Obstetric management does not influence vertical transmission of HCV infection: results of the ALHICE group study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of variation in obstetric practice during labor and childbirth upon the rate of neonatal transmission of HCV. METHODS: Pregnant mothers were included in this prospective study from six hospitals in Southern France on the basis of positive HCV serology. Data recorded for the study included maternal factors, delivery details and laboratory data concerning mother and child. Pediatric follow-up was documented for a minimum of 1 year and for up to 2 years for children with circulating HCV RNA. RESULTS: Two hundred and fourteen mother-child pairs were investigated. HIV/HCV co-infected mothers had a rate of HCV transmission significantly higher (11%) than that observed for mono-infected mothers (3.8%) (odds ratio=3.08 [95% CI:0.95 to 9.99] p=0.05). When the HCV viral load was greater than or equal to 6 log copies/ml, the transmission rate was 14.3% [95% CI:5.4-28.5], this representing a risk of transmission four times higher than for women with a lower viral load (OR=4 [95% CI:1.3-12.4]). Among co-infected mothers, the risk of transmission was significantly increased even when the load was less than 6 log copies/ml (p=0.006). Risk factors were identified related to labor (duration and induction type); the birth process (rupture of the amniotic sac, complete opening of the sac, appearance of the amniotic fluid); fetal characteristics (prematurity) and obstetric maneuvers (instrumental extractions, spontaneous or induced perineal trauma) and none of these factors were associated with an increased rate of HCV maternal-fetal transmission. CONCLUSIONS: HCV infection does not appear to be a legitimate indication for modifying obstetric practices with regards to type of induction, monitoring of labor, route of delivery, fetal and perineal obstetric maneuvers or care of the newborn in the delivery room.

New concept for immediate breast reconstruction for invasive cancers: feasibility, oncological safety and esthetic outcome of post-neoadjuvant therapy immediate breast reconstruction versus delayed breast reconstruction: a prospective pilot study.

Feasibility and oncological safety of post-adjuvant skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) plus immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) cannot be evaluated by randomized trials. However, comparative study could modify guidelines for the oncosurgical treatment of invasive breast cancer. Our study compared the feasibility, oncological safety and esthetic outcome of SSM plus latissimus dorsi (LD) flap IBR after chemotherapy (CT) and radiotherapy (RT) with the standard management for invasive breast cancer: mastectomy as primary treatment, adjuvant CT and RT, and LD flap delayed breast reconstruction (DBR). Twenty-six selected patients with stages IIA-IIIA breast cancer were offered post-neoadjuvant SSM plus IBR with LD flap plus implant (IBR group). Seventy-eight other patients had primary mastectomy, adjuvant CT and RT, and LD-assisted DBR (DBR group). After 4.1 years (range 1-8) of follow-up, feasibility, oncological safety, and esthetic outcome were compared. Sixteen (61%) early complications were reported for the IBR group versus 44 (56%) for the DBR group (P = 0.645). Early implant loss was 0% in IBR versus 12% in DBR. IBR had 8 (30%) late complications versus 17 (21%) for DBR (P = 0.362). Capsular contracture and reconstruction failure rates were similar. Local recurrence was 7.7% (2/26) in IBR and 6.4% (5/78) in DBR (P = 0.823). Cosmetic evaluation by independent physicians and by the patients themselves was identical in the two groups. Our concept provides a basis for offering more women the opportunity to elect for immediate reconstruction, even in the setting of radiation therapy.