Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 1 de 1
Filter
Add more filters

Database
Language
Affiliation country
Publication year range
1.
World J Surg Oncol ; 18(1): 87, 2020 May 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32370753

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The latissimus dorsi muscle has long been used in breast cancer (BC) patients for reconstruction. This study aimed to compare early stage BC patients who had partial mastectomy (PM) with mini latissimus dorsi flap (MLDF) and subcutaneous mastectomy with implant (MI) with respect to quality of life (QoL), cosmetic outcome (CO), and survival rates. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The data of patients who underwent PM + MLDF (Group 1) and M + I (Group 2) between January 2010 and January 2018 were evaluated. Both groups were compared in terms of demographics, clinical and pathological characteristics, surgical morbidity, survival, quality of life, and cosmetic results. The EORTC-QLQ C30 and EORTC-QLO BR23 questionnaires and the Japanese Breast Cancer Society (JBCS) Cosmetic Evaluation Scale were used to assess the quality of life and the cosmetic outcome, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 317 patients were included in the study, 242 (76.3%) of them in group 1 and 75 (23.6%) of them in group 2. Median follow-up time was 56 (14-116) months. There were no differences identified between the groups in terms of tumor histology, hormonal receptors and HER-2 positivity, surgical morbidity, and 5-year overall and disease-free survival. Group 2 patients were significantly younger than group 1 (p = 0.003). The multifocality/multicentricity rate was higher in group 2 (p ≤ 0.001), whereas tumor size (p = 0.009), body mass index (BMI, p = 0.006), histological grade (p ≤ 0.001), lymph node positivity (p = 0.002), axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) rate (p = 0.005), and presence of lympho-vascular invasion (LVI, p = 0.013) were significantly higher in group 1. When the quality of life was assessed by using the EORTC QLQ C30 and BR23 questionnaires, it was seen that the body image perception (p < 0.001) and nausea/vomiting score (p = 0.024) were significantly better in PM + MLDF group whereas physical function score was significantly better in M + I group (p = 0.012). When both groups were examined in terms of cosmesis with JBCS Cosmetic Evaluation Scale, good cosmetic evaluation score was significantly higher in patients in MLDF group (p = 0.01). DISCUSSION: The results of this study indicate that in comparison to M + I procedure, the PM + MLDF procedure provides significantly superior results in terms of body image and cosmetic result with similar morbidity and oncologic outcomes. In selected patients with small breasts and a high tumor/breast ratio, PM + MLDF may be an alternative to subcutaneous mastectomy and implant.


Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms/surgery , Mammaplasty/methods , Mastectomy, Segmental/adverse effects , Mastectomy, Subcutaneous/adverse effects , Quality of Life , Adult , Aged , Breast/pathology , Breast/surgery , Breast Implants , Breast Neoplasms/mortality , Breast Neoplasms/pathology , Clinical Decision-Making , Disease-Free Survival , Esthetics , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Mammaplasty/instrumentation , Mammaplasty/psychology , Mastectomy, Segmental/methods , Mastectomy, Subcutaneous/instrumentation , Middle Aged , Patient Satisfaction , Patient Selection , Prognosis , Retrospective Studies , Superficial Back Muscles/transplantation , Surgical Flaps/transplantation , Survival Rate , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL