Systematic review of cost-effectiveness in breast reconstruction: deep inferior epigastric perforator flap vs. implant-based breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: There are several techniques for reconstructing breasts after mastectomy, but little scientific evidence for which technique is superior. The aim of this systematic review was to compare the cost-effectiveness of implant-based and autologous reconstruction and to evaluate the overall certainty of evidence, as well as the quality of reporting of the included studies. METHODS: Studies investigating the cost-effectiveness of breast reconstruction with a deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap compared to implant-based reconstruction, meeting criteria defined in a PICO (population, intervention, comparison, and outcome), were included. Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, CinahL, EconLit, and NHS EED databases were searched. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence, and the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standard (CHEERS) 2022 was used to evaluate the quality of reporting. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: A total of 256 abstracts were retrieved from the search, and after scrutiny, seven studies were included. The findings of this present systematic review should be interpreted with caution as the overall certainty of evidence is low (GRADE ƟƟОО). The included studies suggest that DIEP-flaps are cost-effective compared with implant-based breast reconstruction when the applied cost-effectiveness thresholds of $50,000 to $100,000 per quality-adjusted life years are used. It is noteworthy that no high level evidence exists regarding cost-effeciency, to support recommendations and decision in breast reconstruction. Methodological issues that can be improved in future studies are presented.

Patient Reported Outcome and Quality of Life After Delayed Breast Reconstruction - An RCT Comparing Different Reconstructive Methods in Radiated and Non-radiated Patients.

BACKGROUND: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is one of the core outcomes for breast reconstruction. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the method of delayed breast reconstruction affects long-term HRQoL. METHODS: Participants were divided into 2 arms depending on previous radiotherapy, and subsequently randomized between 2 methods of breast reconstruction: a latissimus dorsi flap or a deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap in the radiated arm and a thoracodorsal flap and implant or an expander in the non-radiated arm. Validated HRQoL instruments were used: BREAST-Q to evaluate breast specific HRQoL and satisfaction, RAND-36 and EQ-5D to evaluate generic HRQoL, and BDI-21 to measure symptoms of depression and anxiety. RESULTS: During the recruitment period (2009-2015), 233 patients were randomized. After opt-outs and exclusions, the remaining 107 participants comprise the study sample. Postoperative HrQoL was measured on average 7to 8years post-operatively. Response rates varied between 60 and 82 per cent. The BREAST-Q scores were higher after the reconstruction than before for the great majority of domains in both arms; albeit statistically significant only between the 2 methods for physical well-being chest in the radiated arm. Most participants in both arms had minimal or mild depression both before and after the operation. CONCLUSION: No distinct differences in long-term HrQoL could be seen for different methods There was a clear improvement in HrQoL compared to pre-reconstruction in all groups, but the effect of specific reconstructive methods on scores could not be reliably demonstrated.

Giving meaning to patient reported outcomes in breast reconstruction after mastectomy - A systematic review of available scores and suggestions for further research.

BACKGROUND: There are three patient reported outcome measure instruments (PROMs) that have adequate content validity for breast reconstruction, BREAST-Q, BRECON-31 and EORTC QLQ-BRECON-23, and they all have been robustly validated. The aim of this study was to systematically review scores giving meaning to validated PROMs for breast reconstruction after mastectomy and discuss methods to enable interpretation of them. METHODS: A systematic review was performed according to the recommendations of PRISMA. Prospero CRD42021255874. Included articles had to meet criteria defined in a SPIDER (Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research type). The included studies were critically appraised using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Three articles were finally included in the review: two studies on scores for healthy controls and one on minimally important differences (MIDs), both of BREAST-Q. All of the studies were performed in North America. Only MIDs based on statistical characteristics, and not on what constitutes a relevant change for the patient, exist. The risk of bias was evaluated as very high and moderate, respectively, of inconsistencies as low, of indirectness as high, of imprecisions as low, and of publication bias as probably low. CONCLUSIONS: The overall certainty of evidence for scores giving meaning to PROMs for breast reconstruction is low (GRADE ƟƟОО). More studies are needed to establish relevant healthy control scores and what constitutes a relevant clinical difference for patient-reported outcome measures for breast reconstruction after mastectomy. Clinical implications of the findings and suggestions for further research are suggested in the article.

Early complications in delayed breast reconstruction: A prospective, randomized study comparing different reconstructive methods in radiated and non-radiated patients.

BACKGROUND: There is little high-quality scientific evidence identifying the best and safest methods for delayed breast reconstruction, with most previous studies retrospective in nature. The primary aim was to compare early complication rates for two different breast-reconstructive methods in radiated and non-radiated patients, using a validated scale. The secondary aim was to identify predictors for complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study represents a clinical, randomized, prospective trial (ClinicalTrials.Gov identifier: NCT03963427), where the patients were divided into two study arms: non-radiated and radiated. In the non-radiated arm, patients were randomized to a one-stage lateral thoracodorsal flap with an implant or two-stage expander reconstruction. In the radiated arm, patients were randomized to a latissimus dorsi reconstruction combined with an implant or deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) reconstruction. All adverse events were classified according to Clavien-Dindo and summarization of overall morbidity was performed by calculating the Comprehensive Complication Index score. The study was conducted from 2008 to 2020. RESULTS: The complication frequencies were similar for the two surgical methods within each arm. In the non-radiated arm, risk factors for any complication were any comorbidities, and in the radiated arm, factors were a high body mass index and a contralateral operation. CONCLUSIONS: The usage of the Clavien-Dindo scale in reconstructive surgery is feasible, but further validation is needed. In non-radiated patients, the frequencies of short-term complications were similar for lateral thoracodorsal flap and expander reconstruction, whereas in radiated patients, they were similar for DIEP and latissimus dorsi. The complication profile of the methods varied.