Assessment of the axilla in women with early-stage breast cancer undergoing primary surgery: a review.

Sentinel node biopsy (SNB) is routinely performed in people with node-negative early breast cancer to assess the axilla. SNB has no proven therapeutic benefit. Nodal status information obtained from SNB helps in prognostication and can influence adjuvant systemic and locoregional treatment choices. However, the redundancy of the nodal status information is becoming increasingly apparent. The accuracy of radiological assessment of the axilla, combined with the strong influence of tumour biology on systemic and locoregional therapy requirements, has prompted many to consider alternative options for SNB. SNB contributes significantly to decreased quality of life in early breast cancer patients. Substantial improvements in workflow and cost could accrue by removing SNB from early breast cancer treatment. We review the current viewpoints and ideas for alternative options for assessing and managing a clinically negative axilla in patients with early breast cancer (EBC). Omitting SNB in selected cases or replacing SNB with a non-invasive predictive model appear to be viable options based on current literature.

Post-mastectomy Breast Reconstruction With Gas vs Saline Tissue Expanders: Does the Fill Type Matter?

The most common reconstruction technique following mastectomy is a 2-stage technique that involves tissue expansion followed by definitive implant-based reconstruction (IBR). Tissue expanders (TEs) have classically used saline for initial fill; however, TEs with an initial gas fill (GTE)-including the CO2-based AeroForm (AirXpanders, San Francisco, CA) TE and TEs initially filled with atmospheric air-have been increasingly used in the past decade. We aimed to compare the outcomes in breast reconstruction for tissue expanders initially filled with saline vs gas. PubMed was queried for studies comparing gas- and saline-filled tissue expanders (STEs) used in IBR. A meta-analysis was performed on major postoperative outcomes and the required expansion and definitive reconstruction time. Eleven studies were selected and included in the analysis. No significant differences existed between tissue expansion with GTEs vs STEs for 11 of the 13 postoperative outcomes investigated. Out of the complications investigated, only the risk of infection/cellulitis/abscess formation was significantly lower in the GTE cohort (odds ratio 0.62; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.82; P = .0009). The time to definitive reconstruction was also significantly lower in the GTE cohort (mean difference [MD], 45.85 days; 95% CI, -57.80 to -33.90; P < .00001). The total time to full expansion approached significance in the GTE cohort (MD, -20.33 days; 95% CI, -41.71 to 1.04; P = .06). A cost analysis considering TE cost and infection risk determined that GTE use saved a predicted $2055.34 in overall healthcare costs. Surgical outcomes for both fill types were predominantly similar; however, GTEs were associated with a significantly decreased risk of postoperative infection compared to saline-filled TEs. GTEs could also reduce healthcare expenditures and require less time until definitive reconstruction after placement.

Trends in Locoregional Therapy in Older Women with Early-Stage Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer by Frailty and Life Expectancy.

BACKGROUND: In women ≥ 70 years of age with T1N0 hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) breast cancer, breast surgery type and omission of axillary surgery or radiation therapy (RT) do not impact overall survival. Although frailty and life expectancy ideally factor into therapy decisions, their impact on therapy receipt is unclear. We sought to identify trends in and factors associated with locoregional therapy type by frailty and life expectancy. METHODS: Women ≥ 70 years of age with T1N0 HR+/HER2- breast cancer diagnosed in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database between 2010 and 2015 were stratified by validated claims-based frailty and life expectancy measures. Therapy trends over time by regimen intensity ('high intensity': lumpectomy + axillary surgery + RT, or mastectomy + axillary surgery; 'moderate intensity': lumpectomy + RT, lumpectomy + axillary surgery, or mastectomy only; or 'low intensity': lumpectomy only) were analyzed. Factors associated with therapy type were identified using generalized linear mixed models. RESULTS: Of 16,188 women, 21.8% were frail, 22.2% had a life expectancy < 5 years, and only 12.3% fulfilled both criteria. In frail women with a life expectancy < 5 years, high-intensity regimens decreased significantly (48.8-31.2%; p < 0.001) over the study period, although in 2015, 30% still received a high-intensity regimen. In adjusted analyses, frailty and life expectancy < 5 years were not associated with breast surgery type but were associated with a lower likelihood of axillary surgery (frailty: odds ratio [OR] 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76-0.96; life expectancy < 5 years: OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.20-0.25). Life expectancy < 5 years was also associated with a lower likelihood of RT receipt in breast-conserving surgery patients (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.27-0.34). CONCLUSIONS: Rates of high-intensity therapy are decreasing but overtreatment persists in this population. Continued efforts aimed at appropriate de-escalation of locoregional therapy are needed.

Robotic Versus Conventional or Endoscopic-assisted Nipple-sparing Mastectomy and Immediate Prosthesis Breast Reconstruction in the Management of Breast Cancer: A Prospectively Designed Multicenter Trial Comparing Clinical Outcomes, Medical Cost, and Patient-reported Outcomes (RCENSM-P).

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical and patient-reported outcomes of minimal access and conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy (C-NSM). The secondary outcomes investigated included medical costs and oncological safety. BACKGROUND: Minimal-access NSM has been increasingly applied in the treatment of patients with breast cancer. However, prospective multicenter trials comparing robotic-assisted NSM (R-NSM) versus C-NSM or endoscopic-assisted NSM (E-NSM) are lacking. METHODS: A prospectively designed 3-arm multicenter, nonrandomized trial (NCT04037852) was conducted from October 1, 2019 to December 31, 2021, to compare R-NSM with C-NSM or E-NSM. RESULTS: A total of 73 R-NSM, 74 C-NSM, and 84 E-NSM procedures were enrolled. The median wound length and operation time of C-NSM was (9 cm, 175 minutes), (4 cm, and 195 minutes) in R-NSM, and (4 cm and 222 minutes) in E-NSM. Complications were comparable among the groups. Better wound healing was observed in the minimal-access NSM group. The R-NSM procedure was 4000 and 2600 United States Dollars more expensive than C-NSM and E-NSM, respectively. Wound/scar and postoperative acute pain evaluation favored the use of minimal access NSM over C-NSM. Quality of life in terms of chronic breast/chest pain, mobility, and range of motion of the upper extremity showed no significant differences. The preliminary oncologic results showed no differences among the 3 groups. CONCLUSIONS: R-NSM or E-NSM is a safe alternative if compared with C-NSM in terms of perioperative morbidities, especially with better wound healing. The advantage of minimal access groups was higher wound-related satisfaction. Higher costs remain one of the major limiting factors in the widespread adoption of R-NSM.

Economic evaluation of flap fixation techniques after mastectomy: Results of a double-blind randomized controlled trial (SAM-trial).

BACKGROUND: An economic evaluation was performed alongside an RCT investigating flap fixation in reducing seroma formation after mastectomy. The evaluation focused on the first year following mastectomy and assessed cost-effectiveness from a health care and societal perspective. METHODS: The economic evaluation was conducted between 2014 and 2018 in four Dutch breast clinics. Patients with an indication for mastectomy or modified radical mastectomy were randomly assigned to: conventional closure (CON), flap fixation with sutures (FFS) or flap fixation with tissue glue (FFG). Health care costs, patient and family costs and costs due to productivity losses were assessed. Outcomes were expressed in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Bootstrapping techniques, sensitivity and secondary analyses were employed to address uncertainty. RESULTS: The FFS-group yielded most QALYs (0.810; 95%-CI 0.755-0.856), but also incurred the highest mean costs at twelve months (€10.416; 95%-CI 8.231-12.930). CON was the next best alternative with 0.794 QALYs (95%-CI 0.733-0.841) and mean annual costs of €10.051 (95%-CI 8.255-12.044). FFG incurred fewer QALYs and higher costs, when compared to the CON group. The ICER of FFS compared to CON was €22.813/QALY. Applying a willingness to pay threshold in the Netherlands of €20.000/QALY, the probability that FFS was cost-effective was 42%, compared to 37% and 21% for CON and FFG, respectively. CONCLUSION: The cost-effectiveness of FFS following mastectomy, versus CON and FFG, is uncertain from a societal perspective. Yet, from a health care and hospital perspective FFS is likely to be the most cost-effective intervention.

Decision-analytic evaluation of the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of strategies to prevent breast and ovarian cancer in German women with BRCA-1/2 mutations.

BACKGROUND: Women with inherited mutations in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes have increased lifetime risks for developing breast and/or ovarian cancer and may develop these cancers around the age of 30 years. Therefore, prevention of breast and ovarian cancer in these women may need to start relatively early in life. In this study we systematically evaluate the long-term effectiveness and cost effectiveness of different prevention strategies for breast and ovarian cancer in women with BRCA-1/2 mutation in Germany. METHODS: A decision-analytic Markov model simulating lifetime breast and ovarian cancer development in BRCA-1/2 carriers was developed. Different strategies including intensified surveillance (IS), prophylactic bilateral mastectomy (PBM), and prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (PBSO) alone or in combination at different ages were evaluated. German clinical, epidemiological, and economic (in 2022 Euro) data were used. Outcomes included cancer incidences, mortality, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and discounted incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). We adopted the German health-care system perspective and discounted costs and health effects with 3% annually. RESULTS: All intervention strategies are more effective and less costly than IS alone. Prevention with PBM plus PBSO at age 30 maximizes life expectancy with 6.3 LYs gained, whereas PBM at age 30 with delayed PBSO at age 35 improves quality of life with 11.1 QALYs gained, when compared to IS alone. A further delay of PBSO was associated with lower effectiveness. Both strategies are cost effective with ICERs significantly below 10,000 EUR/LYG or QALY. CONCLUSION: Based on our results, PBM at age 30 plus PBSO between age 30 and 40 prolongs life and is cost effective in women with BRCA-1/2 mutations in Germany. Serial preventive surgeries with delayed PBSO potentially improve quality of life for women. However, delaying PBM and/or PBSO further may lead to increased mortality and reduced QALYs.

Flap perfusion assessment with indocyanine green angiography in deep inferior epigastric perforator flap breast reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Indocyanine green angiography (ICG-A) has been widely applied for intraoperative flap assessment in DIEP flap breast reconstruction. However, the beneficial effect of ICG-A in DIEP flap breast reconstruction is still uncertain and no standardized protocol is available. This study aims to analyze the clinical outcome and comprehensively review protocols of this field. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases until September 15, 2022. Studies on the utility of intraoperative ICG-A in DIEP breast reconstruction were included. Data reporting reconstruction outcomes were extracted for pooled analysis. RESULTS: A total of 22 studies were enrolled in the review, among five studies with 1021 patients included in the meta-analysis. The protocols of ICG-A assessment of DIEP flap varied among studies. According to the pooled results, the incidence of postoperative fat necrosis was 10.89% (50 of 459 patients) with ICG-A and 21.53% (121 of 562 patients) with clinical judgment. The risk for postoperative fat necrosis was significantly lower in patients with intraoperative ICG-A than without (RR 0.47 95% CI 0.29-0.78, p = .004, I2 = 51%). Reoperation occurred in 5 of 48 patients (10.42%) in the ICG-A group and in 21 of 64 patients (32.82%) in the control group summarized from reports in two studies. The risk for reoperation was lower in the ICG-A group than in the control group (RR 0.41 95% CI 0.18-0.93, p = .03, I2 = 0%). Other complications, including flap loss, seroma, hematoma, dehiscence, mastectomy skin necrosis, and infection, were comparable between the two groups. Heterogeneities among studies were acceptable. No significant influence of specific studies was identified in sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: ICG-A is an accurate and reliable way to identify problematic perfusion of DIEP flaps during breast reconstruction. Protocols of ICG-A differed in current studies. Intraoperative ICG-A significantly decreases the rate of fat necrosis and reoperation in patients undergoing DIEP breast reconstruction. The synthesized results should be interpreted sensibly due to the sample size limitation. RCTs on the outcomes and high-quality studies for an optimized ICG-A protocol are still needed in the future.

Predicting Mastectomy Skin Flap Necrosis: A Systematic Review of Preoperative and Intraoperative Assessment Techniques.

Mastectomy skin-flap necrosis (MSFN) is one of the most feared complications of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (IIBR). Traditionally, mastectomy skin-flap viability was based only on surgeons' clinical experience. Even though numerous studies have already addressed the patients' risk factors for MSFN, few works have focused on assessing quality of breast envelope. This review investigates mastectomy's flap viability-assessment methods, both preoperative (PMFA) and intraoperative (IMFA), to predict MSFN and its sequalae. Between June and November 2022, we conducted a systematic review of Pubmed/MEDLINE and Cochrane electronic databases. Only English studies regarding PMFA and IMFA applied to IIBR were selected. The use of digital mammography, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and a combination of several methods before surgery was shown to be advantageous by several authors. Indocyanine performed better than other IMFA, however both thermal imaging and spectroscopy demonstrated novel and promising results. Anyway, the best prediction comes when preoperative and intraoperative values are combined. Particularly in prepectoral reconstruction, when mastectomy flaps are essential to determine a successful breast reconstruction, surgeons' clinical judgment is insufficient in assessing the risk of MSFN. Preoperative and intraoperative assessment techniques play an emerging key role in MSFN prediction. However, although there are several approaches to back up the surgeon's processing choice, there is still a dearth of pertinent literature on the subject, and more research is required.

Acellular Nipple Scaffold Development, Characterization, and Preliminary Biocompatibility Assessment in a Swine Model.

BACKGROUND: The standard in nipple reconstruction remains the autologous skin flap. Unfortunately, the results are not satisfying, with up to 75% loss of nipple projection over time. Existing studies investigated the use of primates as a source of implants. The authors hypothesized that the porcine nipple can serve as a perfect shape-supporting implant because of functional similarities to the human nipple. A decellularization protocol was developed to obtain an acellular nipple scaffold (ANS) for nipple reconstruction. METHODS: Tissue samples were collected from eight disease-free female Yorkshire pigs (60 to 70 kg) and then decellularized. The decellularization efficiency and extracellular matrix characterization was performed histologically and quantitatively (DNA, total collagen, elastin, and glycosaminoglycan content). In vitro and in vivo biocompatibility was determined by human dermal fibroblast culture and subcutaneous implantation of six ANSs in a single Yorkshire pig (60 to 70 kg), respectively. Inflammation and adverse events were monitored daily based on local clinical signs. RESULTS: The authors showed that all cellular structures and 96% of DNA [321.7 ± 57.6 ng DNA/mg wet tissue versus 11.7 ± 10.9 ng DNA/mg wet tissue, in native and ANS, respectively ( P < 0.001)] can be successfully removed. However, this was associated with a decrease in collagen [89.0 ± 11.4 and 58.8 ± 9.6 µg collagen/mg ( P < 0.001)] and elastin [14.2 ± 1.6 and 7.9 ± 2.4 µg elastin/mg ( P < 0.05)] and an increase in glycosaminoglycan content [5.0 ± 0.7 and 6.0 ± 0.8 ng/mg ( P < 0.05)]. ANS can support continuous cell growth in vitro and during preliminary biocompatibility tests in vivo. CONCLUSION: This is a preliminary report of a novel promising ANS for nipple reconstruction, but more research is needed to validate results. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Breast cancer is very common among women. Treatment involves mastectomy, but its consequences affect patient mental well-being, and can lead to depression. Nipple-areola complex reconstruction is critical, and existing methods lead to unsatisfactory outcomes.

Insights on DRGs, guideline compliance and economic sustainability. The case of mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction.

Background: Immediate breast reconstruction is recommended for eligible patients undergoing mastectomy, raising the issue of economic sustainability of both mastectomy and breast reconstruction performed within the same hospitalization, as opposed to two surgical procedures in two different hospitalizations. Study design: A retrospective analysis was conducted to compare economic sustainability of mastectomies with or without immediate breast reconstruction. Methods: Economic data on hospitalizations for mastectomy in a Teaching Hospital between 1 January 2019 and 31 March 2021 were analyzed to assess their sustainability. Results: 338 admissions were selected (63.9% with immediate breast reconstruction (CI 99%: 57.2% to 70.6%). Compared to mastectomy alone, mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction had higher cost of € 2,245 (p < 0.001), with operating rooms and devices as main cost drivers. Current reimbursements rates (which are the same for mastectomy alone and for mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction) led to an average loss of € 1,719 for each mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction. Conclusion: Current DRGs reimbursement rates for hospital admissions for breast cancer surgery do not guarantee immediate breast reconstruction's economic sustainability. DRGs system should be revised, or other solutions as bundled payment should be implemented in the light of the costs of innovation in healthcare, considering mastectomy and breast reconstruction steps in a path of linked actions aimed at improving patients' health.

Effect of standardised surgical assessment and shared decision-making on morbidity and patient satisfaction after breast conserving therapy: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The role of oncoplastic breast conserving therapy (OPBCT) on physical function, morbidity and patient satisfaction has yet to be defined. Additionally, technique selection should be individualised and incorporate patient preference. The study aim was to investigate differences between "standard" (sBCT) and oncoplastic breast conservation (OPBCT) in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) when patients have been assessed in a standardised manner and technique selection has been reached through shared decision-making (SDM). METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study of 215 women treated at a tertiary referral centre. Standardised surgical assessment included breast and lesion volumetry, definition of resection ratio, patient-related risk factors and patient preference. Postoperative morbidity and patient satisfaction were assessed by validated PROs tools (Diseases of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand-DASH and Breast-Q). Patient experience was assessed by semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: There was no difference of the median values between OPBCT and sBCT in postoperative morbidity of the upper extremity (DASH 3.3 vs 5, p = 0.656) or the function of the chest wall (Breast-Q 82 vs 82, p = 0.758). Postoperative satisfaction with breasts did not differ either (Breast-Q 65 vs 61, p = 0.702). On the individual level, women that opted for OPBCT after SDM had improved satisfaction when compared to baseline (+3 vs -1, p = 0.001). Shared decision-making changed patient attitude in 69.8% of patients, leading most often to de-escalation from mastectomy. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support that a combination of standardised surgical assessment and SDM allows for tailored treatment and de-escalation of oncoplastic surgery without negatively affecting patient satisfaction and morbidity.

Cost analysis of pre-pectoral implant-based breast reconstruction.

With improvement in mastectomy skin flap viability and increasing recognition of animation deformity following sub-pectoral implant placement, there has been a transition toward pre-pectoral breast reconstruction. While studies have explored the cost effectiveness of implant-based breast reconstruction, few investigations have evaluated cost with respect to pre-pectoral versus sub-pectoral breast reconstruction. A retrospective review of 548 patients who underwent mastectomy and implant-based breast reconstruction was performed from 2017 to 2020. The demographic and surgical characteristics of the pre-pectoral and sub-pectoral cohorts were well matched, except for reconstructive staging, as patients who underwent pre-pectoral reconstruction were more likely to undergo single-stage instead of two-stage reconstruction. Comparison of institutional cost ratios by reconstructive technique revealed that the sub-pectoral approach was more costly (1.70 ± 0.44 vs 1.58 ± 0.31, p < 0.01). However, further stratification by laterality and reconstructive staging failed to demonstrate difference in cost by reconstructive technique. These results were confirmed by multivariable linear regression, which did not reveal reconstructive technique to be an independent variable for cost. This study suggests that pre-pectoral breast reconstruction is a cost-effective alternative to sub-pectoral breast reconstruction and may confer cost benefit, as it is more strongly associated with direct-to-implant breast reconstruction.

The Cost of Breast Cancer Surgery - Is the Money Spent Reflected on Health-related Quality of Life?

BACKGROUND/AIM: Different treatment options of breast cancer (BC) are dependent on certain cancer- and patient-related features. The cost of treatment varies among patients. This study describes the cost distribution in the treatment of Finnish patients with BC for two years and relates the costs to important outcomes of modern BC treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of 1,065 patients was measured prospectively at baseline, and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months thereafter with a generic (15D) and a disease-specific (EORTC QLQ C-30 BR23) HRQoL-instrument. Clinical data and costs of care were collected from hospital records. Patients were divided into four groups according to the surgical approach: breast-conserving surgery (BCS n=661), mastectomy (n=319), immediate reconstruction (IBR n=51), and delayed reconstruction (DR n=34), and the costs according to the clinic responsible for treatment: oncological-, breast surgery-, and plastic surgery unit. Total costs of care during follow-up are presented groupwise alongside HRQoL results. RESULTS: The mean total cost for BC surgery was 6,015 Euros for BCS, 8,114 euros for mastectomy, 18,217 Euros for IBR, and 19,041 Euros for DR. BCS, IBR, and DR produced good HRQoL. Mastectomy patients had the lowest overall HRQoL and highest cost accumulation at the oncology unit. HRQoL of IBR and DR patients was similar. CONCLUSION: DR produces good HRQoL but generates the highest costs of care. If patients that require reconstruction could be identified earlier and offered IBR instead of mastectomy followed by later DR, the costs of care might be reduced.

Novel Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for the Assessment of Patient Satisfaction and Health-Related Quality of Life Following Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have become an integral part of the evaluation of reconstruction surgery outcomes. However, there are limitations in current PROMs when it comes to the assessment of well-being during inpatient stay, patient perception of health, relationship with partner, and vitality (i.e., mood and ability to work and pursue hobbies, carry out daily tasks, and sleep) following breast reconstructive surgery. The aim was to develop a novel set of measures to compare patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life following different types of postmastectomy breast reconstruction. METHODS: A novel questionnaire was created and refined through cognitive interviews with patients and expert feedback. A field test study was conducted, including patients who had undergone delayed postmastectomy breast reconstruction with implant, autologous tissue, or combination of implant and autologous tissue. Based on the results, confirmatory factor analysis and examination of reliability of the questionnaire were conducted. Results of patient responses were analyzed using Chi-square test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis showed good model fit, and Cronbach's alpha indicated high internal consistency of the questionnaire. Besides that, patients with combination reconstruction reported significantly lower vitality than patients with implant and autologous reconstruction (p = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: This novel questionnaire expands the current knowledge base of postmastectomy breast reconstruction PROMs. Results of the field test study showed that combination reconstruction was associated with lower patient vitality than other reconstruction types. 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 .

Nationwide Estimates of Gender-Affirming Chest Reconstruction in the United States, 2016-2019.

BACKGROUND: Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, introduced in 2016, increased access to gender-affirming surgeries for transgender and gender diverse individuals. Masculinizing chest reconstruction (e.g., mastectomy) and feminizing chest reconstruction (e.g., augmentation mammaplasty), often outpatient procedures, are the most frequently performed gender-affirming surgeries. However, there is a paucity of information about the demographics of patients who undergo gender-affirming chest reconstruction. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to investigate the incidence, demographics, and spending for ambulatory gender-affirming chest reconstruction utilizing nationally representative data from 2016 to 2019. METHODS: Employing the Nationwide Ambulatory Surgery Sample, the authors identified patients with an International Classification of Diseases diagnosis code of gender dysphoria who underwent chest reconstruction between 2016 and 2019. Demographic and clinical characteristics were recorded for each encounter. RESULTS: A weighted estimate of 21,293 encounters for chest reconstruction were included (17,480 [82.1%] masculinizing and 3813 [27.9%] feminizing). Between 2016 and 2019, the number of chest surgeries per 100,000 encounters increased by 143.2% from 27.3 to 66.4 (P < 0.001). A total 12,751 (59.9%) chest surgeries were covered by private health insurance, 6557 (30.8%) were covered by public health insurance, 1172 (5.5%) were self-pay, and 813 (3.8%) had other means of payment. The median total charges were $29,887 (IQR, $21,778-$43,785) for chest reconstruction overall. Age, expected primary payer, patient location, and median income varied significantly by race (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Gender-affirming chest reconstructions are on the rise, and surgeons must understand the background and needs of transgender and gender diverse patients who require and choose to undergo surgical transitions.

Development of the Breast Surgical Oncology Fellowship in the United States.

The surgical treatment of breast cancer has rapidly evolved over the past 50 years, progressing from Halsted's radical mastectomy to a public campaign of surgical options, aesthetic reconstruction, and patient empowerment. Sparked by the research of Dr. Bernard Fisher and the first National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project trial in 1971, the field of breast surgery underwent significant growth over the next several decades, enabling general surgeons to limit their practices to the breast. High surgical volumes eventually led to the development of the first formal breast surgical oncology fellowship in a large community-based hospital at Baylor University Medical Center in 1982. The establishment of the American Society of Breast Surgeons, as well as several landmark clinical trials and public campaign efforts, further contributed to the advancement of breast surgery. In 2003, the Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO), in partnership with the American Society of Breast Surgeons and the American Society of Breast Disease, approved its first fellowship training program in breast surgical oncology. Since that time, the number of American fellowship programs has increased to approximately 60 programs, focusing not only on training in breast surgery, but also in medical oncology, radiation oncology, pathology, breast imaging, and plastic and reconstructive surgery. This article focuses on the happenings in the United States that led to the transition of breast surgery from a subset of general surgery to its own specialized field.

Budget impact analysis of HARMONIC FOCUS™+ Shears for mastectomy and breast-conserving surgery with axillary lymph node dissection compared with monopolar electrocautery from an Italian hospital perspective.

BACKGROUND: Mastectomy or breast conserving surgery, both with axillary lymph node dissection, are common treatments for early-stage breast cancer. Monopolar electrocautery is typically used for both procedures, despite evidence of improved clinical outcomes with HARMONIC FOCUS™+. This analysis evaluated the budget impact of adopting HARMONIC FOCUS™+ versus monopolar electrocautery for patients undergoing these procedures from an Italian hospital perspective. METHODS: Total costs for an annual caseload of 100 patients undergoing mastectomy or breast conserving surgery, with axillary lymph node dissection, with either the intervention or comparator were calculated. Italian clinical and cost input data were utilised. The analysis included costs for the device, operating room time, postoperative length of stay, treating seroma and managing postoperative chest wall drainage. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed uncertainty of model input values. Two scenario analyses investigated the impact of conservative estimates of postoperative length of stay reduction and daily hospital cost on the simulated cost difference. RESULTS: HARMONIC FOCUS™+ achieves annual savings of EUR 100,043 compared with monopolar electrocautery, derived from lower costs for operating room time, postoperative length of stay and seroma and postoperative chest wall drainage management, offsetting the incremental device cost increase (EUR 43,268). Cost savings are maintained in scenario analyses and across all variations in parameters in deterministic sensitivity analysis, with postoperative hospital stay costs being key drivers of budget impact. The mean (interquartile range) cost savings with HARMONIC FOCUS™+ versus monopolar electrocautery in probabilistic sensitivity analysis are EUR 101,637 (EUR 64,390-137,093) with a 98% probability of being cost saving. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention demonstrates robust cost savings compared with monopolar electrocautery for mastectomy or breast conserving surgery, with axillary lymph node dissection, in an Italian hospital setting, and improved clinical and resource outcomes. These findings, with other clinical and cost analyses, support HARMONIC FOCUS™+ use in this setting.

Cost-volume analysis of deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flaps for breast reconstruction in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flaps are increasingly utilized over other autologous methods of breast reconstruction. We evaluated the relationship between annual hospital volume and costs after breast reconstruction with the deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap. METHODS: All female patients undergoing elective implant or autologous tissue breast reconstruction were identified using the 2016-2019 Nationwide Readmission Database. Annual hospital volume of deep inferior epigastric artery perforator reconstructions was tabulated and modeled using restricted cubic splines. Institutions were categorized into high- and low-volume based on the inflection point of the spline between annual caseload and costs. The association between high volume status and costs, complications, length of stay, and 30-day nonelective readmission was assessed using multivariable regression. RESULTS: Of an estimated 94,524 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 33,046 (34.6%) underwent deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap reconstruction. Deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap utilization increased from 31% in 2016 to 40% in 2019 (P < .001) among inpatient breast reconstructions. High-volume hospitals more frequently performed bilateral reconstructions (43.3 vs 37.7%, P = .021) but had similar rates of concurrent mastectomy (28.7 vs 30.6%, P = .46), relative to low-volume hospitals. The median cost of deep inferior epigastric artery perforator reconstruction was lower ($29,900 [interquartile range: 22,400-37,400] vs $31,600 [interquartile range: 22,500-44,900], P = .036) at high-volume hospitals compared to low-volume. On adjusted analysis, high-volume status was associated a $3,800 (95% confidence interval: -6,200 to -1,400) decrement in hospitalization costs, and reduced odds of perioperative complications (adjusted odd ratio: 0.68 95% confidence interval: 0.54-0.86). High-volume status was not associated with length of stay or likelihood of unplanned readmission. CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrated an inverse cost-volume relationship in deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap breast reconstruction. In line with goals of value-based health care delivery, our findings may inform referral patterns to suitable centers for deep inferior epigastric artery perforator breast reconstruction.

Quality of life, pain of prepectoral and subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction with a discussion on cost: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (PIBR) has regained popularity, despite decades-long preference for subpectoral implant placement. This paper aims to compare patient-reported outcomes (PRO) between prepectoral and subpectoral approaches to implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR). The primary PRO was with the BREAST-Q, and postoperative pain scores, while the secondary outcomes were complication rates. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of the PubMed library was performed. All studies on patients undergoing IBBR after mastectomy that compared prepectoral to subpectoral placement and PROM or postoperative pain were included. RESULTS: A total of 3789 unique studies of which 7 publications with 216 and 332 patients who received prepectoral and subpectoral implants, respectively, were included for meta-analysis. Patients with prepectoral implant placement had significantly higher satisfaction with the outcome (p = 0.03) and psychosocial well-being (p = 0.03) module scores. The pain was lower in patients with prepectoral implants on postoperative day 1 (p<0.01) and day 7 (p<0.01). The subgroup analysis of prepectoral breast implants showed that complete acellular dermal matrix coverage had lower rates of wound dehiscence (p<0.0001), but there were no significant differences in complications between one-stage and two-stage procedures. CONCLUSION: Overall, patients with prepectoral implants reported higher BREAST-Q scores and lower postoperative pain and lower complications rates than patients with subpectoral implants. In appropriately selected patients, prepectoral implant placement with ADM coverage, be it the primary placement of an implant or placement of a tissue expander before definitive implant placement, should be the modality of choice in patients who choose IBBR. Further research should focus on patient selection, strategies to reduce cost and cost-benefit analysis of PIBR.

Comparing costs of standard Breast-Conserving Surgery to Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery and Mastectomy with Immediate two-stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Conventional breast-conserving surgery (C-BCS) has equal oncological outcomes and superior cosmetic and patient-reported outcomes compared to mastectomy with immediate two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction (M-IBR). Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OP-BCS) is increasingly being used, as it often has better cosmetic results and it enables larger tumour resection. However, OP-BCS and M-IBR compared to C-BCS lengthens operative time and might lead to more complications and consequently to additional costs. Therefore, this study aimed to compare costs and complication rates of C-BCS, OP-BCS and M-IBR. METHODS: This single-centre, retrospective cohort study, calculated costs for all patients who had undergone breast cancer surgery between January 2014 and December 2016. Patient-, tumour- and surgery-related data of C-BCS, OP-BCS and M-IBR patients were retrieved by medical record review. Treatment costs were calculated using hospital financial data. Differences in costs and complications were analysed. RESULTS: A total of 220 patients were included: 74 patients in the C-BCS, 78 in the OP-BCS and 68 in the M-IBR group. From most expensive to least expensive, differences in total costs were found between C-BCS vs. OP-BCS and C-BCS vs. M-IBR (p=<0.01 and p=0.04, respectively). Costs of OP-BCS and M-IBR were comparable. Complication rates were 5.5% for C-BCS, followed by 17% for OP-BCS, and 34% for M-IBR (p<0.01). CONCLUSION: Considering total treatment costs, OP-BCS was financially non-inferior to M-IBR, whereas complication rates were higher following M-IBR. Therefore, when considering other benefits of OP-BCS, such as higher patient-reported outcomes and similar oncological outcomes, a shift from M-IBR to BCS using oncoplastic techniques seems justified.