21-gene expression assay and clinical outcomes of premenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.

The prognostic role of the recurrence score (RS) based on the 21-gene expression assay in premenopausal women is not well delineated, and we investigated the association of outcomes and the RS in premenopausal patients who had 21-gene expression assay at Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea, between June 2005 and July 2018. Invasive breast cancer-free survival (IBCFS) by STEEP version 2.0 was compared according to the RS and clinical risk factors. A total of 554 patients were included in our study and 116 patients (20.9%) had age <40 years, 238 patients (43.0%) had luminal B subtype (Ki67 ≥ 20%), and 83 patients (15.0%) had RS >25. All patients received adjuvant tamoxifen ± chemotherapy. Overall, patients with RS >25 showed trend toward worse IBCFS from multivariable analysis (adjusted HR 1.89 [95% CI: 0.95-3.73], P = .069). When comparing outcomes according to age and luminal subtypes, patients with luminal B subtype and age <40 years (n = 60) showed significantly worse outcomes compared to the others (luminal A or luminal B + age ≥40 years, n = 494; adjusted HR 2.95 [95% CI: 1.49-5.82], log-rank P < .001). Among patients with luminal B subtype and age <40 years, there was no significant association observed between IBCFS and the RS (log-rank P = .51). In conclusion, while RS >25 showed association with poor outcomes in premenopausal women, it may have less prognostic significance among those with luminal B subtype and age <40 years.

Mastectomy with Reconstruction Including Robotic Endoscopic Surgery (MARRES): a prospective cohort study of the Korea Robot-Endoscopy Minimal Access Breast Surgery Study Group (KoREa-BSG) and Korean Breast Cancer Study Group (KBCSG).

BACKGROUND: Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy (RNSM) has emerged as a new treatment option for breast cancer and risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) for women who have a high risk of pathogenic variants. Even though several studies have reported that RNSM is a feasible procedure, some argue that it should only be performed by specialized surgeons, and data on oncologic outcomes and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are limited. Recently, the United States Food and Drug Administration and several surgeons warned that robotic breast surgery should be performed only by specialized surgeons and recommended that the benefits, risks, and alternatives of all available treatment options be discussed with patients so they can make informed treatment decisions. The Korea Robot-Endoscopy Minimal Access Breast Surgery Study Group (KoREa-BSG) has been established to evaluate, standardize, and teach this state-of-the-art procedure. We have designed a multicenter prospective cohort study entitled Mastectomy with Reconstruction Including Robot Endoscopic Surgery (MARRES) to report surgical, PRO, and oncologic outcomes. METHODS: MARRES is a multi-institution cohort study prospectively collecting data from patients undergoing mastectomy and reconstruction. The patient inclusion criteria are adult women older than 19 with breast cancer or a high risk of breast cancer (patients with BRCA1/2, TP53, PALB2 mutations, etc.), who have scheduled therapeutic or RRM and want immediate reconstruction. Surgical outcomes, including pre- and postoperative photos, oncologic outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and PRO, are collected. The primary endpoints are postoperative complication rates within 30 postoperative days and the Clavien-Dindo grade of postoperative complications within 180 postoperative days. The secondary endpoints are 5-year postoperative recurrence-free survival and cancer incidence rate (for those who underwent RRM), patient satisfaction with reconstruction expectations preoperative (baseline) and results within 6 to 12 postoperative months, surgeon satisfaction with postoperative results in 6 postoperative months, and cost-effectiveness of the definitive surgery. Patient recruitment will be completed in April 2025, and the target number of enrolled patients is 2000. DISCUSSION: This study will provide evidence about the surgical outcomes, oncologic outcomes, and patient satisfaction with RNSM and endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM), compared with conventional NSM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT04585074. Registered April 8, 2020.

A Propensity Score-matched Analysis of Long-term Oncologic Outcomes After Nipple-sparing Versus Conventional Mastectomy for Locally Advanced Breast Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the long-term oncologic outcomes of nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) with those of conventional mastectomy (CM) in patients with locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: NSM has been increasingly implemented in patients with breast cancer. However, oncologic efficacy of NSM in patients with LABC has not been sufficiently demonstrated. METHODS: The study group comprised 850 patients with clinical stage IIB to IIIC breast cancer who underwent NACT followed by either NSM and immediate breast reconstruction or CM alone. After propensity score-matching, 418 patients were included in the analysis. Local recurrence-free survival, disease-free survival (DFS), distant metastasis-free survival, and overall survival (OS) rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank tests between the NSM and CM groups. RESULTS: After matching, the mean follow-up period was 70 ± 25 months for the NSM group and 74 ± 27 months for the CM group ( P = 0.181). There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of 6-year local recurrence-free survival (91.6% vs. 95.8%; P = 0.239), DFS (70.5% vs. 73.4%; P = 0.583), distant metastasis-free survival (79.8% vs. 77.4%; P = 0.320), or OS (87.6% vs. 84.8%; P = 0.465) rates. Additionally, we identified 30 patients in the NSM group who initially presented with tumor extension in the subareolar area; the nipple-areola complex was successfully preserved after NACT, and no recurrence at the nipple was observed in these patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this matched control study, we demonstrated comparable long-term oncologic outcomes between NSM with immediate reconstruction and CM alone after NACT for LABC. In patients who had tumors extending to the subareolar area before NACT, NSM can be tried if tumor involvement of the nipple-areola complex appears resolved on imaging studies after chemotherapy.

Robot-assisted Nipple-sparing Mastectomy With Immediate Breast Reconstruction: An initial Experience of the Korea Robot-endoscopy Minimal Access Breast Surgery Study Group (KoREa-BSG).

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to present the results of early experience of robot-assisted nipple sparing mastectomy (RANSM). BACKGROUND: RANSM improves cosmetic outcomes over conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy. However, data on the feasibility and safety of the RANSM are limited. METHODS: Patients who underwent RANSM with immediate breast reconstruction as part of the Korea Robot-endoscopy Minimal Access Breast Surgery Study Group (KoREa-BSG) from November 2016 to January 2020 were enrolled. clinicopathologic characteristics, perioperative complications, and operation time were collected. RESULTS: Overall, 73 women underwent 82 RANSM procedures conducted by 11 breast surgeons at 8 institutions. The median patient age was 45.5 years old (20-66 years), and 52 (63.4%) patients were premenopausal. Invasive breast cancer was noted in 55 cases (40 cases were stage i, 11 cases were stage ii, and 4 cases were stage iii, respectively) and ductal carcinoma in-situ was recorded in 20 cases. Of those, 3 patients with BRCA1/2 mutation carriers underwent contralateral risk-reducing RANSM. The median length of hospitalization was 12.0 days (5.0-24.0 days). The incision location was the mid-axillary line and the median incision length was 50.0 mm (30.0-60.0 mm). Median total operation time, median total mastectomy time, and median reconstruction time was 307.0 minutes (163.0-796.0 minutes), 189.5 minutes (97.5-325.0 minutes), and 119.5 minutes (45.0-689.0 minutes). Only 2 cases (2.5%) required reoperation. Nipple ischemia was found in 9 cases (10.9%) but only 1 case (1.2%) required nipple excision given that 8 cases (9.7%) resolved spontaneously. Skin ischemia was observed in 5 cases (6.1%) and only 2 (2.4%) cases needed skin excision whereas 3 cases (3.6%) resolved spontaneously. There was no conversion to open surgery orcases of mortality. The mean time for mastectomy among surgeons who performed more than 10 cases was 182.3 minutes (± 53.7, minutes) and 195.4 minutes (± 50.4, minutes). CONCLUSION: This was the first report of RANSM conducted in the KoREa-BSG. RANSM is technically feasible and acceptable with a short learning curve. Further prospective research to evaluate surgical and oncologic outcomes is needed.

Oncologic outcomes of immediate breast reconstruction in young women with breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Oncologic safety of postmastectomy breast reconstruction in young women with breast cancer is not well-defined, especially in the setting of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). We retrospectively compared the oncologic outcomes following nipple-sparing (NSM)/skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) with immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) and conventional mastectomy (CM) alone in young breast cancer patients after NACT. METHODS: A total of 1266 women with primary breast cancer who underwent NACT followed by total mastectomy with or without IBR were reviewed. Of these, only young patients (age ≤ 40 years at diagnosis) were included in the outcome analysis (n = 375). After propensity score-matching by clinical T and N stage, molecular subtype, response to NACT, and adjuvant radiotherapy status, 228 patients were 1:1 matched, comprising balanced IBR group (with NSM/SSM) and CM-alone group. RESULTS: The 5-year locoregional recurrence-free, disease-free, distant metastasis (DM)-free, and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) rates for the entire cohort of young patients were 83.4%, 65.3%, 71.7%, and 85.4%, respectively. Locoregional recurrence rates between the matched groups were similar (14% vs. 15.8%; p = 0.710); however, IBR group had significantly lower DM rate (27.2% vs. 40.4%; p = 0.036) and breast cancer mortality (14.9% vs. 27.2%; p = 0.023) than CM-alone group. IBR group showed significantly improved 5-year DM-free survival (74.1% vs. 62.6%; p = 0.043) and BCSS (89.1% vs. 77.6%; p = 0.048) rates than CM-alone group. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicated that IBR with NSM/SSM does not negatively affect long-term oncologic outcomes compared to CM alone in young women with breast cancer receiving NACT.

Breast cancer outcomes following immediate breast reconstruction with implants versus autologous flaps: a propensity score-matched study.

PURPOSE: A large proportion of patients with breast cancer who had mastectomy had undergone breast reconstruction with implants or autologous flaps. However, only a few studies have compared the breast cancer outcomes between the implant-based reconstruction (IBR) and autologous flap reconstruction (AFR). In this study, we retrospectively compared the local recurrence rates, distant metastasis rates, and survival outcomes between immediate IBR and AFR. METHODS: A total of 1530 patients with primary breast cancer who underwent IBR or AFR with nipple-/skin-sparing mastectomy were included. Patients who underwent neoadjuvant systemic therapy were excluded from the study. After propensity score matching by age at diagnosis, T stage, N stage, molecular subtype, mastectomy type, adjuvant radiotherapy status, and follow-up period, 938 patients were 1:1 matched, comprising the well-balanced IBR and AFR groups. Locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRRFS), disease-free survival (DFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) were compared between the matched groups. RESULTS: After matching, the median follow-up periods were 68 months and 71 months for the IBR and AFR groups, respectively. No significant differences were observed between the IBR and AFR groups regarding the local recurrence (7.2% vs. 5.1%; P = 0.175), regional recurrence (2.1% vs. 1.5%; P = 0.463), or distant metastasis (3.2% vs. 3.2%; P = 1.000) rates. Moreover, no significant difference was observed between the IBR and AFR groups in the LRRFS (hazard ratio, 0.691; 95% CI, 0.433-1.102; P = 0.118), DFS (hazard ratio, 0.709; 95% CI, 0.468-1.076; P = 0.104), DMFS (hazard ratio, 1.006; 95% CI, 0.491-2.059; P = 0.987), or BCSS (hazard ratio, 0.445; 95% CI, 0.111-1.786; P = 0.659). CONCLUSION: In this propensity score-matched analysis of oncologic outcomes in patients with primary breast cancer who underwent immediate breast reconstruction with nipple-/skin-sparing mastectomy, no significant differences were observed between the IBR and AFR groups.

Oncologic Outcomes of Nipple-sparing Mastectomy and Immediate Reconstruction After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the oncologic outcomes and risk factors for locoregional recurrence (LRR) and nipple-areola complex recurrence (NR) in a large series of breast cancer patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) and immediate reconstruction after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The use of NSM and immediate reconstruction in breast cancer patients receiving NACT is increasing. However, the oncologic safety of this approach is unclear. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 310 breast cancer patients (319 breasts) who underwent NACT and NSM between February 2010 and November 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. Clinical and pathologic factors associated with increased risks of LRR and NR were analyzed using univariate (Chi-square or Fisher exact test) and multivariate (Cox proportional hazard regression model) analyses. RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 63 ± 22 months, 38 cases had LRR as the first event, including 6 cases of NR as the first event. The 5-year cumulative LRR and NR rates were 11.0% and 1.9%, respectively. In univariate analysis, clinical T stage, pathologic nodal status, histologic grade, lymphovascular invasion, and post-NACT Ki67 status were associated with increased LRR risk, and post-NACT Ki67 status was the only significant risk factor for NR. In multivariate analysis, post-NACT Ki67 ≥10% (hazard ratio, 4.245; 95% confidence interval, 1.865-9.663; P = 0.001) was an independent risk factor for LRR. CONCLUSIONS: NSM and immediate reconstruction seem to be oncologically safe with acceptable LRR and NR rates for appropriately selected breast cancer patients treated with NACT. Post-NACT Ki67 ≥10% was associated with increased risk of LRR or NR, and therefore, necessitates cautious follow-up.

A propensity score-matched comparison of recurrence outcomes after immediate implant vs autologous flap reconstruction in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer.

PURPOSE: We compared oncologic outcomes between breast cancer patients who underwent immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) and those who underwent autologous flap reconstruction (AFR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). METHODS: The study group comprised 536 patients with primary breast cancer who underwent NACT followed by immediate IBBR or AFR. After propensity score matching, 138 patients in the IBBR group and 276 patients in the AFR group were selected for comparisons of locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRRFS), disease-free survival (DFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS). RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between the matched groups in locoregional recurrence rates (IBBR vs. AFR: 12.3% vs. 12%; P = 0.915) and distant metastasis (13% vs. 17%; P = 0.293). There was also no significant difference between the groups in LRRFS (P = 0.956), DFS (P = 0.606), DMFS (P = 0.283), or BCSS (P = 0.121). The 5- and 10-year LRRFS rates were 87.6% and 85.9% in the IBBR group, and 87.7% and 86.1% in the AFR group; the 5- and 10-year DFS rates were 79% and 77.5% in the IBBR group, and 77% and 75% in the AFR group; the 5- and 10-year DMFS rates were 85.9% and 85.9% in the IBBR group, and 83.2% and 81.8% in the AFR group; and the 5- and 10-year BCSS rates were 97.8% and 91.3% in the IBBR group, and 91.8% and 86% in the AFR group, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this propensity score-matched analysis of oncologic outcomes in breast cancer patients who underwent immediate reconstruction after NACT, no significant differences were observed between the IBBR and AFR groups.

Oncologic Safety of Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy in Patients with Breast Cancer and Tumor-to-Nipple Distance ≤ 1 cm: A Matched Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: A short tumor-to-nipple distance (TND) is reported as a strong predictor of nipple-areola complex (NAC) involvement. Eligibility for nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) remains controversial, especially regarding TND. In this study, we compared long-term oncologic outcomes after NSM between patients with a TND ≤ 1 cm and those with a TND > 1 cm. METHODS: Overall, 1369 patients with primary breast cancer who underwent NSM with immediate reconstruction from March 2003 to December 2015 were included for analysis. After propensity score matching, 495 patients with a TND ≤ 1 cm (group A) and 495 patients with a TND > 1 cm (group B) on imaging were selected to compare long-term oncologic outcomes. RESULTS: After matching, the median follow-up periods for surviving patients were 109 months and 112 months for groups A and B, respectively. There were no significant differences between groups with respect to the 5-year cumulative local recurrence (8.1% vs. 6.3%; p = 0.268), NAC recurrence (5.1% vs. 2.8%; p = 0.072), regional recurrence (2.0% vs. 3.6%; p = 0.125), or distant recurrence (5.9% vs. 4.8%; p = 0.480) rates. Furthermore, no significant differences were observed between the groups with respect to the 10-year local recurrence-free survival (87.1% vs. 90.7%; p = 0.164) or disease-free survival (77.9% vs. 81.6%; p = 0.222) rates. CONCLUSIONS: A preoperative TND ≤ 1 cm on imaging should not be contraindicated to NSM as long as there is no involvement of NAC clinically or on imaging and if retroareolar margins are confirmed to be negative for tumor cells.

Recurrence Outcomes After Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Immediate Breast Reconstruction in Patients with Pure Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.

BACKGROUND: Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) has become increasingly prevalent for patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) requiring mastectomy. However, few data regarding recurrence outcomes after NSM are available for this patient population. This study evaluated the locoregional recurrence (LRR) rate for patients with pure DCIS who underwent NSM followed by immediate breast reconstruction without adjuvant radiotherapy and investigated potential risk factors for LRR and/or nipple-areola complex recurrence (NR). METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed for 199 consecutive patients with pure DCIS who underwent NSM and immediate breast reconstruction between March 2003 and December 2015. Risk factors for LRR and NR were analyzed using univariate (Chi square test) and multivariate (Cox model) methods. RESULTS: The median follow-up duration after surgery was 97 months (range, 39-186 months). At 10 years, the LRR rate was 4.5%, and the NR rate was 3%. The univariate analysis showed that high nuclear grade, negative receptor status, positive human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status, and negative hormone receptor/positive HER2 subtype were associated with increased risk for NR. The multivariate analysis demonstrated that negative progesterone receptor status was an independent risk factor for LRR. However, margin status and tumor-to-nipple distance (TND) were not associated with increased risk for either LRR or NR. CONCLUSIONS: The study findings suggest that NSM can be a feasible surgical option even for DCIS with a TND of 1 cm or less if the retroareolar resection margin is negative for malignancy. Determining the molecular subtype of DCIS might be helpful in identifying patients at high risk for recurrence.

Artificial Intelligence in Health Care: Current Applications and Issues.

In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) technologies have greatly advanced and become a reality in many areas of our daily lives. In the health care field, numerous efforts are being made to implement the AI technology for practical medical treatments. With the rapid developments in machine learning algorithms and improvements in hardware performances, the AI technology is expected to play an important role in effectively analyzing and utilizing extensive amounts of health and medical data. However, the AI technology has various unique characteristics that are different from the existing health care technologies. Subsequently, there are a number of areas that need to be supplemented within the current health care system for the AI to be utilized more effectively and frequently in health care. In addition, the number of medical practitioners and public that accept AI in the health care is still low; moreover, there are various concerns regarding the safety and reliability of AI technology implementations. Therefore, this paper aims to introduce the current research and application status of AI technology in health care and discuss the issues that need to be resolved.

Integrated Augmented and Virtual Reality Technologies for Realistic Fire Drill Training.

In this article, we propose a novel fire drill training system designed specifically to integrate augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) technologies into a single head-mounted display device to provide realistic as well as safe and diverse experiences. Applying hybrid AR/VR technologies in fire drill training may be beneficial because they can overcome limitations such as space-time constraints, risk factors, training costs, and difficulties in real environments. The proposed system can improve training effectiveness by transforming arbitrary real spaces into real-time, realistic virtual fire situations, and by interacting with tangible training props. Moreover, the system can create intelligent and realistic fire effects in AR by estimating not only the object type but also its physical properties. Our user studies demonstrated the potential of integrated AR/VR for improving training and education.

Evaluation of safety and operative time in tumescent-free robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy: a retrospective single-center cohort study.

Purpose: Tumescent in nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) has been reported to increase the risk of necrosis by impairing blood flow to the skin flap and nipple-areolar complex. At our institution, we introduced a tumescent-free robotic NSM using the da Vinci single-port system (Intuitive Surgical, Inc.). Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent tumescent-free robotic NSM between October 2020 and March 2023 at Asan Medical Center (Seoul, Korea). Clinicopathological characteristics, adverse events, and operative time were evaluated. Results: During the study period, 118 patients underwent tumescent-free robotic NSM. Thirty-one patients (26.3%) experienced an adverse event. Five patients (4.2%) were classified as grade III based on the Clavien-Dindo classification and required surgery. The mean total operative time was 467 minutes for autologous tissue reconstruction (n = 49) and 252 minutes for implants (n = 69). No correlation was found between the cumulative number of surgical cases and the breast operative time (P = 0.30, 0.52, 0.59 for surgeons A, B, C) for the 3 surgeons. However, a significant linear relationship (P < 0.001) was observed, with the operative time increasing by 13 minutes for every 100-g increase in specimen weight. Conclusion: Tumescent-free robotic NSM is a safe procedure with a feasible operative time and few adverse events.

Unsupervised anomaly detection with generative adversarial networks in mammography.

Breast cancer is a common cancer among women, and screening mammography is the primary tool for diagnosing this condition. Recent advancements in deep-learning technologies have triggered the implementation of research studies via mammography. Semi-supervised or unsupervised methods are often used to overcome the limitations of supervised learning, such as manpower and time, for labeling in clinical situations where abnormal data are significantly lacking. Accordingly, we proposed a generative model that uses a state-of-the-art generative network (StyleGAN2) to create high-quality synthetic mammographic images and an anomaly detection method to detect breast cancer on mammograms in unsupervised methods. The generation model was trained via only normal mammograms and breast cancer classification was performed via anomaly detection using 50 breast cancer and 50 normal mammograms that did not overlap with the dataset for generative model learning. Our generative model has shown comparable fidelity to real images, and the anomaly detection method via this generative model showed high sensitivity, demonstrating its potential for breast cancer screening. This method could differentiate between normal and cancer-positive mammogram and help overcome the weakness of current supervised methods.