Outcomes of Acellular Dermal Matrix for Immediate Tissue Expander Reconstruction with Radiotherapy: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing literature support for the use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in expander-based breast reconstruction, the effect of ADM on clinical outcomes in the presence of post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) has not been well described. OBJECTIVES: To analyze the impact ADM plays on clinical outcomes on immediate tissue expander (ITE) reconstruction undergoing PMRT. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent ITE breast reconstruction from 2004 to 2014 at MD Anderson Cancer Center. Patients were categorized into four cohorts: ADM, ADM with PMRT, non-ADM, and non-ADM with PMRT. Outcomes and complications were compared among cohorts. RESULTS: Over 10 years, 957 patients underwent ITE reconstruction (683 non-ADM, 113 non-ADM with PMRT, 486 ADM, and 88 ADM with PMRT) with 1370 reconstructions. Overall complication rates for the ADM and non-ADM cohorts were 39.0% and 16.7%, respectively (P < 0.001). Within both cohorts, mastectomy skin flap necrosis (MSFN) was the most common complication, followed by infection. ADM use was associated with a significantly higher rate of infections and seromas in both radiated and non-radiated groups; however, when comparing radiated cohorts, the incidence of explantation was significantly lower with the use of ADM. CONCLUSIONS: The decision to use ADM for expander-based breast reconstruction should be performed with caution, given higher overall rates of complications, including infections and seromas. There may, however, be a role for ADM in cases requiring PMRT, as the overall incidence of implant failure is lower than non-ADM cases.

A 10-Year Experience with Mastectomy and Tissue Expander Placement to Facilitate Subsequent Radiation and Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: An integrated approach to skin sparing mastectomy with tissue expander placement followed by radiotherapy and delayed reconstruction was initiated in our institution in 2002. The purpose of this study was to assess the surgical outcomes of this strategy. METHODS: Between September 2002 and August 2013, a total of 384 reconstructions had a tissue expander placed at the time of mastectomy and subsequently underwent radiotherapy. Rates and causes of tissue expander explantation before, during, and after radiotherapy, as well as tumor specific outcomes and reconstruction approaches, were collected. RESULTS: Median follow-up after diagnosis was 5.6 (range 1.3-13.4) years. In the study cohort, 364 patients (94.8%) had stage II-III breast cancer, and 7 patients (1.8%) had locally recurrent disease. The 5-year rates of actuarial locoregional control, disease-free survival, and overall survival were 99.2, 86.1, and 92.4%, respectively. The intended delayed-immediate reconstruction was subsequently completed in 325 of 384 mastectomies (84.6% of the study cohort). Of the remaining 59 tissue expanders, 1 was explanted before radiotherapy, 1 during radiotherapy, and 7 patients (1.8%) were lost to follow-up. Fifty patients (13.0%) required tissue expander explantation after radiation and before their planned final reconstruction, primarily due to cellulitis. Nonetheless, the cumulative rate of completed reconstructions was 89.6%. The median time from placement of the tissue expander until reconstruction was 12 (interquartile range 9-15) months. CONCLUSIONS: Tissue expander placement at skin-sparing mastectomy in patients who require radiotherapy appears to be a viable strategy for combining reconstruction and radiotherapy.

Complications After Mastectomy and Immediate Breast Reconstruction for Breast Cancer: A Claims-Based Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate complications after postmastectomy breast reconstruction, particularly in the setting of adjuvant radiotherapy. BACKGROUND: Most studies of complications after breast reconstruction have been conducted at centers of excellence; relatively little is known about complication rates in irradiated patients treated in the broader community. This information is relevant for decision making in patients with breast cancer. METHODS: Using the claims-based MarketScan database, we described complications in 14,894 women undergoing mastectomy for breast cancer from 1998 to 2007 and who underwent immediate autologous reconstruction (n = 2637), immediate implant-based reconstruction (n = 3007), or no reconstruction within the first 2 postoperative years (n = 9250). We used a generalized estimating equation to evaluate associations between complications and radiotherapy over time. RESULTS: Wound complications were diagnosed within the first 2 postoperative years in 2.3% of patients without reconstruction, 4.4% patients with implants, and 9.5% patients with autologous reconstruction (P < 0.001). Infection was diagnosed within the first 2 postoperative years in 12.7% of patients without reconstruction, 20.5% with implants, and 20.7% with autologous reconstruction (P < 0.001). A total of 5219 (35%) women received radiation. Radiation was not associated with infection in any surgical group within the first 6 months but was associated with an increased risk of infection in months 7 to 24 in all 3 groups (each P < 0.001). In months 7 to 24, radiation was associated with higher odds of implant removal in patients with implant reconstruction (odds ratio = 1.48; P < 0.001) and fat necrosis in those with autologous reconstruction (odds ratio = 1.55; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Complication risks after immediate breast reconstruction differ by approach. Radiation therapy seems to modestly increase certain risks, including infection and implant removal.

Present-day locoregional control in patients with t1 or t2 breast cancer with 0 and 1 to 3 positive lymph nodes after mastectomy without radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine present-day locoregional recurrence (LRR) rates to better understand the role of postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) in women with 0 to 3 positive lymph nodes. METHODS: Clinical and pathologic factors were identified for 1019 patients with pT1 or pT2 tumors and 0 (n = 753), 1 (n = 176), 2 (n = 69), or 3 (n = 21) positive lymph nodes treated with mastectomy without PMRT during 1997 to 2002. Total LRR rates were calculated by Kaplan-Meier analysis and compared between subgroups by the log rank test. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 7.47 years, the overall 10-year LRR rate was 2.7%. The only independent predictor of LRR was younger age (P = 0.004). Patients ≤40 years old had a 10-year LRR rate of 11.3 vs. 1.5% for older patients (P < 0.0001). The 10-year rate of LRR in patients with 1 to 3 positive nodes was 4.3% (94.4% had systemic therapy), which was not significantly different from the 10-year risk of contralateral breast cancer development (6.5%; P > 0.5). Compared with the 10-year LRR rate among patients with node-negative disease (2.1%), patients with 1 positive node had a similar 10-year LRR risk (3.3%; P > 0.5), and patients with 2 positive nodes had a 10-year LRR risk of 7.9% (P = 0.0003). Patients with T2 tumors with 1 to 3 positive nodes had a 10-year LRR rate of 9.7%. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with T1 and T2 breast cancer with 0 to 3 positive nodes, LRR rates after mastectomy are low, with the exception of patients ≤40 years old. The indications for PMRT in patients treated in the current era should be reexamined.

The spare-parts technique: A safe and efficient single-stage nipple and areola reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: The authors hypothesized that optimization of nipple-areolar reconstruction using full-thickness skin graft and cartilage graft can be completed safely in a single-stage procedure. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of abdominal-based flap breast reconstruction patients who underwent nipple-areolar reconstruction (NAR) using the modified double-opposing tab (mDOT)1 flap technique was conducted. Complication rates were compared between patients who underwent NAR in a traditional staged procedure versus a single stage. The single-stage group of patients had NAR performed at the time of revision surgery. Reconstruction was performed with full-thickness skin graft from the abdominal standing-cone deformity and costal cartilage that was removed at the time of breast reconstruction and banked subcutaneously until the revision surgery. RESULTS: In this study, 1,233 nipple reconstructions were reviewed, of which 113 procedures using themDOT technique were analyzed. No significant differences in complication rates were found between the single-stage and the traditional staged NAR, including the risk of total loss of reconstruction or delayed skin graft take. However, the risk of delayed wound healing of the nipple reconstruction was higher in the single-stage group. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that optimizing NAR results by adding cartilage to the nipple construct and enhancing the areolar component by full-thickness skin grafting can be achieved safely in a single stage at the time of flap revision. This represents potential for better long-term nipple projection and better areolar texture mimicry of NAR for breast reconstruction patients.

Immediate versus delayed reconstruction.

Recent developments in the management of breast cancer, including axillary sentinel lymph-node biopsy, as well as the inability to reliably detect micrometastatic disease in the axillary lymph nodes either preoperatively or intraoperatively, and the increasing use of both postmastectomy radiation therapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy, have had a significant impact on the timing of breast reconstruction. The interplay and sequencing of these diagnostic and treatment modalities in patients with breast cancer have become important issues. This article addresses the clinical dilemma of determining the appropriate timing of breast reconstruction based on various patient-related clinical and pathological factors.

Molecular Profiling Using Breast Cancer Subtype to Plan for Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Molecular profiling using breast cancer subtype has an increasing role in the multidisciplinary care of the breast cancer patient. The authors sought to determine the role of breast cancer subtyping in breast reconstruction and specifically whether breast cancer subtyping can determine the need for postmastectomy radiation therapy and predict recurrence-free survival to plan for the timing and technique of breast reconstruction. METHODS: The authors reviewed prospectively collected data from 1931 reconstructed breasts in breast cancer patients who underwent mastectomy between November of 1999 and December of 2012. Reconstructed breasts were grouped by breast cancer subtype and examined for covariates predictive of recurrence-free survival and need for postmastectomy radiation therapy. RESULTS: Of the reconstructed breasts, 753 (39 percent) were luminal A, 538 (27.9 percent) were luminal B, 224 (11.6 percent) were luminal HER2, 143 (7.4 percent) were HER2-enriched, and 267 (13.8 percent) were triple-negative breast cancer. Postmastectomy radiation therapy was delivered in 69 HER2-enriched patients (48.3 percent), 94 luminal HER2 patients (42 percent), 200 luminal B patients (37.2 percent), 99 triple-negative breast cancer patients (37.1 percent), and 222 luminal A patients (29.5 percent) (p < 0.0001). Luminal A cases had better recurrence-free survival than HER2-enriched cases, and triple-negative breast cancer cases had worse recurrence-free survival than HER2-enriched cases. Luminal B and luminal HER2 cases had recurrence-free survival similar to that for HER2-enriched cases. Luminal A subtype was associated with the best recurrence-free survival. Subtyping may have improved the breast surgery planning for 33.1 percent of delayed reconstructions that did not require postmastectomy radiation therapy and 37 percent of immediate reconstructions that did require postmastectomy radiation therapy. CONCLUSION: This study is the first publication in the literature to evaluate breast cancer subtype to stratify risk for decision making in breast reconstruction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.

Direct-to-Implant versus Two-Stage Tissue Expander/Implant Reconstruction: 2-Year Risks and Patient-Reported Outcomes from a Prospective, Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: Direct-to-implant breast reconstruction offers time-saving advantages over two-stage techniques. However, use of direct-to-implant reconstruction remains limited, in part, because of concerns over complication rates., The authors' aim was to compare 2-year complications and patient-reported outcomes for direct-to-implant versus tissue expander/implant reconstruction. METHODS: Patients undergoing immediate direct-to-implant or tissue expander/implant reconstruction were enrolled in the Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium, an 11-center prospective cohort study. Complications and patient-reported outcomes (using the BREAST-Q questionnaire) were evaluated. Outcomes were compared using mixed-effects regression models, adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Of 1427 patients, 99 underwent direct-to-implant reconstruction and 1328 underwent tissue expander/implant reconstruction. Two years after reconstruction and controlling for covariates, direct-to-implant and tissue expander/implant reconstruction patients did not show statistically significant differences in any complications, including infection. Multivariable analyses found no significant differences between the two groups in patient-reported outcomes, with the exception of sexual well-being, where direct-to-implant patients fared better than the tissue expander/implant cohort (p = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS: This prospective, multi-institutional study showed no statistically significant differences between direct-to-implant and tissue expander/implant reconstruction, in either complication rates or most patient-reported outcomes at 2 years postoperatively. Direct-to-implant reconstruction appears to be a viable alternative to expander/implant reconstruction. This analysis provides new evidence on which to base reconstructive decisions. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.

The impact of immediate breast reconstruction on the technical delivery of postmastectomy radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: To quantify the impact of immediate breast reconstruction on postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) planning. METHODS: A total of 110 patients (112 treatment plans) who had mastectomy with immediate reconstruction followed by radiotherapy were compared with contemporaneous stage-matched patients who had undergone mastectomy without intervening reconstruction. A scoring system was used to assess optimal radiotherapy planning using four parameters: breadth of chest wall coverage, treatment of the ipsilateral internal mammary chain, minimization of lung, and avoidance of heart. An "optimal" plan achieved all objectives or a minor 0.5 point deduction; "moderately" compromised treatment plans had 1.0 or 1.5 point deductions; and "major" compromised plans had > or =2.0 point deductions. RESULTS: Of the 112 PMRT plans scored after reconstruction, 52% had compromises compared with 7% of matched controls (p < 0.0001). Of the compromised plans after reconstruction, 33% were considered to be moderately compromised plans and 19% were major compromised treatment plans. Optimal chest wall coverage, treatment of the ipsilateral internal mammary chain, lung minimization, and heart avoidance was achieved in 79%, 45%, 84%, and 84% of the plans in the group undergoing immediate reconstruction, compared respectively with 100%, 93%, 97%, and 92% of the plans in the control group (p < 0.0001, p < 0.0001, p = 0.0015, and p = 0.1435). In patients with reconstructions, 67% of the "major" compromised radiotherapy plans were left-sided (p < 0.16). CONCLUSIONS: Radiation treatment planning after immediate breast reconstruction was compromised in more than half of the patients (52%), with the largest compromises observed in those with left-sided cancers. For patients with locally advanced breast cancer, the potential for compromised PMRT planning should be considered when deciding between immediate and delayed reconstruction.

Dual-Pedicle Flap for Unilateral Autologous Breast Reconstruction Revisited: Evolution and Optimization of Flap Design over 15 Years.

BACKGROUND: In thin patients or when a significant amount of skin is needed, use of the entire abdomen to reconstruct a single breast may be necessary. In this article, the authors present their 15-year experience in dual-pedicle flap evolution and optimization of flap design. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of all bipedicle flaps performed from 2000 to 2015. RESULTS: Overall, 57 patients (mean age, 49.2 years; mean body mass index, 26.2 kg/m) underwent dual-pedicle flap reconstruction of a unilateral mastectomy defect. Thirteen patients had a history of smoking, 30 patients had previously undergone irradiation, and 21 patients underwent immediate reconstruction. Eleven bipedicle flaps were performed with a pedicle transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (TRAM) flap coupled to a free TRAM (n = 4), muscle-sparing TRAM (n = 4), or deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) (n = 3) flap, and all were performed from 2000 to 2007. The thoracodorsal vessels (n = 8) were used more frequently earlier in the study period with the internal mammary vessels, whereas the antegrade/retrograde internal mammary vessels were used in the remaining patients, except for three patients in whom the internal mammary vessels and an internal mammary vessel perforator were used. Over the study period, there was an increase in the use of DIEP and superficial inferior epigastric artery flaps and the internal mammary vessels as recipients. Complications included delayed wound healing (n = 6), abdominal bulge (n = 2), cellulitis (n = 4), seroma (n = 3), and fat necrosis (n = 4). There was one partial flap loss where the superficial inferior epigastric artery portion of the dual-pedicle flap was lost. CONCLUSIONS: Dual-pedicle free flaps can be performed safely and reliably. Use of DIEP flaps maximizes pedicle length, and the internal mammary vessels can be used reliably in an antegrade and retrograde fashion to perfuse both components of the dual-pedicle flap. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

Fewer Revisions in Abdominal-based Free Flaps than Latissimus Dorsi Breast Reconstruction after Radiation.

The most commonly chosen flaps for delayed breast reconstruction after postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) are abdominal-based free flaps (ABFFs) and pedicled latissimus dorsi (LD) musculocutaneous flaps. The short-and long-term advantages and disadvantages of delayed ABFFs versus LD flaps after PMRT remain unclear. We hypothesized that after PMRT, ABFFs would result in fewer postoperative complications and a lower incidence of revision surgery than LD flaps. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a prospectively maintained database of consecutive patients who underwent unilateral, delayed breast reconstruction after PMRT using ABFFs or pedicled LD flaps with implants at the MD Anderson Cancer Center between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2011. We compared outcomes and additional surgeries required between the 2 groups. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression modeling analyzed the relationships between patient and reconstruction characteristics and postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 139 consecutive patients' breast reconstructions were evaluated: 101 ABFFs (72.7%) versus 38 LDs (27.3%). Average follow-up was similar for ABFF and LD reconstructions. Although ABFF and LD reconstructions experienced similar rates of overall (30.7% vs 23.7%, respectively; P = 0.53), donor-site (8.91% vs 5.13%, respectively; P = 0.48), and flap (20.7% vs 17.9%, respectively; P = 0.37) complications, the LD reconstructions required more additional surgeries (92.1% vs 67.3%; P < 0.001). Furthermore, LDs required more revision surgeries more than 1 year after reconstruction (37.1% vs 14.7%; P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Although early complication rates were similar for both types of reconstructions, ABFFs seem to have the advantage of providing a more durable result that required fewer revision surgeries in the long term.

Capturing the Experience: Reflections of Women With Breast Cancer Engaged in an Expressive Writing Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Expressive writing has been shown to improve quality of life, fatigue, and posttraumatic stress among breast cancer patients across cultures. Understanding how and why the method may be beneficial to patients can increase awareness of the psychosocial impact of breast cancer and enhance interventional work within this population. Qualitative research on experiential aspects of interventions may inform the theoretical understanding and generate hypotheses for future studies. AIM: The aim of the study was to explore and describe the experience and feasibility of expressive writing among women with breast cancer following mastectomy and immediate or delayed reconstructive surgery. METHODS: Seven participants enrolled to undertake 4 episodes of expressive writing at home, with semistructured interviews conducted afterward and analyzed using experiential thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three themes emerged through analysis: writing as process, writing as therapeutic, and writing as a means to help others. CONCLUSIONS: Findings illuminate experiential variations in expressive writing and how storytelling encourages a release of cognitive and emotional strains, surrendering these to reside in the text. The method was said to process feelings and capture experiences tied to a new and overwhelming illness situation, as impressions became expressions through writing. Expressive writing, therefore, is a valuable tool for healthcare providers to introduce into the plan of care for patients with breast cancer and potentially other cancer patient groups. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study augments existing evidence to support the appropriateness of expressive writing as an intervention after a breast cancer diagnosis. Further studies should evaluate its feasibility at different time points in survivorship.

Obese Women Experience Fewer Complications after Oncoplastic Breast Repair following Partial Mastectomy Than after Immediate Total Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: The authors hypothesized that obese patients would experience fewer complications after oncoplastic breast reconstruction following partial mastectomy than after immediate breast reconstruction following total mastectomy. METHODS: Complication rates were compared for oncoplastic breast reconstruction versus immediate breast reconstruction (with either implants or autologous tissue) in consecutive obese patients (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m(2)) treated at a single center between January of 2005 and April of 2013. Logistic regression was used to analyze the associations between patient and surgical characteristics and postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: The study included 408 patients: 131 oncoplastic breast reconstruction and 277 immediate breast reconstruction patients. Presenting breast cancer stage was similar between the two groups. Oncoplastic breast reconstruction patients were older (55 years versus 53 years; p = 0.029), more obese (average body mass index, 37 kg/m(2) versus 35 kg/m(2); p < 0.001), and had more comorbidities. Nevertheless, the oncoplastic breast reconstruction group experienced fewer major complications requiring operative management (3.8 percent versus 28.5 percent; p < 0.001), fewer complications delaying adjuvant therapy (0.8 percent versus 14.4 percent; p < 0.001), and fewer incidences of hematoma/seroma formation (3.1 percent versus 11.6 percent; p < 0.004) than the immediate total breast reconstruction group. Univariate analysis found oncoplastic breast reconstruction to be an independent protector against major complications (OR, 0.1; p < 0.001) and complications that delayed adjuvant therapy (OR, 0.05; p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Oncoplastic breast reconstruction likely represents a safer option than immediate total breast reconstruction following mastectomy for obese patients, particularly for patients who are superobese or present with preexisting medical comorbidities. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Lipofilling of the Breast Does Not Increase the Risk of Recurrence of Breast Cancer: A Matched Controlled Study.

BACKGROUND: Although many plastic surgeons perform autologous fat grafting (lipofilling) for breast reconstruction after oncologic surgery, it has not been established whether postoncologic lipofilling increases the risk of breast cancer recurrence. The authors assessed the risk of locoregional and systemic recurrence in patients who underwent lipofilling for breast reconstruction. METHODS: The authors identified all patients who underwent segmental or total mastectomy for breast cancer (719 breasts) (i.e., cases) or breast cancer risk reduction or benign disease (305 cancer-free breasts) followed by breast reconstruction with lipofilling as an adjunct or primary procedure between June of 1981 and February of 2014. They also then identified matched patients with breast cancer treated with segmental or total mastectomy followed by reconstruction without lipofilling (670 breasts) (i.e., controls). The probability of locoregional recurrence was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Mean follow-up times after mastectomy were 60 months for cases, 44 months for controls, and 73 months for cancer-free breasts. Locoregional recurrence was observed in 1.3 percent of cases (nine of 719 breasts) and 2.4 percent of controls (16 of 670 breasts). Breast cancer did not develop in any cancer-free breast. The cumulative 5-year locoregional recurrence rates were 1.6 percent and 4.1 percent for cases and controls, respectively. Systemic recurrence occurred in 2.4 percent of cases and 3.6 percent of controls (p = 0.514). There was no primary breast cancer in healthy breasts reconstructed with lipofilling. CONCLUSIONS: The study results showed no increase in locoregional recurrence, systemic recurrence, or second breast cancer. These findings support the oncologic safety of lipofilling in breast reconstruction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, II.

Salvaging the Infected Breast Tissue Expander: A Standardized Multidisciplinary Approach.

BACKGROUND: Infections of breast tissue expander (TE) are complex, often requiring TE removal and hospitalization, which can delay further adjuvant therapy and add to the overall costs of breast reconstruction. Therefore, to reduce the rate of TE removal, hospitalization, and costs, we created a standardized same-day multidisciplinary outpatient quality improvement protocol for diagnosing and treating patients with early signs of TE infection. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated 26 consecutive patients who developed a surgical site infection between February 2013 and April 2014. On the same day, patients were seen in the Plastic Surgery and Infectious Diseases clinics, underwent breast ultrasonography with or without periprosthetic fluid aspiration, and were prescribed a standardized empiric oral or intravenous antimicrobial regimen active against biofilm-embedded microorganisms. All patients were managed as per our established treatment algorithm and were followed up for a minimum of 1 year. RESULTS: TEs were salvaged in 19 of 26 patients (73%). Compared with TE-salvaged patients, TE-explanted patients had a shorter median time to infection (20 vs 40 days; P = 0.09), a significantly higher median temperature at initial presentation [99.8°F; interquartile range (IQR) = 2.1 vs 98.3°F; IQR = 0.4°F; P = 0.01], and a significantly longer median antimicrobial treatment duration (28 days; IQR = 27 vs 21 days; IQR = 14 days; P = 0.05). The TE salvage rates of patients whose specimen cultures yielded no microbial growth, Staphylococcus species, and Pseudomonas were 92%, 75%, and 0%, respectively. Patients who had developed a deep-seated pocket infection were significantly more likely than those with superficial cellulitis to undergo TE explantation (P = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: Our same-day multidisciplinary diagnostic and treatment algorithm not only yielded a TE salvage rate higher than those previously reported but also decreased the rate of hospitalization, decreased overall costs, and identified several clinical scenarios in which TE explantation was likely.

Neurothekeoma.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate and share the experiences at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in diagnosing, treating, and following patients with neurothekeoma. We report 13 cases. STUDY DESIGN: Case series. The clinical, surgical, and pathology records of the 7 patients with neurothekeoma treated at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center were retrospectively reviewed. In addition, the pathology records of 6 patients reviewed by the Department of Pathology for diagnosis only were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Nine patients were women. Their mean age was 30 years (median, 24 years). Six of the lesions were on the head or neck, 4 were on extremities, and 2 were on the trunk, and the location of 1 was not recorded. Two lesions had been previously diagnosed, histologically, as leiomyosarcomas, 1 as a malignant nodular hidradenoma, and 1 as a clear cell hidradenoma. All the lesions had the characteristic nested pattern of growth, with various degrees of myxoid background. Mitotic figures and marked cellular pleomorphism were not common. Six cases were treated with wide local excision. A lesion of the nasal ala was excised by using Mohs micrographic surgery. Most cases were limited to the dermis, but 2 lesions infiltrated subcutaneous tissue and skeletal muscle. All patients were without evidence of disease at 8 months median follow-up range (0 to 35 months). CONCLUSION: Neurothekeoma is a benign neoplasm occurring usually in women and commonly in the head and neck. Because it may be locally invasive, treatment with wide local excision using frozen section control of margins is recommended. Care must be taken in the pathologic diagnosis of cutaneous neoplasms, and neurothekeoma should be considered in the differential diagnosis for spindle cell lesions. SIGNIFICANCE: Neurothekeoma is commonly misdiagnosed, pathologically and clinically, and it can be treated successfully with surgical excision. EBM RATING: C.

State of the art and science in postmastectomy breast reconstruction.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES: After reading this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Examine clinicopathologic factors to determine the best timing for breast reconstruction. 2. Develop treatment plans for all patients for breast preserving reconstruction. 3. Determine the best approaches for partial and whole breast reconstruction. 4. Be familiar with advanced techniques in breast reconstruction. BACKGROUND: Often, the decision to perform a partial or total mastectomy hinges on reconstructive issues, not oncology-related considerations. METHODS: Innovative timing and reconstruction approaches are being implemented after partial mastectomy and breast reconstruction after mastectomy. RESULTS: Among patients undergoing repair of a partial mastectomy defect, immediate or delayed repair before radiation allows for use of remaining breast tissue for repair. Innovative approaches include breast remodeling, local rotation advancement, and concentric mastopexy and breast reduction techniques to recontour remaining breast tissue. Delayed repair after whole-breast radiation usually is not preferred and is performed with autologous fat grafting or a flap. However, partial breast radiation allows for safe delayed repair after irradiation using the same techniques used for preradiation repair. The optimal timing for breast reconstruction after mastectomy remains a topic of controversy. Adjunct techniques for implant-based postmastectomy reconstruction include the use of acellular dermal matrix and autologous fat grafting, especially in the setting of radiation therapy. Techniques also include a more focused use of flaps only in the setting of radiation therapy with increasing use of new perforator-based autologous tissue flap options. CONCLUSION: Innovative approaches to breast reconstruction have evolved to provide restorative healing for patients and hasten return to their modern, active lifestyles.

Current perspectives on radiation therapy in autologous and prosthetic breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) has a well-established deleterious effect on both prosthetic and autologous breast reconstruction. The purpose of this study was to perform a literature review of the effects of PMRT on breast reconstruction and to determine predictive or protective factors for complications. METHODS: The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were reviewed for articles published between January 2008 and January 2015 including the keywords "breast reconstruction" and "radiation therapy" to identify manuscripts focused on the effects of radiation on both prosthetic and autologous breast reconstruction. This subgroup of articles was reviewed in detail. RESULTS: Three hundred and twenty articles were identified and 43 papers underwent full text review. The 16 papers provided level III evidence; 10 manuscripts provided level I or II evidence. Seventeen case series provided level IV evidence and were included because they presented novel perspectives. The majority of studies focused on the injurious effects of radiation therapy and increased complications and concomitant lower patient satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Prosthetic based breast reconstruction and immediate autologous reconstruction are associated with lower patient satisfaction in the setting of radiation therapy. Autologous reconstructions can improve patient satisfaction as well as lower revision surgery and long term complications when performed in a delayed fashion after PMRT.

Treatment and outcome of patients with chest wall recurrence after mastectomy and breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Chest wall recurrence (CWR) in the setting of previous mastectomy and breast reconstruction can pose complex management dilemmas for clinicians. We examined the impact of breast reconstruction on the treatment and outcomes of patients who subsequently developed a CWR. METHODS: Between 1988 and 1998, 155 breast cancer patients with CWR after mastectomy were evaluated at our center. Of these patients, 27 had previously undergone breast reconstruction (immediate in 20; delayed in 7). Clinicopathologic features, treatment decisions, and outcomes were compared between the patients with and without previous breast reconstruction. Nonparametric statistics were used to analyse the data. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the reconstruction and no-reconstruction groups in time to CWR, size of the CWR, number of nodules, ulceration, erythema, and association of CWR with nodal metastases. In patients with previous breast reconstruction, surgical resection of the CWR and repair of the resulting defect tended to be more complex and was more likely to require chest wall reconstruction by the plastic surgery team rather than simple excision or resection with primary closure (26% [7 of 27] versus 8% [10 of 128], P = 0.013). Risk of a second CWR, risk of distant metastases, median overall survival after CWR, and distant-metastasis-free survival after CWR did not differ significantly between patients with and without previous breast reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS: Breast reconstruction after mastectomy does not influence the clinical presentation or prognosis of women who subsequently develop a CWR. Collaboration with a plastic surgery team may be beneficial in the surgical management of these patients.

Breast reconstruction with postmastectomy radiation therapy: current issues.

Two recent trials have demonstrated superior locoregional control, disease-free survival, and overall survival in node-positive breast cancer patients with the addition of postmastectomy radiation therapy to mastectomy and chemotherapy. Based on these results, there has been an increased use of postmastectomy in patients with early-stage breast cancer. The inability to determine which patients will require postmastectomy radiation therapy has increased the complexity of planning for immediate breast reconstruction. There are two potential problems with performing an immediate breast reconstruction in a patient who will require postmastectomy radiation therapy. One problem is that postmastectomy radiation therapy can adversely affect the aesthetic outcome of an immediate breast reconstruction. Several studies have evaluated the outcomes of breast reconstructions that were performed before radiation therapy and have revealed a high incidence of complications and poor aesthetic outcomes. Furthermore, these studies have found that often an additional flap is required to restore breast shape and symmetry. The other potential problem is that an immediate breast reconstruction can interfere with the delivery of postmastectomy radiation therapy. During planning for immediate breast reconstruction, it is imperative to carefully review the stage of disease and the likelihood the patient will require postmastectomy radiation therapy. Unfortunately, the ability to detect and predict the presence or extent of axillary lymph node involvement is limited, and the need for postmastectomy radiation therapy is usually not known until after mastectomy. In all cases of decision making regarding possible postoperative radiation therapy and whether or not to perform immediate breast reconstruction, the situation should be discussed at a multidisciplinary conference or addressed among the various medical, surgical, and radiation teams, with active participation by the patient. Immediate breast reconstruction probably should be avoided in patients known to require postmastectomy radiation therapy and delayed until it is certain the therapy will be needed in patients who may require the therapy.