Round block technique is a useful oncoplastic procedure for multicentric fibroadenomas.

PURPOSE: Multicentric fibroadenomas, defined as multiple fibroadenomas located at different quadrants of the breast, occur in 10-20% of women with fibroadenoma. The surgical management of multicentric fibroadenomas may be troublesome for surgeons and patients. In this study, we report our preliminary experience using the "round block technique" in the management of women with multicentric fibroadenomas of the breast. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Records of patients with breast diseases managed with the round block technique were searched for in the Changhua Christian Hospital oncoplastic breast surgery database. The patients' clinicopathologic characteristics, type of surgery, operation time, blood loss, and complications were recorded. The cosmetic outcome was evaluated by the patient and operating surgeon two months after the surgery. RESULTS: Twenty patients with multicentric fibroadenomas managed by the round block technique comprised the current study cohort. The mean age of the subjects was 36.5 ± 10.4 years. Twelve (60%) patients had tumors on one side of the breast, and eight (40%) had bilateral breast lesions. The average number of tumors removed was 3.3 ± 1.2 (range 2-6) per breast, and mean tumor size was 2.2 ± 0.5 cm. Three (15%) patients developed mild ecchymosis of the breast undergoing operation, which resolved spontaneously. One (5%) patient had partial nipple ischemia/necrosis due to 2 tumors excised near the nipple-areolar complex. The aesthetic results were evaluated as good in 19 (95%) patients and fair in 1 (5%). CONCLUSIONS: The round block technique is a useful oncoplastic procedure for the management of multicentric fibroadenomas excised at the same time.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic colon mobilization for esophageal reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: New techniques for hand-assisted laparoscopic colon surgery have been adopted quickly for the treatment of numerous colorectal diseases. However, reports of laparoscopic colonic mobilization for esophageal reconstruction are rare. In this report we describe an improved procedure for esophageal reconstruction with transverse colon. METHODS: From January 1999 to April 2001, we recruited seven patients (5 women and 2 men) who acquired esophageal stricture after swallowing hydrogen chloride or lye. The mean age of the patients was 42.7 years. For surgery, the patients were placed in lithotomy position under single-lumen intubated anesthesia. First, hand-assisted laparoscopic colon mobilization was performed with the assistance of the Harmonic Scalpel (AutoSuture Company, Norwalk, CT, USA) through a 7-cm upper abdominal incision. Then using cervical esophagocolostomy through the retrosternal route, coloenterostomy and colocolostomy were achieved. RESULTS: The mean operative time was 3.9 h (range, 3.2-5 h). The mean hospital stay was 9.1 days (range, 8-13 days). Mean blood loss was 100 ml (range, 50-350 ml). All the patients obtained successful outcomes. There was one mild abdominal wound infection, and no surgical mortality. At this writing, the seven patients can eat solid food very well after a mean follow-up period of 18.2 months. CONCLUSIONS: Hand-assisted laparoscopic colonic mobilization for esophageal reconstruction is a safe and feasible operation for treating patients with esophageal stricture.

The prognostic significance of metaplastic carcinoma of the breast (MCB)--a case controlled comparison study with infiltrating ductal carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Metaplastic carcinoma of the breast (MCB) is a rare histological subtype of breast cancer with an incidence of less than 0.1%-0.5%. Due to its rarity, the clinical characteristics and prognostic significance of MCB compared with other common breast cancers (like infiltrating ductal carcinoma [IDC], and infiltrating lobular carcinoma [ILC]) are not clear, and controversial among different reports. METHODS: We performed a collective comparison study of multi-institutional cases to evaluate the clinical characteristics and prognostic status of MCB to compare with IDC and ILC. A case control analysis was performed to minimize the bias from clinicopathologic factors between IDC and MCB. Disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) between groups were compared. RESULTS: Forty-five MCB patients were enrolled from the 4 medical centers and compared with 1777 IDC and 53 ILC patients from the CCH cancer registry database comprise the current study. Compared with IDC, MCB was associated with older age, larger tumor size, a lesser lymph node positive rate, a higher likelihood of distant metastasis, higher tumor grade, lower ER-positive tumor, and higher triple negative breast cancer subtype (TNBC). MCB was associated with worse OS (p = 0.031) than IDC, but no difference in DFS (p = 0.071); however, MCB was not statistically different from ILC in both DFS and OS (p = 0.289 and 0.132, respectively). Compared with the case-controlled IDC group, MCB patients had poorer OS (p = 0.040), but no difference in DFS (p = 0.439). CONCLUSION: MCB is associated with poorer OS than IDC, and this was related to tumor behavior rather than clinicopathologic factors.