Easy Anthropometric Measurements Are Representative of Baseline Values of Breast Q Values in Asymptomatic Women.

BACKGROUND: Measurements of breast morphology are a determinant of the assessment of any surgical procedure, either reconstructive or cosmetic. This study aims to investigate the association between easy anthropometric measurements and values of quality of life assessed in a sample of asymptomatic women. METHODOLOGY: Healthy asymptomatic women were admitted for this study. The following measurements were assessed: height, weight, nipple to sternal notch distance, areola to infra-mammary fold distance (right vs. left), right-left nipple distance. The Breast Q questionnaire (Italian translation V.1, pre-op breast conservation surgery) in the following domains: satisfaction with breasts; psycho-social satisfaction; physical satisfaction; sexual satisfaction, which was used to assess breast-related quality of life. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-five women responded to the breast Q questionnaire. The mean age of the sample was 44.3 years; the medium BMI was 24.1; Spearman correlation coefficients revealed that all the investigated values were negatively correlated to the "satisfaction with breasts" domain. Psychosexual satisfaction was associated with age; BMI; nipple to sternal notch distance. After normalization for age values, we observed that "satisfaction with breast" was, once again, highly correlated to BMI; nipple to sternal notch distance; areola to IMF distance. In all cases, the higher the values, the lower the scores. CONCLUSIONS: Distances between easy relevant anatomical landmarks are representative of patients' breast-related quality of life in a population of asymptomatic women. These findings allow us to identify an ideal anthropometric framework that can be used as a validated surgical endpoint for cosmetic and oncological procedures.

Natural Language Processing to Extract Meaningful Information from a Corpus of Written Knowledge in Breast Cancer: Transforming Books into Data.

Introduction: Books and papers are the most relevant source of theoretical knowledge for medical education. New technologies of artificial intelligence can be designed to assist in selected educational tasks, such as reading a corpus made up of multiple documents and extracting relevant information in a quantitative way. Methods: Thirty experts were selected transparently using an online public call on the website of the sponsor organization and on its social media. Six books edited or co-edited by members of this panel containing a general knowledge of breast cancer or specific surgical knowledge have been acquired. This collection was used by a team of computer scientists to train an artificial neural network based on a technique called Word2Vec. Results: The corpus of six books contained about 2.2 billion words for 300d vectors. A few tests were performed. We evaluated cosine similarity between different words. Discussion: This work represents an initial attempt to derive formal information from textual corpus. It can be used to perform an augmented reading of the corpus of knowledge available in books and papers as part of a discipline. This can generate new hypothesis and provide an actual estimate of their association within the expert opinions. Word embedding can also be a good tool when used in accruing narrative information from clinical notes, reports, etc., and produce prediction about outcomes. More work is expected in this promising field to generate "real-world evidence."

The Evolution of Educational Events during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Experience of G.Re.T.A. Foundation.

Introduction: The educational and professional lives of everyone have significantly been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Many courses and meetings traditionally structured and organized as face-to-face events have been transformed into virtual events. Methods: We report on the experience of G.Re.T.A. Fondazione in organizing international conferences, webinars, and masterclasses on oncoplastic and aesthetic breast surgery before, during, and after the pandemic. Results: The organization of the meetings as online or hybrid events allowed to maintain a high number of participants with numbers being in line with those achieved in the traditional face-to-face events or even showing an increased number of participants, in particular from countries not traditionally involved such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, India, and Russian Federation. Discussion: We think that the hybrid modality is likely to become a gold standard, even though purely online meetings will still survive in the post-pandemic era. Webinars are frugal and highly efficient events that can easily reach a worldwide audience with acceptable interaction.

Evaluation of Different Breast Implant Shapes in the Same Patient: Is There Really a Difference between Round and Anatomical Implants?

Background: The choice of the right implant shape is one of the most frequent debates in cosmetic breast augmentation. In current literature, the question of whether there is a difference in the appearance of different implant shapes is still an argument of highly controversial discussion. The aim of the present work was, therefore, to analyze whether any difference exists in terms of aesthetic outcome between round and anatomical implants, and if they can be distinguished from each other in a like for like swap, making sure the evaluation was made in exactly similar conditions. Methods: Fourteen consecutive patients who underwent aesthetic breast augmentations received primarily an implant of a given volume, projection, and shape (round or anatomical) and then decided to undergo implant replacement to a different shape but maintaining the same volume and projection. At 12-months follow-up, standardized photographs were taken, blinded and randomized. They were evaluated by 10 plastic surgeons and 10 nurses. Results: All 20 observers could distinguish between round and anatomical shape in all 14 cases (100%), which was highly significant (P < 0.0001) for each observer. Conclusions: The present data indicate that there is a clear difference between anatomical and round-shaped implants in terms of aesthetic appearance, when a comparison is properly performed. With the use of both round and anatomical implant shapes, aesthetically appealing results can be achieved in cosmetic breast augmentation. The right implant choice must be made, based on patients' anatomy and desires.

Outcomes of Different Quality of Life Assessment Modalities After Breast Cancer Therapy: A Network Meta-analysis.

Importance: Improvement in clinical understanding of the priorities of patients with breast cancer (BC) regarding postoperative aesthetic outcomes (AOs) is needed. Objective: To assess expert panel and computerized evaluation modalities against patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), the gold standard of AO assessment, in patients after surgical management of BC. Data Sources: Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov were interrogated from inception through August 5, 2022. Search terms included breast conserving AND aesthetic outcome AND breast cancer. Ten observational studies were eligible for inclusion, with the earliest date of database collection on December 15, 2022. Study Selection: Studies with at least 1 pairwise comparison (PROM vs expert panel or PROM vs computerized evaluation with Breast Cancer Conservation Treatment cosmetic results [BCCT.core] software) were considered eligible if they included patients who received BC treatment with curative intent. Studies reporting solely on risk reduction or benign surgical procedures were excluded to ensure transitivity. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two independent reviewers extracted study data with an independent cross-check from a third reviewer. The quality of included observational studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and the level of evidence quality was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool. Confidence in network meta-analysis results was analyzed with the Confidence in Network Meta-analysis semiautomated tool. Effect size was reported using random-effects odds ratios (ORs) and cumulative ratios of ORs with 95% credibility intervals (CrIs). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of this network meta-analysis was modality (expert panel or computer software) discordance from PROMs. Four-point Likert responses across PROMs, expert panel assessment, and BCCT.core evaluation of AOs were assessed. Results: A total of 10 observational studies including 3083 patients (median [IQR] age, 59 [50-60] years; median [range] follow-up, 39.0 [22.5-80.5] months) with reported AOs were assessed and homogenized in 4 distinct Likert response groups (excellent, very good, satisfactory, and bad). Overall network incoherence was low (χ22 = 0.35; P = .83). Overall, panel and software modalities graded AO outcomes worse than PROMs. Specifically, for excellent vs all other responses, the panel to PROM ratio of ORs was 0.30 (95% CrI, 0.17-0.53; I2 = 86%) and the BCCT.core to PROM ratio of ORs was 0.28 (95% CrI, 0.13-0.59; I2 = 95%), while the BCCT.core to panel ratio of ORs was 0.93 (95% CrI, 0.46-1.88; I2 = 88%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, patients scored AOs higher than both expert panels and computer software. Standardization and supplementation of expert panel and software AO tools with racially, ethnically, and culturally inclusive PROMs is needed to improve clinical evaluation of the journey of patients with BC and to prioritize components of therapeutic outcomes.

Should Acellular Dermal Matrices Be Used for Implant-based Breast Reconstruction after Mastectomy? Clinical Recommendation Based on the GRADE Approach.

Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) entered the market in the early 2000s and their use has increased thereafter. Several retrospective cohort studies and single surgeon series reported benefits with the use of ADMs. However, robust evidence supporting these advantages is lacking. There is the need to define the role for ADMs in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) after mastectomy. Methods: A panel of world-renowned breast specialists was convened to evaluate evidence, express personal viewpoints, and establish recommendation for the use of ADMs for subpectoral one-/two-stage IBBR (compared with no ADM use) for adult women undergoing mastectomy for breast cancer treatment or risk reduction using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results: Based on the voting outcome, the following recommendation emerged as a consensus statement: the panel members suggest subpectoral one- or two-stage IBBR either with ADMs or without ADMs for adult women undergoing mastectomy for breast cancer treatment or risk reduction (with very low certainty of evidence). Conclusions: The systematic review has revealed a very low certainty of evidence for most of the important outcomes in ADM-assisted IBBR and the absence of standard tools for evaluating clinical outcomes. Forty-five percent of panel members expressed a conditional recommendation either in favor of or against the use of ADMs in subpectoral one- or two-stages IBBR for adult women undergoing mastectomy for breast cancer treatment or risk reduction. Future subgroup analyses could help identify relevant clinical and pathological factors to select patients for whom one technique could be preferable to another.

Is Breast Implant Associated-Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma linked to textured implants?

Breast Implant Associated-Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) is a distinctive type of T-cell lymphoma arising around breast implants. We performed a review of the existing literature with the aim of providing an evidence-based overview of the available data on BIA-ALCL with a standardized evaluation of the quality of the studies and investigating the potential association between textured breast implants and BIA-ALCL.We analyzed the literature reporting estimates of relative or absolute risks of BIA-ALCL in case-control, cohort studies and case series studies. The total number of BIA-ALCL cases reported in literature is very low. Furthermore, most of the reported cases have been reported in case-control studies or case series. This means that our knowledge is based on a low level of evidence. Moreover, low-medium quality scores were observed in the included case series studies. In relation to the rarity of the event, better information could only derived by international cooperation to pool together data deriving from all over the world, with the clear need of better reporting patients and implant characteristics in case series and when adding data to public registries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Revisional Breast Surgery: Are Surgical Plans Changed if the Patient Has a Textured Device?

SUMMARY: The authors reviewed the available evidence on revision surgery following implant-based breast surgery with the aim of investigating whether any difference in the surgical approach should be proposed if the patient has a textured device. They included in their review 31 studies presenting different approaches for revision surgery following implant-based breast surgery (both aesthetic and reconstructive), with a level of evidence ranging from 4 to 5. None of the included studies proposed different surgical approaches for revision surgery in patients carrying textured devices. The authors conclude that no different surgical attitudes in revision surgery following implant-based breast surgery should be adopted if the patient has a textured device according to the available evidence, when a correct approach is performed to face the complication or adverse event, following a thorough preoperative study of the patient with the proper diagnostic tools.

Should oncoplastic breast conserving surgery be used for the treatment of early stage breast cancer? Using the GRADE approach for development of clinical recommendations.

INTRODUCTION: The potential advantages of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (BCS) have not been validated in robust studies that constitute high levels of evidence, despite oncoplastic techniques being widely adopted around the globe. There is hence the need to define the precise role of oncoplastic BCS in the treatment of early breast cancer, with consensual recommendations for clinical practice. METHODS: A panel of world-renowned breast specialists was convened to evaluate evidence, express personal viewpoints and establish recommendations for the use of oncoplastic BCS as primary treatment of unifocal early stage breast cancers using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: According to the results of the systematic review of literature, the panelists were asked to comment on the recommendation for use of oncoplastic BCS for treatment of operable breast cancer that is suitable for breast conserving surgery, with the GRADE approach. Based on the voting outcome, the following recommendation emerged as a consensus statement: Oncoplastic breast conserving surgery should be recommended versus standard breast conserving surgery for the treatment of operable breast cancer in adult women who are suitable candidates for breast conserving surgery (with very low certainty of evidence). DISCUSSION: This review has revealed a low level of evidence for most of the important outcomes in oncoplastic surgery with lack of any randomized data and absence of standard tools for evaluation of clinical outcomes and especially patients' values. Despite areas of controversy, about one-third (36%) of panel members expressed a strong recommendation in support of oncoplastic BCS. Presumably, this reflects a synthesis of views on the relative complexity of these techniques, associated complications, impact on quality of life and costs.

Nipple Sparing Mastectomy as a Risk-Reducing Procedure for BRCA-Mutated Patients.

Growing numbers of asymptomatic women who become aware of carrying a breast cancer gene mutation (BRCA) mutation are choosing to undergo risk-reducing bilateral mastectomies with immediate breast reconstruction. We reviewed the literature with the aim of assessing the oncological safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) as a risk-reduction procedure in BRCA-mutated patients. Nine studies reporting on the incidence of primary breast cancer post NSM in asymptomatic BRCA mutated patients undergoing risk-reducing bilateral procedures met the inclusion criteria. NSM appears to be a safe option for BRCA mutation carriers from an oncological point of view, with low reported rates of new breast cancers, low rates of postoperative complications, and high levels of satisfaction and postoperative quality of life. However, larger multi-institutional studies with longer follow-up are needed to establish this procedure as the best surgical option in this setting.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Surgical Management of Breast Cancer: Global Trends and Future Perspectives.

INTRODUCTION: The rapid spread of COVID-19 across the globe is forcing surgical oncologists to change their daily practice. We sought to evaluate how breast surgeons are adapting their surgical activity to limit viral spread and spare hospital resources. METHODS: A panel of 12 breast surgeons from the most affected regions of the world convened a virtual meeting on April 7, 2020, to discuss the changes in their local surgical practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Similarly, a Web-based poll based was created to evaluate changes in surgical practice among breast surgeons from several countries. RESULTS: The virtual meeting showed that distinct countries and regions were experiencing different phases of the pandemic. Surgical priority was given to patients with aggressive disease not candidate for primary systemic therapy, those with progressive disease under neoadjuvant systemic therapy, and patients who have finished neoadjuvant therapy. One hundred breast surgeons filled out the poll. The trend showed reductions in operating room schedules, indications for surgery, and consultations, with an increasingly restrictive approach to elective surgery with worsening of the pandemic. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 emergency should not compromise treatment of a potentially lethal disease such as breast cancer. Our results reveal that physicians are instinctively reluctant to abandon conventional standards of care when possible. However, as the situation deteriorates, alternative strategies of de-escalation are being adopted. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study aimed to characterize how the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting breast cancer surgery and which strategies are being adopted to cope with the situation.

Theoretical and practical knowledge curriculum for European Breast Surgeons.

The Breast Surgery theoretical and practical knowledge curriculum comprehensively describes the knowledge and skills expected of a fully trained breast surgeon practicing in the European Union and European Economic Area (EEA). It forms part of a range of factors that contribute to the delivery of high quality cancer care. It has been developed by a panel of experts from across Europe and has been validated by professional breast surgery societies in Europe. The curriculum maps closely to the syllabus of the Union of European Medical Specialists (UEMS) Breast Surgery Exam, the UK FRCS (breast specialist interest) curriculum and other professional standards across Europe and globally (USA Society of Surgical Oncology, SSO). It is envisioned that this will serve as the basis for breast surgery training, examination and accreditation across Europe to harmonise and raise standards as breast surgery develops as a separate discipline from its parent specialties (general surgery, gynaecology, surgical oncology and plastic surgery). The curriculum is not static but will be revised and updated by the curriculum development group of the European Breast Surgical Oncology Certification group (BRESO) every 2 years.

Why Do We Need Anatomical Implants? the Science and Rationale for Maintaining Their Availability and Use in Breast Surgery.

The choice between anatomical and round implants is an important decision in breast augmentation surgery; however, both have their place and the decision between them that should be made on a patient-by-patient basis, taking into account the patient's desires, anatomy, and surgical history. In some individuals, there are clear indications for using either anatomical or round devices, and there is good evidence that aesthetic outcomes are better with anatomical implants in some instances. When both types are an option, anatomical devices may offer increased flexibility and, despite a longer learning curve needed to properly manage them, they are associated with positive long-term outcomes and high levels of patient satisfaction. Concerns about implant rotation can be minimized with proper patient selection and surgical technique, and the overall complication rate may favor anatomical over round devices in appropriate patients. Breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma is an important issue, and while rare, it must be considered in the context of the entire patient risk profile. Both anatomical and round implants remain key elements of a complete surgical toolbox in breast augmentation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

International Expert Panel Consensus on Fat Grafting of the Breast.

BACKGROUND: Autologous fat grafting has broad applications in reconstructive and aesthetic breast surgery as a natural filler and for its regenerative purposes. Despite the widespread use of fat grafting, there remains no shared consensus on what constitutes the optimal fat grafting technique and its oncological safety. For this reason, the authors of this study have organized a Survey and an International Consensus Conference that was held at the Aesthetic Breast Meeting in Milan (December 15, 2018). METHODS: All studies on fat grafting, both for breast aesthetic and reconstructive purposes, were electronically screened. The literature review led to 17 "key questions" that were used for the Survey. The authors prepared a set of 10 "key statements" that have been discussed in a dedicated face-to-face session during the meeting. RESULTS: The 10 key statements addressed all the most debated topics on fat grafting of the breast. Levels of evidence for the key statements ranged from III to IV with 2 statements (20%) supported by a level of evidence III and 6 statements (60%) by level of evidence IV. Overall consensus was reached for 2 statements (20%) with >75% agreement reached for 7 statements. CONCLUSIONS: The survey demonstrated a diversity of opinion and attitude among the panelists with regard to technique. Clear recommendations for evidence-based clinical practice for fat grafting use both in aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery could not be defined due to the scarcity of level 1 or 2 studies.