Bridging the notch: quantification of the end diastolic notch to better predict fetal growth restriction.

PURPOSE: We aimed to evaluate several quantitative methods to describe the diastolic notch (DN) and compare their performance in the prediction of fetal growth restriction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent a placental scan at 16-26 weeks of gestation and delivered between Jan 2016 and Dec 2020 were included. The uterine artery pulsatility index was measured for all of the patients. In patients with a DN, it was quantified using the notch index and notch depth index. Odds ratios for small for gestational age neonates (defined as birth weight <10th and <5th percentile) were calculated. Predictive values of uterine artery pulsatility, notch, and notch depth index for fetal growth restriction were calculated. RESULTS: Overall, 514 patients were included, with 69 (13.4%) of them delivering a small for gestational age neonate (birth weight<10th percentile). Of these, 20 (20.9%) had a mean uterine artery pulsatility index >95th percentile, 13 (18.8%) had a unilateral notch, and 11 (15.9%) had a bilateral notch. 16 patients (23.2%) had both a high uterine artery pulsatility index (>95th percentile) and a diastolic notch. Comparison of the performance between uterine artery pulsatility, notch, and notch depth index using receiver operating characteristic curves to predict fetal growth restriction <10th percentile found area under the curve values of 0.659, 0.679, and 0.704, respectively, with overlapping confidence intervals. CONCLUSION: Quantifying the diastolic notch at 16-26 weeks of gestation did not provide any added benefit in terms of prediction of neonatal birth weight below the 10th or 5th percentile for gestational age, compared with uterine artery pulsatility index.

Breast Reconstruction Use and Impact on Surgical and Oncologic Outcomes Amongst Inflammatory Breast Cancer Patients-A Systematic Review.

Breast reconstruction is generally discouraged in women with inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) due to concerns with recurrence and poor long-term survival. We aim to determine contemporary trends and predictors of breast reconstruction and its impact on oncologic outcomes among women with IBC. A systematic literature review for all studies published up to 15 September 2022 was conducted via MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Studies comparing women diagnosed with IBC undergoing a mastectomy with or without breast reconstruction were evaluated. The initial search yielded 225 studies, of which nine retrospective cohort studies, reporting 2781 cases of breast reconstruction in 29,058 women with IBC, were included. In the past two decades, immediate reconstruction rates have doubled. Younger age, higher income (>USD 25,000), private insurance, metropolitan residence, and bilateral mastectomy were associated with immediate reconstruction. No significant difference was found in overall survival, breast cancer-specific survival or recurrence rates between women undergoing versus not undergoing (immediate or delayed) reconstruction. There is a paucity of data on delayed breast reconstruction following IBC. Immediate breast reconstruction may be a consideration for select patients with IBC, although prospective data is needed to clarify its safety.

Contemporary Trends in Breast Reconstruction Use and Impact on Survival Among Women with Inflammatory Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Breast reconstruction is generally discouraged in women with inflammatory breast cancer (IBC). Nevertheless, reconstruction rates are increasing in this population. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine contemporary trends and predictors of breast reconstruction use and its impact on mortality among IBC patients. METHODS: Demographic, clinicopathologic, and follow-up data for women with non-metastatic IBC having mastectomy between 2004 and 2015 were collected from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) 18 registries database. Rates and predictors of immediate breast reconstruction, along with survival outcomes between the breast reconstruction and no reconstruction groups were calculated. To account for selection bias, a propensity score analysis matching one reconstruction patient to three no reconstruction patients was performed. RESULTS: A total of 4076 women with non-metastatic IBC who underwent mastectomy (388 [9.5%] with breast reconstruction and 3688 [90.5%] without) were included. The proportion of women undergoing breast reconstruction and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy increased from 6.2 to 15.3% and 12.9 to 29.6%, respectively, between 2004 and 2015. Younger age, higher annual income, metropolitan residence, and bilateral mastectomy predicted breast reconstruction use. The 10-year breast cancer-specific survival was 62.9% for women having breast reconstruction and 47.6% for women not having breast reconstruction. After propensity-matched analysis, 10-year cancer-specific survival was similar between the reconstruction (56.6%) and no reconstruction (62.2%) groups (adjusted hazard ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.79-1.16; p = 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: Breast reconstruction rates continue to rise among IBC patients, particularly young women and women with access to reconstruction. Breast reconstruction is not associated with inferior breast cancer-specific survival and can be an option for select patients.