Pre-operative Radiotherapy And Deep Inferior Epigastric Artery Perforator (DIEP) flAp study (PRADA): Aesthetic outcome and patient satisfaction at one year.

INTRODUCTION: The optimal combination of radiotherapy and breast reconstruction has not yet been defined. Post-mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) has deleterious effects on breast reconstruction, leading to caution amongst surgeons. Pre-operative radiotherapy (PRT) is a growing area of interest, is demonstrated to be safe, and spares autologous flaps from radiotherapy. This study evaluates the aesthetic outcome of PRT and deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap reconstruction within the Pre-operative Radiotherapy And Deep Inferior Epigastric artery Perforator (DIEP) flAp (PRADA) cohort. METHODS: PRADA was an observational cohort study designed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of PRT for women undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy and DIEP reconstruction. Panel evaluation of 3D surface images (3D-SIs) and patient-reported outcome measures (BREAST-Q) for a subset of women in the study were compared with those of a DIEP-PMRT cohort who had undergone DIEP reconstruction and PMRT. RESULTS: Seventeen out of 33 women from the PRADA study participated in this planned substudy. Twenty-eight women formed the DIEP-PMRT cohort (median follow-up 23 months). The median (inter-quartile range [IQR]) 'satisfaction with breasts' score at 12 months for the PRADA cohort was significantly better than the DIEP-PMRT cohort (77 [72-87] versus 64 [54-71], respectively), p=0.01). Median [IQR] panel evaluation (5-point scale) was also significantly better for the PRADA cohort than for the DIEP-PMRT cohort (4.3 [3.9-4.6] versus 3.6 [2.8-4] p=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Aesthetic outcome for the PRADA cohort was reported to be 'good' or 'excellent' in 93% of cases using a bespoke panel assessment with robust methodology. Patient satisfaction at one year is encouraging and superior to DIEP-PMRT at 23 months. Switching surgery-radiotherapy sequencing leads to similar breast aesthetic outcomes and warrants further large-scale, multi-centre evaluation in a randomised trial.

Primary radiotherapy and deep inferior epigastric perforator flap reconstruction for patients with breast cancer (PRADA): a multicentre, prospective, non-randomised, feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy before mastectomy and autologous free-flap breast reconstruction can avoid adverse radiation effects on healthy donor tissues and delays to adjuvant radiotherapy. However, evidence for this treatment sequence is sparse. We aimed to explore the feasibility of preoperative radiotherapy followed by skin-sparing mastectomy and deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap reconstruction in patients with breast cancer requiring mastectomy. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, non-randomised, feasibility study at two National Health Service trusts in the UK. Eligible patients were women aged older than 18 years with a laboratory diagnosis of primary breast cancer requiring mastectomy and post-mastectomy radiotherapy, who were suitable for DIEP flap reconstruction. Preoperative radiotherapy started 3-4 weeks after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and was delivered to the breast, plus regional nodes as required, at 40 Gy in 15 fractions (over 3 weeks) or 42·72 Gy in 16 fractions (over 3·2 weeks). Adverse skin radiation toxicity was assessed preoperatively using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group toxicity grading system. Skin-sparing mastectomy and DIEP flap reconstruction were planned for 2-6 weeks after completion of preoperative radiotherapy. The primary endpoint was the proportion of open breast wounds greater than 1 cm width requiring a dressing at 4 weeks after surgery, assessed in all participants. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02771938, and is closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Jan 25, 2016, and Dec 11, 2017, 33 patients were enrolled. At 4 weeks after surgery, four (12·1%, 95% CI 3·4-28·2) of 33 patients had an open breast wound greater than 1 cm. One (3%) patient had confluent moist desquamation (grade 3). There were no serious treatment-related adverse events and no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Preoperative radiotherapy followed by skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate DIEP flap reconstruction is feasible and technically safe, with rates of breast open wounds similar to those reported with post-mastectomy radiotherapy. A randomised trial comparing preoperative radiotherapy with post-mastectomy radiotherapy is required to precisely determine and compare surgical, oncological, and breast reconstruction outcomes, including quality of life. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, National Institute for Health Research.

A scoring system for 3D surface images of breast reconstruction developed using the Delphi consensus process.

INTRODUCTION: Evaluation of aesthetics after breast reconstruction is challenging. In the absence of an objective measurement, panel assessment is widely adopted. Heterogeneity of scales and poor internal consistency make comparison difficult. Development and validation of an expert panel scale using a Delphi consensus process is described. It was designed specifically for use as the gold standard for development of an objective evaluation tool using 3-Dimensional Surface Imaging (3D-SI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 20 items relating to aesthetic assessment were identified for consideration in the Delphi consensus process. Items were selected for inclusion in the definitive panel scale by iterative rounds of voting according to importance, consensus discussion, and a final vote. The Delphi-derived scale was tested on a clinical research series for intra- and inter-panellist, and intra-panel reliability, and correlation with Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). RESULTS: 61 surgeons participated in the Delphi process. Oncoplastic and plastic surgeons were represented. The Delphi-derived scale included symmetry, volume, shape, position of breast mound, nipple position, and a global score. Intra-panellist reliability ranged from poor to almost perfect (wκ<0to0.86), inter-rater reliability was fair (ICC range 0.4-0.5) for individual items and good (ICC0.6) for the global score, intra-panel reliability was moderate to substantial (wκ0.4-0.7), and correlation with PROMs was moderate (r = 0.5p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The Delphi-derived panel evaluation is at least as good as other scales in the literature and has been developed specifically to provide expert evaluation of aesthetics after breast reconstruction. The logistical constraints of panel assessment remain, reinforcing the need to develop an objective evaluation method.

Comparison of protein expression between formalin-fixed core-cut biopsies and surgical excision specimens using a novel multiplex approach.

PURPOSE: We evaluated whether multiplex protein quantification using antibody bar-coding with photocleavable oligonucleotides (NanoString) can be applied to evaluate protein expression in breast cancer FFPE specimens. We also assessed whether diagnostic core-cuts fixed immediately at time of procedures and surgical excision sections from routinely fixed breast cancers are affected by the same fixation related differences noted using immunohistochemistry (IHC). METHODS: The expression of 26 proteins was analysed using NanoString technology in 16 pairs of FFPE breast cancer core-cuts and surgical excisions. The measurements yielded were compared with those by IHC on Ki67, PgR and HER2 biomarkers and pAKT and pERK1/2 phosphorylated proteins. RESULTS: When considered irrespective of sample type, expression measured by the two methods was strongly correlated for all markers (p < 0.001; ρ = 0.69-0.88). When core-cuts and excisions were evaluated separately, the correlations between NanoString and IHC were weaker but significant except for pAKT in excisions. Surgical excisions showed lower levels of 8/12 phosphoproteins and higher levels of 4/13 non-phosphorylated proteins in comparison to core-cuts (p < 0.01). Reduced p4EBP1, pAMPKa, pRPS6 and pRAF1 immunogenicity in excisions was correlated with tumour size and mastectomy specimens showed lower p4EBP1 and pRPS6 expression than lumpectomy (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our study supports the validity of the new multiplex approach to protein analysis but indicates that, as with IHC, caution is necessary for the analysis in excisions particularly of phosphoproteins. The specimen type, tumour size and surgery type may lead to biases in the quantitative analysis of many proteins of biologic and clinical interest in excision specimens.

Oncoplastic multidisciplinary meetings: a necessity or luxury?

Although there is scant evidence to support multidisciplinary meetings in any cancer specialty, they are now regarded as best practice. We believe the oncoplastic multidisciplinary meeting plays a similarly important role, consolidating oncoplastic multidisciplinary working and allowing transparent decision making, standardisation of care and recording of results. This may drive oncoplastic surgery to an evidence-based position from which oncoplastic excellence can be achieved.

Chronic breast abscess due to Mycobacterium fortuitum: a case report.

INTRODUCTION: Mycobacterium fortuitum is a rapidly growing group of nontuberculous mycobacteria more common in patients with genetic or acquired causes of immune deficiency. There have been few published reports of Mycobacterium fortuitum associated with breast infections mainly associated with breast implant and reconstructive surgery. CASE PRESENTATION: We report a case of a 51-year-old Caucasian woman who presented to our one-stop breast clinic with a two-week history of left breast swelling and tenderness. Following triple assessment and subsequent incision and drainage of a breast abscess, the patient was diagnosed with Mycobacterium fortuitum and treated with antibiotic therapy and surgical debridement. CONCLUSION: This is a rare case of a spontaneous breast abscess secondary to Mycobacterium fortuitum infection. Recommended treatment is long-term antibacterial therapy and surgical debridement for extensive infection or when implants are involved.

Extreme loss of immunoreactive p-Akt and p-Erk1/2 during routine fixation of primary breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Very few studies have investigated whether the time elapsed between surgical resection and tissue fixation or the difference between core-cut and excision biopsies impact on immunohistochemically measured biomarkers including phosphorylated proteins in primary breast cancer. The aim of this study was to characterize the differences in immunoreactivity of common biomarkers that may occur (a) due to tissue handling at surgery and (b) between core-cuts and resected tumours. METHODS: Core-cuts taken from surgical breast cancer specimens immediately after resection (sample A) and after routine X-ray of the excised tumour (sample B) were formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded and compared to the routinely fixed resection specimen (sample C). The variation in immunohistochemical expression of Ki67, oestrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PgR), human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2), p-Akt and p-Erk were investigated. RESULTS: Twenty-one tissue sets with adequate tumour were available. Median time between collection of core-cuts A and B was 30 minutes (range 20 to 80). None of the markers showed significant differences between samples A and B. Similarly, Ki67, ER, PgR and HER2 did not differ significantly between core-cuts and main resection specimen although there was a trend for lower resection values for ER (P=0.06). However, p-Akt and p-Erk1/2 were markedly lower in resections than core-cuts (median 27 vs 101 and 69 vs 193, respectively; both P<0.0001 [two-sided]). This difference was significantly greater in mastectomy than lumpectomy specimens for p-Erk1/2 (P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The delay in fixation in core-cuts taken after post-operative X-ray of resection specimens has no significant impact on expression of Ki67, ER, PgR, HER2, p-Akt or p-Erk1/2. However extreme loss of phospho-staining can occur during routine fixation of resection specimens. These differences are likely attributable to suboptimal fixation and may have major repercussions for clinical research involving these markers.

Comparison of the systemic and intratumoral effects of tamoxifen and the aromatase inhibitor vorozole in postmenopausal patients with primary breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine biologic differences, if any, between presurgical endocrine treatment with an aromatase inhibitor (vorozole) and tamoxifen in patients with postmenopausal primary breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Randomization was to 12 weeks of 2.5 mg of vorozole per day or 20 mg of tamoxifen per day, both orally. Clinical response was assessed monthly together with serum sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG), luteinizing hormone (LH), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), estrogens (E1, E2, and E1S), lipids, insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), and bone metabolites (CrossLaps CTx). Tissue samples for Ki67, apoptotic index (AI), estrogen receptor, and progesterone receptor were collected at 0, 2, and 12 weeks. RESULTS: Ki67 fell by 58% and 43% (means) at 2 weeks in the vorozole and tamoxifen patients, respectively (P =.13). In the vorozole group, the correlations of proportional changes in Ki67 at 2 weeks with tumor volume changes and clinical response at 12 weeks were not significant (P =.09) and marginally significant (P =.04), respectively. Serum lipids did not differ between groups. Serum levels of EI, E2, and E1S were suppressed markedly by vorozole, whereas levels of SHBG increased and LH and FSH fell significantly with tamoxifen. IGF-1 levels fell significantly with tamoxifen (P =.001) compared with the nonsignificant rise with vorozole. Twelve-week CTx values fell by 19% with tamoxifen (P =.006) and rose by 11% with vorozole (P =.15). CONCLUSION: The correlation with vorozole of Ki67 with volume and clinical response supports this as an intermediate marker. The nonsignificant effects on bone and lipid metabolism by the aromatase inhibitor may be important to consider for adjuvant and potential prevention strategies.