Reverse Abdominoplasty for Mastectomy Defect Closure in Advanced Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer patients with locally advanced breast cancer who require radical mastectomy are left with large chest wall defects. This poses a significant reconstructive challenge as many high-risk patients require timely postmastectomy adjuvant therapy. While the reverse abdominoplasty technique is commonly used for aesthetic improvement of the anterior trunk, it can be also be effectively used for closure of extensive mastectomy defects in this patient population. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all consecutive patients who underwent an extensive radical mastectomy followed by immediate closure with the reverse abdominoplasty technique at a single tertiary cancer center from June 2017 to July 2022. Patients who had concurrent skin grafting or breast mound flap reconstruction were excluded. Demographic, medical, oncologic, and reconstructive data were collected. RESULTS: Six patients were treated with reverse abdominoplasty for 9 chest wall defects after surgical excision of locally advanced breast cancer. The median tumor size was 10.7 cm (range, 6.7-10 cm) and the median mastectomy weight was 865.7 g (range, 356.4-1247.7 g). On average, the operation length was 191 minutes (range, 86-257 minutes) and the postoperative length of stay was 2.2 days (range, 1-5 days). All patients underwent systemic adjuvant therapy and the median time from surgery to initiation of therapy was 44.5 days (range, 32-75 days). CONCLUSIONS: Reverse abdominoplasty is a simple and safe technique to reliably close large defects after locally advanced breast cancer excision. It has a short operative time, hospital stay, and turnaround time to initiation of adjuvant therapy.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Survivorship, Version 1.2022.

The NCCN Guidelines for Survivorship are intended to help healthcare professionals who work with survivors to ensure that the survivors' complex and varied needs are addressed. The NCCN Guidelines provide screening, evaluation, and treatment recommendations for the consequences of adult-onset cancer and its treatment; recommendations to help promote physical activity, weight management, and immunizations in survivors; and a framework for care coordination. This article summarizes updates to the NCCN Guidelines pertaining to preventive health for cancer survivors, including recommendations about alcohol consumption and vaccinations.

Survivorship, Version 1.2021.

The NCCN Guidelines for Survivorship are intended to help healthcare professionals working with cancer survivors to ensure that each survivor's complex and varied needs are addressed. The Guidelines provide screening, evaluation, and treatment recommendations for consequences of adult-onset cancer and its treatment; recommendations to help promote healthful lifestyle behaviors, weight management, and immunizations in survivors; and a framework for care coordination. This article summarizes the recommendations regarding employment and return to work for cancer survivors that were added in the 2021 version of the NCCN Guidelines.

Erroneous diagnosis of primary fibrosarcoma of the breast: The value of the multidisciplinary breast team approach.

Diagnostic errors occur in the preanalytic, analytic, and postanalytic phases of specimen processing. Correlating clinical and imaging information with gross and microscopic findings is crucial to limit errors and unnecessary treatment. Herein, we report the case of a 54-year-old woman who presented with left breast bloody nipple discharge and subsequently underwent central duct excision. Pathology revealed a high-grade sarcoma. The patient presented to our institution for further management. Upon secondary pathology review and DNA fingerprinting analysis, the correct interpretation was rendered. Our case demonstrates the importance of clinical correlation and review of pathology slides prior to definitive therapy.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Survivorship, Version 2.2020.

The NCCN Guidelines for Survivorship provide screening, evaluation, and treatment recommendations for consequences of adult-onset cancer and its treatment, with the goal of helping healthcare professionals who work with survivors, including those in primary care. The guidelines also provide recommendations to help clinicians promote physical activity, weight management, and proper immunizations in survivors and facilitate care coordination to ensure that all of the survivors' needs are addressed. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize additions and changes made to the guidelines in 2020 regarding cardiovascular disease risk assessment and screening for subsequent primary malignancies.

High-output chyle leak after breast-conserving surgery and sentinel lymph node biopsy.

Postoperative chyle leak is an exceedingly rare complication following breast and axillary surgery. We present the first described case of chyle leak following breast-conserving surgery and sentinel lymph node biopsy. Management should begin with appropriated conservative measures aimed at reduction of lymph production and flow. Intervention is warranted when conservative strategies fail and include sclerotherapy, lymphangiography, embolization, and surgery. Breast surgeons should be mindful of this potential complication when operating in the axilla and be familiar with its stepwise management.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Survivorship, Version 2.2019.

The NCCN Guidelines for Survivorship provide screening, evaluation, and treatment recommendations for consequences of cancer and cancer treatment to aid healthcare professionals who work with survivors of adult-onset cancer. Guidance is also provided to help promote physical activity, weight management, and proper immunizations in survivors and to facilitate care coordination to ensure that all needs are addressed. These NCCN Insights summarize some of the topics discussed by the NCCN Survivorship Panel during the 2019 update of the guidelines, including the survivorship population addressed, ways to improve care coordination, and pain management.

Survivorship, Version 2.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The NCCN Guidelines for Survivorship provide screening, evaluation, and treatment recommendations for common physical and psychosocial consequences of cancer and cancer treatment to help healthcare professionals who work with survivors of adult-onset cancer in the posttreatment period. This portion of the guidelines describes recommendations regarding the management of anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity and lymphedema. In addition, recommendations regarding immunizations and the prevention of infections in cancer survivors are included.

Survivorship, Version 2.2017, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Many cancer survivors experience menopausal symptoms, including female survivors taking aromatase inhibitors or with a history of oophorectomy or chemotherapy, and male survivors who received or are receiving androgen-ablative therapies. Sexual dysfunction is also common in cancer survivors. Sexual dysfunction and menopause-related symptoms can increase distress and have a significant negative impact on quality of life. This portion of the NCCN Guidelines for Survivorship provide recommendations for screening, evaluation, and treatment of sexual dysfunction and menopausal symptoms to help healthcare professionals who work with survivors of adult-onset cancer in the posttreatment period.

Oncoplastic Surgery: Keeping It Simple With 5 Essential Volume Displacement Techniques for Breast Conservation in a Patient With Moderate- to Large-Sized Breasts.

Oncoplastic surgery is an evolving field in breast surgery combining the strengths of breast surgical oncology with plastic surgery. It provides the surgeon the ability to excise large areas of the breast in the oncologic resection without compromising, and possibly improving, its aesthetic appearance. The purpose of this review is to provide a guide that could help a breast surgeon excise breast cancer in most areas of the breast using 5 oncoplastic techniques. These techniques would be used depending primarily on the location of the cancer in the breast and also on the size of the tumor.

Early Postoperative Complications after Oncoplastic Reduction.

BACKGROUND: Breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiation therapy (BCT) has been established as safe oncologically. Oncoplastic breast surgery uses both oncologic and plastic surgery techniques for breast conservation to improve cosmetic outcomes. We evaluated the risk factors associated with complications after oncoplastic breast reduction. METHODS: A single-institution, institutional review board-approved, retrospective review of electronic medical records of female patients with breast cancer who underwent oncoplastic breast reduction from 2008 to 2014. A review of electronic medical records collected relevant medical history, clinical and pathological information, and data on postoperative complications within 6 months stratified into major or minor complications. Categorical variables analyzed with the χ2 exact method; continuous variables were analyzed with the Wilcoxon rank sum test exact method. RESULTS: We identified 59 patients; 4 required re-excision for positive margins, and 1 moved on to completion mastectomy. The overall complication rate was 33.9% (n = 20): 12 major (20.3%) and 8 minor (13.6%). Of the continuous variables (age, body mass index, and tissue removed), increased age was associated with minor complications (P = 0.02). Among the categorical variables (stratified body mass index, prior breast surgery, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, vascular disease, pulmonary disease, and stratified weight of tissue removed), none were associated with overall or major complications. Pulmonary disease was associated with minor complications (P = 0.03). Bilateral versus unilateral oncoplastic breast reduction showed no statistically significant increase in complications. CONCLUSIONS: The overall complication rate after oncoplastic breast reduction was markedly higher than that in nationally published data for breast-conserving surgery. The complication rate resembled more closely the complication rate after bilateral mastectomy with immediate reconstruction. No risk factors were associated with major or overall complications. Age and pulmonary disease were associated with minor complications. Patients should be selected and counseled appropriately when considering oncoplastic breast reduction.

Single Institution Review of Patients With Prior Breast Augmentation Undergoing Breast Conservation Therapy for Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Increasing number of patients with preexisting breast implants desire breast conservation therapy for breast cancer. There is paucity of comparative data on tumor margins and re-excisions in these patients. High re-excision rates up to 25% have been reported in breast conservation therapy patients; efforts to obtain cosmesis and avoid implant rupture might increase this further. We analyzed tumor margins, re-excision rates, and recurrence in previously augmented versus non-augmented patients undergoing lumpectomy for breast cancer. We preserved preexisting implants if feasible with oncologic clearance and cosmesis. METHODS: Institutional review board-approved retrospective analysis was performed on patients undergoing lumpectomy with history of prior breast augmentation (N = 52) and consecutively selected non-augmented patients (N = 51). Based on tumor distance to inked margin, we grouped margins as negative (≥2 mm), close (<2 mm), and positive. Patients were followed up clinically and with imaging in the outpatient clinic, and recurrences were documented. RESULTS: Patients in the non-augmented group were significantly more likely to have larger tumors (T2 and above; P = 0.05) compared with the augmented group. Although more patients in the augmented group had positive margins, this was not statistically significant (6 vs 3, P = 0.86). No difference was noted between re-excision rates among the augmented versus non-augmented groups (21.1% vs 19.6%, respectively; odds ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-2.37; P = 0.85); these remained unchanged even when adjusting for tumor stage (P = .75) and margins (P = 0.73). Although more patients in the augmented group recurred (4 vs 0), this was not statistically significant (P = 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that, from the oncological standpoint, patients with prior augmentation can undergo lumpectomy with equivalent tumor margins and re-excision rates. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first reported comparative study between these 2 groups.

Vertical Mastectomy Incision in Implant Breast Reconstruction After Skin Sparing Mastectomy: Advantages and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The type of since skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) incision directly impacts the final aesthetic and functional results of reconstruction. Different incisions are used for SSM depending on tumor location, previous biopsy scars, breast weight, and ptosis degree. A vertical scar is less visible to the patient, reminiscent of a mastopexy, and patients may not have the stigma of mastectomy. OBJECTIVE: This study investigates complication rates, patient demographics, patient reported outcomes, and plastic surgeon evaluations to compare vertical incision mastectomy to other incisions. METHODS: After institutional review board approval, a retrospective chart review was performed. A total population of 167 patients that underwent mastectomy with tissue expander reconstruction was separated into vertical incision and nonvertical incision mastectomy groups consisting of 38 and 129 patients, respectively. Patient demographics, complications, tumor margins, staging, breast weight, and breast implant volume were compared. BREASTQ Survey analysis was conducted using patient reported outcomes from the patient's perspective. Aesthetic evaluations of postoperative photos were systematically scored by plastic surgeons to obtain data from the plastic surgeon's perspective. RESULTS: Vertical incision orientation did not increase surgical complication rates or mastectomy skin necrosis (P = 0.142). Vertical incisions did not interfere with obtaining adequate tumor margins (P = 0.907). Vertical incisions did not have a significantly different breast weight or implant volume. There was no statistical difference for patient satisfaction or plastic surgeon aesthetic evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: The use of vertical incision does not increase complication rates; does not interfere with tumor margins; and can be applied to all age, BMI, breast weight, and breast implant volume groups.

Comparison of Reconstructive Outcomes in Breast Cancer Patients With Preexisting Subpectoral Implants: Implant-Sparing Mastectomy With Delayed Implant Exchange Versus Immediate Tissue Expander Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Women who have undergone prior augmentation mammoplasty represent a unique subset of breast cancer patients with several options available for breast reconstruction. We performed a single institution review of surgical outcomes of breast reconstruction performed in patients with breast cancer with prior history of subpectoral breast augmentation. METHODS: Institutional review board-approved retrospective review was conducted among patients with previously mentioned criteria treated at our institution between 2000 and 2014. Reconstructions were grouped into 2 categories as follows: (1) removal of preexisting subpectoral implant during mastectomy with immediate tissue expander placement and (2) implant-sparing mastectomy followed by delayed exchange to a larger implant. We reviewed demographics, tumor features, and reconstruction outcomes of these groups. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients had preexisting subpectoral implants. Of the 63 breast reconstructions performed, 18 (28.6%) had immediate tissue expander placed and 45 (71.4%) had implant-sparing mastectomy followed by delayed implant exchange. The groups were comparable based on age, body mass index, cancer type, tumor grade, TNM stage at presentation, and hormonal receptor status. No significant difference was noted between tumor margins or subsequent recurrence, mastectomy specimen weight, removed implant volume, volume of implant placed during reconstruction, or time from mastectomy to final implant placement. Rates of complications were significantly higher in the tissue expander group compared to the implant-sparing mastectomy group 7 (38.9%) versus 4 (8.9%) (P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Implant-sparing mastectomy with delayed implant exchange in patients with preexisting subpectoral implants is safe and has fewer complications compared to tissue expander placement. There was no difference noted in the final volume of implant placed, time interval for final implant placement, or tumor margins.

Outcomes of Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy Using Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap After Massive Weight Loss.

BACKGROUND: Because of the correlation between breast cancer and obesity, plastic surgeons may encounter patients requiring reconstructive breast surgery after massive weight loss (MWL). Use of redundant abdominal skin for deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap in these patients is a novel concept whose value has not been adequately studied. OBJECTIVE: Assess the outcomes of the DIEP technique for breast reconstruction in the massive weight loss population. PATIENTS: From 103 breast reconstruction patients having 150 DIEP flap procedures, 9 DIEP flaps were performed in MWL patients. Propensity score matching was used in a 1:2 ratio. Eighteen nonweight loss (NWL) patients were selected for comparison with 9 DIEP flaps performed in 6 MWL patients. MEASUREMENTS: Patients in 2 groups were matched for age and body mass index (BMI). Massive weight loss patients were compared with NWL patients on the basis of immediate versus delayed reconstruction and history of radiation; DIEP flap characteristics, including coupler size, additional venous anastomosis, need for re-exploration, and flap loss; length of hospital stay; abdominal wound healing complication; and hernia or bulging. RESULTS: There was no difference in the incidence of flap failures, bulging, or hernias requiring surgery in the MWL group. Additionally, there was no statistical difference in flap survival, abdominal complications, hospitalization days, operative time, or operative characteristics between the 2 groups. There was a significant positive correlation between immediate wound healing complications and comorbidities (P = 0.041). However, there was no correlation between wound healing complications and weight loss history. LIMITATIONS: Only 6 MWL patients of a single surgeon were studied. CONCLUSIONS: For breast reconstruction after mastectomy, DIEP flaps can be used in MWL and NWL populations with equal flap success and abdominal donor site results. Therefore, cosmetic surgeons performing contouring procedures should consider sparing redundant abdominal tissues in patients requiring breast reconstruction.

Comparison of Reconstructive Outcomes in Breast Cancer Patients With Preexisting Subpectoral Implants: Implant-Sparing Mastectomy With Delayed Implant Exchange Versus Immediate Tissue Expander Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Women who have undergone prior augmentation mammoplasty represent a unique subset of breast cancer patients with several options available for breast reconstruction. We performed a single institution review of surgical outcomes of breast reconstruction performed in patients with breast cancer with prior history of subpectoral breast augmentation. METHODS: Institutional review board-approved retrospective review was conducted among patients with previously mentioned criteria treated at our institution between 2000 and 2014. Reconstructions were grouped into 2 categories as follows: (1) removal of preexisting subpectoral implant during mastectomy with immediate tissue expander placement and (2) implant-sparing mastectomy followed by delayed exchange to a larger implant. We reviewed demographics, tumor features, and reconstruction outcomes of these groups. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients had preexisting subpectoral implants. Of the 63 breast reconstructions performed, 18 (28.6%) had immediate tissue expander placed and 45 (71.4%) had implant-sparing mastectomy followed by delayed implant exchange. The groups were comparable based on age, body mass index, cancer type, tumor grade, TNM stage at presentation, and hormonal receptor status. No significant difference was noted between tumor margins or subsequent recurrence, mastectomy specimen weight, removed implant volume, volume of implant placed during reconstruction, or time from mastectomy to final implant placement. Rates of complications were significantly higher in the tissue expander group compared to the implant-sparing mastectomy group 7 (38.9%) versus 4 (8.9%) (P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Implant-sparing mastectomy with delayed implant exchange in patients with preexisting subpectoral implants is safe and has fewer complications compared to tissue expander placement. There was no difference noted in the final volume of implant placed, time interval for final implant placement, or tumor margins.

Impact of axillary ultrasound (AUS) on axillary dissection in breast conserving surgery (BCS).

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Preoperative axillary ultrasound (AUS) in clinically node-negative patients may increase axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) in ACoSOG Z0011-eligible patients. We hypothesize that AUS identifies operative axillary disease (>3 positive nodes) in women undergoing breast conserving surgery (BCS). METHODS: After IRB approval, a retrospective review of female breast cancer patients was performed; patients with clinical T1/T2 tumors undergoing BCS were included. Clinical, radiologic, and pathologic data were collected. RESULTS: Of 139 eligible subjects, 119/139 (86%) had nonpalpable axillary nodes. 47/119 patients (40%) had abnormal AUS and 15/47 (32%) had a positive FNA. Fourteen had ALND ;10/14 (71%) had >3 positive nodes. 6/32 (18%) with abnormal AUS but FNA negative were sentinel lymph node (SLN) positive. Of 72 normal AUS, 15 (22%) were SLN positive; 9/15 (60%) had ALND; 1 (11%) had >3 positive nodes. When evaluating for >3 positive nodes, AUS plus FNA had a sensitivity of 91%, specificity of 95%, NPV of 99%, and PPV of 71%. CONCLUSIONS: AUS/FNA has a high NPV for axillary metastasis and remarkable sensitivity for three or more positive axillary nodes, therefore AUS-identified metastasis should be treated as clinically node-positive disease, and is appropriate even in patients planning breast conserving surgery.

Early experience with ultrasound features after intrabeam intraoperative radiation for early stage breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) is an emerging option for partial breast radiotherapy in select women with early stage breast cancer. We assessed short-term clinical and sonographic findings after breast conservation (BCT) and IORT. METHODS: An IRB-approved, single institution retrospective chart review was conducted of patients (pts) treated with BCT/IORT from 1/2011 to 6/2012. Follow-up clinical breast exams and ultrasounds (US) obtained 6 and 12 months after BCT/IORT were retrospectively reviewed by a single breast radiologist (JD) for sonographic findings. P values were calculated using McNemar's test, Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test, and Chi-square. RESULTS: Seventy-one pts underwent BCT/IORT and 38 pts had an US. All 38 pts had a seroma, 10/38 (26%) pts were symptomatic. Eighteen pts had deep tissue closure (DTC) of the lumpectomy cavity with 5/18 (28%) DTC pts being symptomatic at follow-up versus 5/33 (15%) without DTC (P = 0.296). At 6 months, DTC resulted in smaller seroma cavity volumes compared to those without DTC (P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Presence of a seroma is commonplace post BCT/IORT; symptomatic seromas are uncommon. DTC generated smaller seromas. Longer follow-up with serial US performed in all BCT/IORT pts could be considered to document natural progression/regression of symptoms and seromas.

Is There a Difference in Abdominal Wall Muscle Strength, Endurance, and Motor Control Following Bilateral DIEP and TRAM Flaps for Breast Reconstruction?

Background: Abdominal donor site complications in bilateral pedicled transverse rectus abdominis muscle (TRAM) have been a concern when compared with bilateral deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction. This study aimed to assess the strength, endurance, and motor control in patients undergoing DIEP and TRAM flaps. Methods: A prospective, cohort study was performed at a single institution including patients who underwent pedicled TRAM and DIEP flap reconstruction after mastectomy from August 2017 to August 2018. Patients underwent pre- and postoperative testing involving rectus abdominis, prone plank, side bridge, and trunk flexor tests. Descriptive analyses and multivariate linear regressions were performed. Results: The final analysis included a total of 9 patients, 4 of whom underwent TRAM flap reconstruction while 5 underwent DIEP flap reconstruction. The tests were not statistically significant between the TRAM versus DIEP groups, including rectus abdominis mean time decrease (0.25 vs 0.60 sec, P = .51), prone plank time increase (1.38 vs 1.38 sec, P = .51), right side bridge time increase (7.54 sec vs 32.15 sec, P = 1.00), left side bridge time increase (2.14 vs 44.5 sec, P = .37), and trunk flexor time decrease (4.68 vs 1.68 sec, P = .44). Overall complications were similar between the 2 groups. Conclusions: No significant difference in abdominal donor site morbidity was found when comparing the 2 groups. This article provides a point of conversation with patients when discussing available reconstruction options.