoral reconstructions were more often direct-to-implant (DTI) compared with subpectoral (73.9% vs. 33.2%, p < 0.001). Prepectoral reconstruction demonstrated significantly reduced prosthetic failure (odds ratio [OR] 0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.14-0.65) and unplanned reoperations (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.24-0.77) compared with subpectoral reconstruction after controlling for implant characteristics and other possible confounders. Prepectoral patients experienced decreased animation deformity overall (19.7% vs. 0.0%, p < 0.001), with plane changes seen in 10.6% of subpectoral reconstructions for animation deformity correction. Prepectoral patients experienced an increase in rippling (15.3% vs. 6.1%, p = 0.003) without a significant increase in fat grafting (subpectoral = 11.6% vs. prepectoral = 12.3%, p = 0.829). CONCLUSIONS: This single-institution experience compares late complications of prepectoral and subpectoral implant-based reconstruction following NSM. Prepectoral reconstruction can be safely performed with improved understanding of mastectomy planes, readily affords DTI reconstruction, and reduces animation deformity at the expense of rippling.

Impact of a Workflow-Integrated Web Tool on Resource Utilization and Information-Seeking Behavior in an Academic Anesthesiology Department: Longitudinal Cohort Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: Medical resident reading and information-seeking behavior is limited by time constraints as well as comfort in accessing and assessing evidence-based resources. Educational technology interventions, as the preferred method for millennial leaners, can reduce these barriers. We implemented an educational web tool, consisting of peer-reviewed articles as well as local and national protocols and policies, built into the daily workflow of a university-based anesthesiology department. We hypothesized that this web tool would increase resource utilization and overall perceptions of the educational environment. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to demonstrate that an educational web tool designed and built into the daily workflow of an academic anesthesia department for trainees could significantly decrease barriers to resource utilization, improve faculty-trainee teaching interactions, and improve the perceptions of the educational environment. METHODS: Following Institutional Review Board approval, a longitudinal cohort survey study was conducted to assess trainee resource utilization, faculty evaluation of trainees' resource utilization, and trainee and faculty perceptions about the educational environment. The survey study was conducted in a pre-post fashion 3 months prior to web tool implementation and 3 months following implementation. Data were deidentified and analyzed unpaired using Student t tests for continuous data and chi-square tests for ordinal data. RESULTS: Survey response rates were greater than 50% in all groups: of the 43 trainees, we obtained 27 (63%) preimplementation surveys and 22 (51%) postimplementation surveys; of the 46 faculty members, we obtained 25 (54%) preimplementation surveys and 23 (50%) postimplementation surveys. Trainees showed a significant improvement in utilization of peer-reviewed articles (preimplementation mean 8.67, SD 6.45; postimplementation mean 18.27, SD 12.23; P=.02), national guidelines (preimplementation mean 2.3, SD 2.40; postimplementation mean 6.14, SD 5.01; P<.001), and local policies and protocols (preimplementation mean 2.23, SD 2.72; postimplementation mean 6.95, SD 6.09; P=.02). There was significant improvement in faculty-trainee educational interactions (preimplementation mean 1.67, SD 1.33; postimplementation mean 6.05, SD 8.74; P=.01). Faculty assessment of trainee resource utilization also demonstrated statistically significant improvements across all resource categories. Subgroups among trainees and faculty showed similar trends toward improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Learning technology interventions significantly decrease the barriers to resource utilization, particularly among millennial learners. Further investigation has been undertaken to assess how this may impact learning, knowledge retention, and patient outcomes.

Decreased postoperative pain and opioid use following prepectoral versus subpectoral breast reconstruction after mastectomy: A retrospective cohort study: Pain after pre- versus subpectoral reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Prepectoral (PP) breast reconstruction is now commonly performed and minimizes dissection of the pectoralis major muscle. Data are lacking comparing the immediate postoperative recovery of these patients as compared with traditional subpectoral (SP) breast reconstruction. METHODS: From December 2015 to February 2017, 73 patients underwent PP prosthetic-based reconstruction at a single academic institution. PP cases were matched 1:1, by age and stage, to patients undergoing traditional SP reconstruction. Analysis of postoperative pain (visual analog scale) and opioid use (oral morphine equivalents, OME), was performed with both bi- and multivariate analyses. Additional outcomes explored included length of stay (LOS) and reconstructive intervention by plane of prosthetic reconstruction. RESULTS: A total of 146 patients were included in the final cohort. PP reconstruction was associated with higher rates of direct-to-implant reconstruction (84.9% vs. 34.3%, p <0.001) and higher rates of initial prosthetic fill (401.53 mL vs. 280.88 mL, p<0.001). Patients undergoing PP reconstruction had significantly reduced postoperative pain (4.29 vs. 5.44, p<0.001) and in-hospital opioid use (62.63 mg OME vs. 98.84 mg OME, p = 0.03) compared with SP patients. This result remained in multivariate analysis for both pain (3.94 vs. 5.25, p<0.001) and opioid use (17.14 mg OME vs. 63.03 mg OME, p = 0.03). Additionally, patients undergoing PP reconstruction had significantly reduced overall LOS on multivariate analysis (21.36 vs. 26.28 h, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Following mastectomy, PP breast reconstruction results in significantly reduced pain, opioid use, and hospital LOS compared with SP reconstruction.

TARGIT-R (Retrospective): 5-Year Follow-Up Evaluation of Intraoperative Radiation Therapy (IORT) for Breast Cancer Performed in North America.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) has been investigated for patients with low-risk, early-stage breast cancer. The The North American experience was evaluated by TARGIT-R (retrospective) to provide outcomes for patients treated in "real-world" clinical practice with breast IORT. This analysis presents a 5-year follow-up assessment. METHODS: TARGIT-R is a multi-institutional retrospective registry of patients who underwent lumpectomy and IORT between the years 2007 and 2013. The primary outcome of the evaluation was ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR). RESULTS: The evaluation included 667 patients with a median follow-up period of 5.1 years. Primary IORT (IORT at the time of lumpectomy) was performed for 72%, delayed IORT (after lumpectomy) for 3%, intended boost for 8%, and unintended boost (primary IORT followed by whole-breast radiation) for 17% of the patients. At 5 years, IBTR was 6.6% for all the patients, with 8% for the primary IORT cohort and 1.7% for the unintended-boost cohort. No recurrences were identified in the delayed IORT or intended-boost cohorts. Noncompliance with endocrine therapy (ET) was associated with higher IBTR risk (hazard ratio [HR], 3.67). Patients treated with primary IORT who were complaint with ET had a 5-year IBTR rate of 3.9%. CONCLUSION: The local recurrence rates in this series differ slightly from recent results of randomized IORT trials and are notably higher than in previous published studies using whole-breast radiotherapy for similar patients with early-stage breast cancer. Understanding differences in this retrospective series and the prospective trials will be critical to optimizing patient selection and outcomes going forward.

Delivery of nipple-sparing mastectomy within a single healthcare system: The impact of provider preferences.

Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) offers superior esthetic outcomes without sacrificing oncologic safety for select patients requiring mastectomy. While disparities in oncologic care are well established, no study to date has investigated equitable delivery of the various mastectomy types. The objective of this study is to examine multilevel factors related to the distribution of NSM. Patients undergoing mastectomy between 2014 and 2018 across eight hospitals in a single healthcare system were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were categorized by mastectomy type-NSM or other mastectomy (OM). Patient information such as age, race, comorbidities, and median income by ZIP code was collected. Disease characteristics, such as mastectomy weight, breast cancer stage, and treatment history, were identified. Provider and system-level variables, such as specific provider, hospital of operation, and insurance status, were determined. Bivariate analysis was used to identify variables for inclusion in a backward multivariable model. A cohort of 1202 mastectomy patients was identified, with 388 receiving NSM. The average age was 55.8 years (NSM: 48.8, OM: 59.1, P < .001). 39.8% of white patients (n = 242) and 20.0% of African American patients (n = 88) received NSM (P < .001). Average mastectomy weight was 384.3 (SD 195.7) in the NSM group, compared to 839.4 (SD 521.1) in the OM group (P < .001). 41.4% (n = 359) of patients treated at academic centers, and 6.9% (n = 21) of patients treated at community centers received NSM (P < .001). In the multivariate model, the factor with the largest impact on NSM was specific provider. Odds of NSM decreased by 76%-88% for certain surgeons, while odds increased by 63 times for one surgeon. This study utilizes a large multi-institutional database to highlight disparities in NSM delivery. Expectedly, younger, relatively healthy patients, with smaller breast size were more likely to undergo NSM, in accordance with surgical guidelines. However, when all other factors were controlled, provider preferences played the most significant role in NSM delivery rates. These findings demonstrate the need for practice reexamination to ensure equitable access to NSM.

Acute Postoperative Complications in Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Reconstruction following Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy.

BACKGROUND: Nipple-sparing mastectomy is associated with improved aesthetics and oncologic safety. Recently, there has been a resurgence in prepectoral reconstruction. Because of limited data comparing complication rates on patients undergoing prepectoral breast reconstruction, this study compared 30-day postoperative complications by plane of prosthetic placement. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted on all consecutive patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy with implant-based reconstruction with either prepectoral or subpectoral placement from 2014 to 2018. The primary outcome was a composite, acute 30-day postoperative complication, including nipple-areola complex necrosis, mastectomy flap necrosis, wound dehiscence, infection, hematoma, and seroma. Secondary outcomes included nipple loss and rates of unintended reoperations. Univariate and mixed effects multivariate logistic regression were used to compare outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 228 patients and 405 breasts were included in the final cohort, with 202 in the subpectoral cohort and 203 in the prepectoral cohort. The overall complication rate was 7.65 percent, with no significant difference between subpectoral and prepectoral cohorts (9.41 percent versus 5.91 percent, respectively; p = 0.148). Prepectoral reconstruction was associated with significantly reduced ischemic complications, including nipple loss because of necrosis (2.97 percent versus 0.49 percent, respectively; p = 0.015) and mastectomy flap necrosis (5.45 percent versus 0 percent; p = 0.003). There were no significant differences in rates of infection, hematoma, seroma, or implant loss/exchange. CONCLUSIONS: Prepectoral reconstruction is associated with similar overall 30-day postoperative complications and reoperations compared to traditional subpectoral implants. However, prepectoral reconstruction was associated with significantly decreased ischemic complications, including mastectomy flap necrosis and nipple-areola complex loss because of necrosis. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Opioid-free anesthesia for patients undergoing mastectomy: A matched comparison.

Opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) is being implemented in breast surgery due to increased awareness of adverse effects and the national opioid crisis. The objective of this study was to examine the effect of OFA on postoperative pain and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in mastectomy patients. A single-institution matched-cohort study was conducted from 2014 to 2017 on 48 women undergoing mastectomy, with the majority also undergoing immediate prosthetic-based reconstruction. Patients received either conventional anesthesia (CA) or a novel OFA regimen. Primary outcomes included postoperative pain scores, opioid use, and need for antiemetics that were evaluated both in the PACU and on the hospital floors. No significant differences were found in PACU opioid or antiemetic use between OFA and CA. Pain scores in PACU and on POD0 were not significantly different. There was a significant but modest decrease on POD1 in OFA patients (3.9 vs. 5.1, P = .046). Additionally, patients with higher intraoperative opioid regimens experienced significantly increased PONV (P = .023). This study demonstrated the efficacy of OFA in controlling postoperative pain and nausea compared to a traditional opioid-based regimen. Regardless of intraoperative opioids, patients experienced similar postoperative opioid requirements and PONV with decreased pain scores. Thus, OFA is feasible in mastectomy patients and should be further evaluated in select patients.

Critical evaluation of factors contributing to time to mastectomy within a single health care system.

Increased time to mastectomy (TTM) has significant implications for mortality, well-being, and satisfaction. However, certain populations are subject to disparities that increase TTM. This study examines vulnerable populations and the patient-, disease-, provider-, and system-level factors related to treatment delays. Patients undergoing mastectomy for breast cancer from 2014 to 2018 across 8 hospitals in a single health care system were retrospectively reviewed. Demographics, disease characteristics, and provider- and system-level information were collected. Time from biopsy-proven diagnosis to mastectomy was calculated. Univariate analysis identified variables for inclusion in the multivariable model. One thousand, three hundred thirty patients met inclusion. Median TTM was 55.0 days. Factors from all levels-patient, disease, provider, and systemic-were significantly related to disparities. African-American patients had 11.6% longer TTM compared to white patients (69.0 vs 56.0 days, P < .0001). TTM was 15.5% longer for low-income patients when compared to high-income patients (65.0 vs 49.0 days, P = .0014). Preoperative plastic surgery visits led to 19.3% longer TTM (P = .0012); oncologic appointments for neo-adjuvant chemotherapy led to a 231.0% increase (P < .0001). Average time from last neo-adjuvant treatment to mastectomy was 44.4 days (SD 26.5); average TTM from diagnosis for patients not receiving neo-adjuvant chemotherapy was 58.5 days (SD 13.3). Patients with Medicaid waited 14.5% longer compared to patients with commercial insurance (94.0 vs 62.0 days, P = .0005). In our review of care across a large health care system, we identified multiple levels contributing to disparities in TTM. Identification of these disparities offers valuable insight into process improvement and intervention.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: Timing and Postoperative Complications.

BACKGROUND: As the demand for nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) increases and surgeons expand the eligibility criteria, a subset of patients may become candidates following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). However, the impact of NACT on postoperative complications remains unclear as the current literature is discordant. METHODS: A single-institution, retrospective chart review was performed on patients undergoing NSM from 1989 to 2017. Patient demographics, surgical intervention, systemic treatment, and complication rates were collected. Primary outcomes were 30-day postoperative complications, including nipple-areolar necrosis, skin flap necrosis, infection, wound dehiscence, hematoma, and seroma. Secondary outcomes included characterization of the timing between chemotherapy and surgical intervention, and the impact on complication rates. Each breast was considered independently for analysis, and breasts undergoing either NACT or primary surgery (PS) were compared. RESULTS: Of the 832 breasts included, 88 (10.6%) received NACT and 744 (89.4%) underwent PS. Baseline complication rates were not significantly different between the NACT group and the PS group (5.7% vs. 10.6%; p = 0.119). When controlling for age, body mass index (BMI), smoking, and prior radiation, NACT was not a predictor of complications. Time from completion of NACT to PS occurred at a median of 40.5 days (interquartile range 31.3-55.3), and decreased intervals were not associated with increased complication rates. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative complications following NSM in patients completing NACT are comparable with those receiving PS. Patients undergoing NACT do not have a significantly increased risk of necrosis, unintended reoperations, or nipple loss. NACT should not be considered a contraindication for NSM.

Expanded Algorithm and Updated Experience with Breast Reconstruction Using a Staged Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy following Mastopexy or Reduction Mammaplasty in the Large or Ptotic Breast.

BACKGROUND: Staged nipple-sparing mastectomy following mastopexy or reduction mammaplasty was first described in 2011 by Spear et al. to expand the indications for nipple-sparing mastectomy to women with large or ptotic breasts. Since that time, the authors have revised their treatment algorithm and technique to enhance oncologic safety and improve wound healing complications. METHODS: An institutional review board-approved retrospective review was undertaken of all patients undergoing staged nipple-sparing mastectomy following mastopexy or reduction mammaplasty at a single institution from July of 2011 through July of 2016. Management followed an updated treatment protocol to improve surgical and oncologic outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients (50 breasts) were identified who underwent staged nipple-sparing mastectomy. Five breasts (10 percent) required reoperation for a complication such as infection or tissue necrosis. Two devices (4 percent), both in the therapeutic cohort, required explantation because of infection. Skin flap necrosis and nipple-areola complex necrosis were each seen in two breasts (4 percent). Infection was seen in four breasts (8 percent), and wound healing complications were seen in only two breasts (4 percent). CONCLUSIONS: The authors offer their updated treatment algorithm for a staged approach to nipple-sparing mastectomy for patients with macromastia or grade II or III ptosis. Their results build on previously published reports demonstrating the safety and efficacy of this approach for nipple preservation and oncologic management in this patient population. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

Erratum: Author Correction: Surgical Standards for Management of the Axilla in Breast Cancer Clinical Trials with Pathological Complete Response Endpoint.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1038/s41523-018-0074-6.].