Lymphovenous Bypass for Immediate Lymphatic Reconstruction in Breast Cancer Patients Undergoing Axillary Lymph Node Dissection: Minimizing the Risk of Upper Extremity Lymphedema.

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown a significant reduction in breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) rates in patients undergoing complete axillary lymph node dissection (cALND) combined with immediate lymphatic reconstruction (ILR) using lymphovenous bypass (LVB).The purpose of this study was to determine if ILR with LVB at the time of cALND results in a decreased incidence of BCRL and its impact on patient quality of life (QOL). METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, patients ≥ 18 years requiring cALND underwent ILR from 2019 to 2021. The primary outcome was bilateral upper limb volumes measured by Brørson's truncated cone formula and the Pero-System (3D Körper Scanner). The secondary outcome was QOL measured by the Lymphedema Quality of Life (LYMQOL) arm patient-reported outcome measurement. RESULTS: Forty-two patients consented to ILR using LVB. ILR was completed in 41 patients with a mean of 1.9 ± 0.9 lymphovenous anastomosis performed. Mean age of patients was 52.4 ± 10.5 years with a mean body mass index of 27.5 ± 4.9 kg/m2. All patients (n = 39, 100%) received adjuvant therapy after ILR. Mean follow-up was 15.2 ± 5.1 months. Five patients met criteria for lymphedema throughout the duration of the study (12.8%), with two patients having resolution, with an overall incidence of 7.7% by the end of the study period. Patients with lymphedema were found to have statistically significant lower total LYMQOL values at 18 months (8.44 ± 1.17 vs. 3.23 ± 0.56, p < 0.001). A mean increase of 0.73 ± 3.5 points was observed for overall QOL average for upper limb function at 18 months compared with 3 months (t = 0.823, p = 0.425). CONCLUSION: This study showed an incidence of 7.7% lymphedema development throughout the duration of study. We also showed that ILR has the potential to reduce the significant long-term adverse outcomes of lymphedema and improve QOL for patients undergoing cALND.

The Impact of Preoperative Breast MRI on Timing of Surgical Management in Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer.

Purpose: Preoperative breast MRI has been recommended at our center since 2016 for invasive lobular carcinoma and cancers in dense breasts. This study examined how preoperative breast MRI impacted surgical timing and outcomes for patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer. Methods: Retrospective single-center study of consecutive women diagnosed with new breast cancer between June 1, 2019, and March 1, 2021, in whom preoperative breast MRI was recommended. MRI, tumor histology, breast density, post-MRI biopsy, positive predictive value of biopsy (PPV3), surgery, and margin status were recorded. Time from diagnosis to surgery was compared using t-tests. Results: There were 1054 patients reviewed, and 356 were included (mean age 60.9). Of these, 44.4% (158/356) underwent preoperative breast MRI, and 55.6% (198/356) did not. MRI referral was more likely for invasive lobular carcinoma, multifocal disease, and younger patients. Following preoperative MRI, 29.1% (46/158) patients required additional breast biopsies before surgery, for a PPV3 of 37% (17/46). The time between biopsy and surgery was 55.8 ± 21.4 days for patients with the MRI, compared to 42.8 ± 20.3 days for those without (P < .00001). MRI was not associated with the type of surgery (mastectomy vs breastconserving surgery) (P = .44) or rate of positive surgical margins (P = .52). Conclusion: Among patients who underwent preoperative breast MRI, we observed significant delays to surgery by almost 2 weeks. When preoperative MRI is requested, efforts should be made to mitigate associated delays.

Capturing the True Cost of Breast Cancer Treatment: Molecular Subtype and Stage-Specific per-Case Activity-Based Costing.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer (BC) treatment is rapidly evolving with new and costly therapeutics. Existing costing models have a limited ability to capture current treatment costs. We used an Activity-Based Costing (ABC) method to determine a per-case cost for BC treatment by stage and molecular subtype. METHODS: ABC was used to proportionally integrate multidisciplinary evidence-based patient and provider treatment options for BC, yielding a per-case cost for the total duration of treatment by stage and molecular subtype. Diagnostic imaging, pathology, surgery, radiation therapy, systemic therapy, inpatient, emergency, home care and palliative care costs were included. RESULTS: BC treatment costs were higher than noted in previous studies and varied widely by molecular subtype. Cost increased exponentially with the stage of disease. The per-case cost for treatment (2023C$) for DCIS was C$ 14,505, and the mean costs for all subtypes were C$ 39,263, C$ 76,446, C$ 97,668 and C$ 370,398 for stage I, II, III and IV BC, respectively. Stage IV costs were as high as C$ 516,415 per case. When weighted by the proportion of molecular subtype in the population, case costs were C$ 31,749, C$ 66,758, C$ 111,368 and C$ 289,598 for stage I, II, III and IV BC, respectively. The magnitude of cost differential was up to 10.9 times for stage IV compared to stage I, 4.4 times for stage III compared to stage I and 35.6 times for stage IV compared to DCIS. CONCLUSION: The cost of BC treatment is rapidly escalating with novel therapies and increasing survival, resulting in an exponential increase in treatment costs for later-stage disease. We provide real-time, case-based costing for BC treatment which will allow for the assessment of health system economic impacts and an accurate understanding of the cost-effectiveness of screening.

Preoperative Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging: An Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) Clinical Practice Guideline.

BACKGROUND: The use of preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) after the diagnosis of breast cancer by mammography and/or ultrasound is inconsistent. METHODS: After conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing preoperative breast MRI versus no MRI, we reconvened to prepare a clinical practice guideline on this topic. RESULTS: Based on the evidence that MRI improved recurrence, decreased the rates of reoperations (re-excisions or conversion mastectomy), and increased detection of synchronous contralateral breast cancer, we recommend that preoperative breast MRI should be considered on a case-by-case basis in patients diagnosed with breast cancer for whom additional information about disease extent could influence treatment. Based on stronger evidence, preoperative breast MRI is recommended in patients diagnosed with invasive lobular carcinoma for whom additional information about disease extent could influence treatment. For both recommendations, the decision to proceed with MRI would be conditional on shared decision-making between care providers and the patient, taking into account the benefits and risks of MRI as well as patient preferences. Based on the opinion of the Working Group, preoperative breast MRI is also recommended in the following more specific situations: (a) to aid in surgical planning of breast conserving surgery in patients with suspected or known multicentric or multifocal disease; (b) to identify additional lesions in patients with dense breasts; (c) to determine the presence of pectoralis major muscle/chest wall invasion in patients with posteriorly located tumours or when invasion of the pectoralis major muscle or chest wall is suspected; (d) to aid in surgical planning for skin/nipple-sparing mastectomies, autologous reconstruction, oncoplastic surgery, and breast conserving surgery with suspected nipple/areolar involvement; and (e) in patients with familial/hereditary breast cancer but who have not had recent breast MRI as part of screening or diagnosis.

Surgeon Factors Influencing Breast Surgery Outcomes: A Scoping Review to Define the Modern Breast Surgical Oncologist.

BACKGROUND: Modern breast surgical oncology incorporates many aspects of care including preoperative workup, surgical management, and multidisciplinary collaboration to achieve favorable oncologic outcomes and high patient satisfaction. However, there is variability in surgical practice and outcomes. This review aims to identify modifiable surgeon factors influencing breast surgery outcomes and provide a definition of the modern breast surgical oncologist. METHODS: A systematic literature search with additional backward citation searching was conducted. Studies describing modifiable surgeon factors with associated breast surgery outcomes such as rates of breast conservation, sentinel node biopsy, re-excision, complications, acceptable esthetic outcome, and disease-free and overall survival were included. Surgeon factors were categorized for qualitative analysis. RESULTS: A total of 91 studies met inclusion criteria describing both modifiable surgeon factor and outcome data. Four key surgeon factors associated with improved breast surgery outcomes were identified: surgical volume (45 studies), use of oncoplastic techniques (41 studies), sub-specialization in breast surgery or surgical oncology (9 studies), and participation in professional development activities (5 studies). CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the literature review, the modern breast surgical oncologist has a moderate- to high-volume breast surgery practice, understands the use and application of oncoplastic breast surgery, engages in additional training opportunities, maintains memberships in relevant societies, and remains up to date on key literature. Surgeons practicing in breast surgical oncology can target these modifiable factors for professional development and quality improvement.

Feasibility Study and Clinical Impact of Incorporating Breast Tissue Density in High-Risk Breast Cancer Screening Assessment.

Breast tissue density (BTD) is known to increase the risk of breast cancer but is not routinely used in the risk assessment of the population-based High-Risk Ontario Breast Screening Program (HROBSP). This prospective, IRB-approved study assessed the feasibility and impact of incorporating breast tissue density (BTD) into the risk assessment of women referred to HROBSP who were not genetic mutation carriers. All consecutive women aged 40-69 years who met criteria for HROBSP assessment and referred to Genetics from 1 December 2020 to 31 July 2021 had their lifetime risk calculated with and without BTD using Tyrer-Cuzick model version 8 (IBISv8) to gauge overall impact. McNemar's test was performed to compare eligibility with and without density. 140 women were referred, and 1 was excluded (BRCA gene mutation carrier and automatically eligible). Eight of 139 (5.8%) never had a mammogram, while 17/131 (13%) did not have BTD reported on their mammogram and required radiologist review. Of 131 patients, 22 (16.8%) were clinically impacted by incorporation of BTD: 9/131 (6.9%) became eligible for HROBSP, while 13/131 (9.9%) became ineligible (p = 0.394). It was feasible for the Genetics clinic to incorporate BTD for better risk stratification of eligible women. This did not significantly impact the number of eligible women while optimizing the use of high-risk supplemental MRI screening.

Patient opinions on contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: A patient-driven discussion in need of tuning?

BACKGROUND: Rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) are increasing among women with unilateral breast cancer despite low rates of contralateral recurrence and lack of survival benefit. We aimed to investigate the decisional needs and supports required to ensure adequate and quality decision-making by patients with breast cancer facing the decision regarding CPM. METHODS: In this qualitative study, we used semistructured interviews developed with the use of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework to investigate the decisional needs and supports of women (aged > 18 yr) with nonhereditary breast cancer who had previously discussed CPM with their care provider. Patients were recruited from 2 academic cancer centres in Toronto, Ontario. Interviews were conducted between June 2016 and October 2017. We analyzed responses to the open-ended questions iteratively and inductively to establish major themes within the results. RESULTS: Ten patients were recruited. Eight patients reported having initiated the discussion about CPM. Although most patients reported feeling supported, 6 mentioned some degree of decisional conflict. Cancer risk reduction was the most commonly reported perceived benefit of CPM (9 patients), followed by improved psychologic well-being (7). Most patients (8) did not mention the lack of survival benefit of CPM as a disadvantage of the procedure. Patients indicated that information resources (in 8 cases) and improved counselling from their health care team (in 7) would assist in decision-making. CONCLUSION: Our findings illustrate the disconnect between true and perceived risks (i.e., surgical risk) and benefits (potential recurrence and survival benefit) of CPM, which is not being managed adequately despite support from the health care team. A decision aid may address unmet patient need by providing a reliable resource regarding the benefits and risks of this procedure, while helping patients understand their values and realign their expectations.

Axillary surgery and complication rates after mastectomy and reconstruction for breast cancer: an analysis of the NSQIP database.

PURPOSE: Some series have shown increased complications with extended nodal surgery and immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) with implants. We aim to explore complications associated with axillary dissection compared to sentinel lymph node biopsy at a population level. METHODS: American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program participant user files from 2008-2018 were searched to create a cohort of female patients undergoing unilateral mastectomy with IBR and axillary surgery for non-metastatic breast cancer. Patients were classified as having sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), axillary dissection (ALND), or sentinel lymph node biopsy and axillary dissection (SLNB + ALND). Baseline demographics were compared, and multivariable logistic regression was to assess for independent predictors of the primary outcome of 30-day morbidity. RESULTS: Between 2008 and 2018, 18,232 patients had mastectomy and IBR with axillary surgery; 12,632 patients underwent SLNB, 3727 had ALND and 1,873 underwent SLNB + ALND. Mean age of patients in the cohort was 52.5 (SD 11). There was no difference in 30-day morbidity between groups (SLNB: 4.3%, ALND: 4.9%, SLNB + ALND: 4.2%, p = 0.207). Multivariable regression showed that type of axillary surgery was not an independent predictor of 30-day complications (OR 0.78 (95% CI 0.52-1.15) for ALND, and OR 0.87 (95% CI 0.52-1.45) for ALND + SLNB vs SLNB alone). Significant independent predictors for complications were increased BMI (OR 1.06 (95%CI 1.04-1.08)) and increased operative time (OR 1.003 (95% CI 1.001-1.005)). CONCLUSIONS: ALND does not increase 30-day morbidity in patients undergoing IBR when compared to SLNB. This supports concurrent axillary dissection for IBR patients when indicated.

Time to treatment and hospital visits for patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer in a single payer system.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) requires coordination of various services to ensure timely and accurate delivery of care. This can result in multiple hospital visits and extend time to treatment (TTT). The primary purpose of our study was to evaluate time to NAC for patients at a regional cancer centre. Healthcare resource use in the form of hospital visits before NAC was also evaluated. METHODS: A retrospective chart analysis of patients with invasive breast cancer who underwent NAC between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2018 was performed. RESULTS: Overall, 286 patients underwent NAC. Median TTT was 22 days (range: 2-105). Median number of visits between first consultation and NAC was 5 (range: 0-12). Majority of additional visits were for diagnostic imaging/interventions, with a median number of 4 visits (range: 0-10). Each additional hospital visit increased time to NAC treatment by 14%. CONCLUSIONS: Women undergoing NAC require multiple visits before initiating treatment-the majority of these visits are for diagnostic imaging. These results support the need for the coordination of multidisciplinary care and diagnostic imaging for breast cancer patients undergoing NAC to reduce hospital visits, improve the patient experience, and reduce TTT.

Young Women with Breast Cancer: Chemotherapy or Surgery First? An Evaluation of Time to Treatment for Invasive Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer in young women (ages 18-40 years) is rare, yet remains a leading cause of cancer-related death. Time to treatment (TTT) is an increasingly important factor in breast cancer outcomes, specifically time to systemic therapy. Our objective was to review patterns of care for young women presenting with invasive breast cancer and compare TTT for surgery first versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review of young women with non-metastatic, non-inflammatory invasive breast cancer between 2012 and 2018 at a single institution was completed. The primary outcome was time to first treatment (surgery or NAC). RESULTS: One hundred forty-two young women were treated for invasive breast cancer during the study period. The majority of patients underwent surgery first (57.7%) compared with NAC (42.3%). Women who underwent NAC were more likely to have abnormal lymph nodes on imaging (p = 0.002) and clinical exam (p < 0.0001) and were also more likely to have larger tumor sizes (p < 0.05). The majority of triple negative patients underwent NAC first (88% [14/16]). Median TTT was significantly longer for surgery (27 [range 7-70] days) versus (20.5 [3-50] days) chemotherapy (p = 0.004). Median number of additional hospital visits prior to surgery was 4 (range 1-8) versus 5 (0-11) for NAC (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Young women with breast cancer who undergo NAC have a shorter TTT and clinically similar median number of hospital visits compared with women undergoing surgery first. These results support the use of NAC in young women, when indicated, as additional workup and consultations prior to NAC do not delay care.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer: Review of the Evidence and Conditions That Facilitated Its Use during the Global Pandemic.

Practice and behaviour change in healthcare is complex, and requires a set of critical steps that would be needed to implement and sustain the change. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer is traditionally used for locally advanced disease and is primarily advantageous for surgical downstaging purposes. However, it does also offer patients with certain biologic subtypes such as the triple negative or Her2 positive breast cancers the opportunity to improve survival, even in early stage disease. During the height of the pandemic, an opportunity and motivation for the increased use of neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer was identified. This paper describes the conditions that have supported this practice change at the provider and institutional levels. We also include our own institutional algorithm based on tumor biology and extent of disease that have guided our decisions on breast cancer management during the pandemic. Our processes can be adapted by other institutions and breast oncology practices in accordance with local conditions and resources, during and beyond the pandemic.

Phyllodes Tumors-The Predictors and Detection of Recurrence.

BACKGROUND: Phyllodes tumors are rare breast neoplasms and the histopathological grade and surgical margins help guide treatment and follow-up. The traditional surgical teaching is resection with ≥10 mm margins, but are narrower surgical margins acceptable? The purpose of our study was to identify predictors of local recurrence. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed to identify patients with phyllodes tumors who underwent surgery between 2002 and 2014 using a regional pathology database. Electronic medical records were used to identify surgical management, pathological characteristics, and follow-up encounters. RESULTS: A total of 150 phyllodes tumors were included: 110 of 150 (73%) benign, 21 of 150 (14%) borderline, and 19 of 150 (13%) malignant. At initial surgery, 29 specimens had a positive margin and 15 (56%) underwent re-excision. Seventy tumors had a surgical margin of ≤1 mm, 40 had a margin of 2 to 9 mm, and 11 had a margin of ≥10 mm. There were 11 of 150 (7.3%) locally recurrent tumors: 5 of 11 (45%) benign, 3 of 11 (27%) borderline, and 3 of 11 (27%) malignant. In total, 10 of 11 locally recurrent tumors had a positive margin or ≤1 mm margin at initial surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Phyllodes tumors can have a personalized treatment approach based on histopathological grade and surgical margins. Borderline and malignant phyllodes tumors with a positive or ≤1 mm surgical margin have an increased risk of recurrence. In benign phyllodes tumors, an optimal narrow negative margin may exist but the traditional ≥10 mm excisional margin is not necessary. Local recurrence rates may be sufficiently low in benign phyllodes tumors that imaging can be performed on the presence of clinical symptoms.

A comparison of patient-reported outcomes between Alloderm and Dermacell in immediate alloplastic breast reconstruction: A randomized control trial.

BACKGROUND: Alloderm and Dermacell are the two leading human acellular dermal matrices (ADM) in immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). Despite differences in sterility, consistency, thickness and cost, there are no comparative trials to date to compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) between the two products. The purpose of this study was to determine if there was a difference in patient-reported outcomes (as measured by the BREAST-Q) between patients reconstructed with Alloderm and Dermacell. METHODS: A single center, open-label, randomized control trial of patients undergoing IBR with an implant for breast cancer or breast cancer prophylaxis was performed. Patients were randomized to either Alloderm or Dermacell. Baseline demographic data were compared, and linear mixed models were used to identify associations with BREAST-Q over time. RESULTS: Between June 2016 and October 2018, 62 patients were randomized into two groups, 31(50%) Alloderm and 31(50%) Dermacell. Of these, 23(74%) patients in the Alloderm group and 27(87%) patients of the Dermacell group filled out BREAST-Q questionnaires. Baseline BREAST-Q scores with respect to satisfaction with breasts, psychosocial well-being, sexual well-being, and physical well-being were similar between groups (p>0.05). At 3 months postoperatively, the Alloderm group had a statistically significant improvement with respect to satisfaction with breasts (67 vs 53, p = 0.03), satisfaction with overall results (85 vs 61, p = 0.003), satisfaction with the surgeon (89 vs 67, p = 0.01), and satisfaction with information provided (74 vs 59, p = 0.02). At 12 months postoperatively, there were no statistically significant differences in PROM between groups (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: We report the first randomized controlled trial to date comparing patient-reported outcomes of the two most commonly used ADMs in IBR in Canada. Although a short-term analysis favors the use of Alloderm, there does not appear to be any difference in outcomes between the two products in the longer term.

Early Postoperative Complications From National Surgical Quality Improvement Program: A Closer Examination of Timing and Technique of Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Despite the recent surge in rates of immediate breast reconstruction, there is a paucity of large multicenter studies to compare differences in morbidity after immediate versus delayed breast reconstruction. This study used the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) to study the association between timing of breast reconstruction and complication rates, stratified by reconstructive modality. STUDY DESIGN: The NSQIP database was used to identify breast reconstructions from 2005 to 2012. Rates of major complications were compared by timing within each reconstructive modality (implant vs autologous). Cohort differences in baseline characteristics and variables associated with increased complication rates were identified in bivariate analyses. A multivariable model was created to compare the association between the timing of reconstruction and major complications. RESULTS: Of 24,506 postmastectomy reconstructions, 85.8% were immediate, 14.2% were delayed, 84% were implant, and 16% were autologous reconstructions. Overall, 10.0% of patients suffered a major complication. After stratification, only implant reconstructions showed a statistically higher complication rate with immediate (8.8%) reconstruction compared with delayed (5.3%) (odds ratio, 1.7, P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in complication rates between autologous immediate (18.4%) or delayed (19.0%) reconstructions. After controlling for baseline cohort differences and other risk factors, immediate reconstruction remained as an independent significant predictor of major complications in implant reconstructions (odds ratio, 1.8, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Immediate rather than delayed breast reconstruction is associated with a significantly higher rate of major complications in implant reconstruction but not in autologous reconstruction. It is important to include these findings in the routine preoperative surgeon-patient discussion of reconstructive options.

Quality-of-Life and Surgical Outcomes for Breast Cancer Patients Treated with Therapeutic Reduction Mammoplasty Versus Mastectomy with Immediate Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic reduction mammoplasty (TRM) is a safe and effective surgical technique that has oncologic outcomes comparable with those achieved by mastectomy. This study aimed to compare surgical and patient-reported outcomes between breast cancer patients treated with TRM and those who had mastectomy with immediate reconstruction (MIR). METHODS: A 4-year, single-institution, retrospective cohort study analyzed breast cancer patients undergoing TRM and MIR. Patient characteristics and perioperative data were collected from electronic records. Patient-reported outcome data were collected via BREAST-Q questionnaires preoperatively, then 3 months and 12 months postoperatively. A subgroup analysis was performed on locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) patients for TRM and MIR. RESULTS: The study included 249 breast reconstructions, of which 77 (31%) were TRM and 172 (69%) were MIR. The mean follow-up time was 2.4 ± 1.2 years. Compared with MIR, TRM had significantly lower major complication rates (9% vs 21%; p = 0.02) and fewer revisionary surgeries (5% vs 37%; p < 0.0001). At 1 year postoperatively, TRM had a significantly greater change in satisfaction with breasts, (+ 27.7 vs + 4.6; p < 0.01) and sexual well-being (+ 20.0 vs - 5.5; p = 0.02) than MIR. CONCLUSION: For select breast cancer patients, TRM continues to be a safe and effective alternative to mastectomy. The current study demonstrated that TRM patients had fewer major complications and revisionary surgeries, as well as better patient-reported outcomes than MIR.

National Multidisciplinary Survey of Regional Anesthesia Preferences in Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this work was to determine the regional anesthesia preferences of plastic surgeons (PS) and anesthesiologists (A) involved in breast reconstruction in Canada. METHODS: Online surveys were sent to members of the Canadian Society of Plastic Surgeons (CSPS) and the Canadian Anesthesiologists Society (CAS). The primary outcome was regional anesthesia preferences in breast reconstruction (delayed, immediate, alloplastic, autologous). Secondary outcomes included the availability and the influence of specialty and academic status on preferences. Statistical analysis used descriptive statistics and Pearson χ2 test. RESULTS: Responses from CSPS and CAS totaled 141 (response rate = 30%) and 217 (response rate = 14%), respectively. Compared with non-academic centres (NAC), academic centres (AC) had significantly greater access to (AC = 60%, NAC = 39%, P = .001) and preferred to use regional anesthesia more often (AC = 36%, NAC = 10%, P < .001). The following proportions of physicians preferred to use regional anesthesia: 40% (PS = 32%, A = 44%, P = .081) for immediate alloplastic reconstruction, 23% (PS = 24%, A = 22%, P = .821) for delayed alloplastic reconstruction, 34% (PS = 18%, A = 41%, P < .001) for immediate autologous reconstruction, and 19% (PS = 13%, A = 21%, P = .195) for delayed autologous reconstruction. Regional anesthesia preferences were significantly different between plastic surgeons and anesthesiologists (P < .001)-anesthesiologists favoured paravertebral blocks for all reconstructions, while plastic surgeons favoured pectoral nerve blocks for immediate alloplastic reconstruction and intercostal nerve blocks for all other reconstructions. CONCLUSIONS: Plastic surgeons and anesthesiologists prefer not to use regional anesthesia in the majority breast reconstructions. Among those who deploy regional anesthesia, plastic surgeons and anesthesiologist have divergent preferences with respect to modality. There is a need for a prospective study comparing paravertebral blocks and intercostal nerve blocks.

HISTORIQUE: La présente étude visait à déterminer le type d'anesthésie régionale que préfèrent les plasticiens (P) et les anesthésiologistes (A) qui font de la reconstruction mammaire au Canada. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Les membres de la Société canadienne des chirurgiens plasticiens (SCCP) et de la Société canadienne des anesthésiologistes (SCA) ont reçu un sondage en ligne. Les préférences d'anesthésie régionale pour la reconstruction mammaire (reportée, immédiate, alloplastique, autologue) étaient le résultat primaire et l'accès à ce type d'anesthésie et l'influence des spécialités et des statuts universitaires sur les préférences, les résultats secondaires. Les chercheurs ont recouru aux statistiques descriptives et au test du chi carré pour procéder à l'analyse statistique. RÉSULTATS: Les membres de la SCCP et de la SCA ont donné 141 (30 %) et 217 (14 %) réponses, respectivement. Par rapport aux centres non universitaires (CNU), les centres universitaires (CU) avaient un accès considérablement supérieur (CU = 60 %, CNU = 39 %, p = 0,001) à l'anesthésie régionale et l'utilisaient plus souvent (CU = 36 %, CNU = 10 %, p < 0,001). Les proportions suivantes de médecins préféraient utiliser l'anesthésie régionale : 40 % (P = 32 %, A = 44 %, p = 0,081) pour la reconstruction alloplastique immédiate, 23 % (P = 24 %, A = 22 %, p = 0,821) pour la reconstruction alloplastique reportée, 34 % (P = 18 %, A = 41 %, p < 0,001) pour la reconstruction autologue immédiate et 19 % (P = 13 %, A = 21 %, p = 0,195) pour la reconstruction autologue reportée. Les préférences quant à l'anesthésie régionale différaient considérablement entre les P et les A (p < 0,001). En effet, les A préféraient les blocs paravertébraux pour toutes les reconstructions et les P, les blocs nerveux pectoraux pour la reconstruction alloplastique immédiate et les blocs nerveux intercostaux pour toutes les autres reconstructions. CONCLUSIONS: Les P et les A préfèrent ne pas recourir à l'anesthésie régionale lors de la majorité des reconstructions mammaires. Chez ceux qui optent pour l'anesthésie régionale, les P et les A ont des préférences divergentes quant à la modalité à retenir. Une étude prospective comparant les blocs paravertébraux aux blocs nerveux intercostaux s'impose.

Does oncoplastic surgery increase immediate (30-day) postoperative complications? An analysis of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database.

PURPOSE: Although there has been a significant increase in the use of oncoplastic surgery (OPS), data on the postoperative safety of this approach are limited compared to traditional lumpectomy. This study aimed to compare the immediate (30-day) postoperative complications associated with OPS and traditional lumpectomy. METHODS: An analysis of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database was performed on women with breast cancer who underwent OPS or traditional lumpectomy. Logistic regression was used to explore the effect of type of surgery on the outcome of interest. RESULTS: A total of 109,487 women were analyzed of whom 8.3% underwent OPS. OPS had a longer median operative time than traditional lumpectomy. The unadjusted immediate (30-day) overall complication rate was significantly higher with OPS than traditional lumpectomy (3.8% versus 2.6%, p < 0.001). After adjusting for baseline differences, overall 30-day postoperative complications were significantly higher amongst women undergoing OPS compared with traditional lumpectomy (OR 1.41, 95%CI 1.24-1.59). Factors that were independent predictors of overall 30-day complications included higher age, higher BMI, race, smoking status, lymph node surgery, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, ASA class ≥ 3, in situ disease, and year of operation. The interaction term between type of surgery and operative time was not statistically significant, indicating that operative time did not modify the effect of type of surgery on immediate postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: Although there were slightly higher overall complication rates with OPS, the absolute rates remained quite low for both groups. Therefore, OPS may be performed in women with breast cancer who are suitable candidates.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Alloderm-RTU with DermACELL in Immediate Subpectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of different acellular dermal matrices (ADM) used for implant-based reconstruction immediately following mastectomy is an important clinical question. A prospective randomized clinical trial was performed to evaluate the superiority of DermACELL over Alloderm-RTU in reducing drain duration. METHODS: Patients undergoing mastectomy with subpectoral immediate and permanent implant-based breast reconstruction were randomized to Alloderm-RTU or DermACELL. The primary outcome was seroma formation, measured by the duration of postoperative drain placement. Secondary outcomes included: post drain removal seroma aspiration, infection, redbreast syndrome, wound dehiscence, loss of the implant, and unplanned return to the operating room. RESULTS: 62 patients were randomized for 81 mastectomies (41 Alloderm-RTU, 40 DermACELL). Baseline characteristics were similar. There was no statistically significant difference in mean drain duration (p = 0.16), with a trend towards longer duration in the Alloderm-RTU group (1.6 days; 95%CI, 0.7 to 3.9). The overall rate of minor and major complications were statistically similar between the two groups; although patients with Alloderm-RTU had 3 times as many infections requiring antibiotics (7.9% vs. 2.5%) with a risk difference of 5.4 (95%CI -4.5 to 15.2), and twice as many unplanned returns to the operating room (15.8% vs. 7.5%) with a risk difference of 8.3 (95% CI -5.9 to 22.5) as DermACELL. CONCLUSION: This is the first prospective randomized clinical trial comparing the two most commonly used human-derived ADMs. There was no statistically significant difference in drain duration, minor, or major complications between DermACELL over Alloderm-RTU in immediate subpectoral permanent implant-based breast reconstruction post-mastectomy.