Quantifying Nipple-Areolar Complex Shape and Location After Transmasculine Top Surgery: A Study of Postoperative Photographs Posted on Social Media and Surgeons' Professional Websites.

Purpose: The transgender community utilizes online platforms to view and share postoperative masculinizing top surgery photographs. However, the quantitative and qualitative nature of these photographs is unknown. We aimed to conduct an analysis of postoperative online photographs for nipple-areolar complex (NAC) shape and location, and compare social media platforms to World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) surgeons' websites and published cis-male chest proportions. Methods: In a cross-sectional analysis (April to May 2019), social media (Instagram and Reddit) and WPATH surgeon website postoperative top surgery photographs were analyzed. Areola height (AH):areola width (AW), NAC horizontal (inter-nipple distance [IND]:chest width [CW]) and vertical placement (sternal notch to nipple line [SN-NL]:sternal notch to umbilicus [SN-U]), and vertical scar placement (sternal notch to scar line [SN-SL]:SN-U) ratios were assessed on MATLAB. Data were compared to published cis-male proportions. Photograph skin color, soft tissue redundancy, and scar location were also analyzed. Results: We analyzed 304 social media and 192 surgeons' website photographs qualitatively, and 139 social media and 189 surgeons' photographs quantitatively. Means (standard deviation) for postoperative photographs were AH:AW 1.12±0.24, IND:CW 0.68±0.07, SN-NL:SN-U 0.37±0.06. Most ratios significantly differed from published cis-male ratios (p<0.001). Photographs from WPATH surgeons' websites differed from social media platforms in SN-NL:SN-U and SN-SL:SN-U (p<0.001), and in scar location and soft tissue redundancy (p=0.012). Conclusion: Postoperative top surgery photographs on online platforms showed more vertically oval, caudally positioned, and in many cases wider-spaced NACs than cis-male proportions. Our study highlights variability in results of masculinizing top surgery as it relates to an emerging source of information; online photographs.

Oncological Safety of Autologous Fat Grafting for Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Autologous fat grafting has become a vital component of breast reconstruction. However, concerns remain regarding the safety of fat grafting after oncological resection and breast reconstruction. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the association of fat grafting after breast reconstruction with metastasis and death in breast cancer patients. METHODS: A retrospective, population-based cohort study was conducted using deidentified claims data from 2001 to 2018 and included privately insured patients with breast cancer who underwent breast reconstruction after surgical resection. Breast reconstruction patients who underwent fat grafting were compared with those not undergoing fat grafting, evaluating metastasis and death up to 15 years after reconstruction. One-to-one propensity score matching was used to account for selection bias on patient risk factors comparing those with and without fat grafting. RESULTS: A total of 4709 patients were identified who underwent breast reconstruction after lumpectomy or mastectomy, of which 368 subsequently underwent fat grafting. In the propensity score-matched patients, fat grafting was not associated with an increased risk of lymph node metastasis (9.7% fat-grafted vs 11.4% in non-fat-grafted, P = 0.47) or distant metastasis (9.1% fat-grafted vs 10.5% in non-fat-grafted, P = 0.53). There was no increased risk of all-cause mortality after fat grafting for breast reconstruction (3.9% fat-grafted vs 6.6% non-fat-grafted, P = 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: Among breast cancer patients who subsequently underwent fat grafting, compared with no fat grafting, no significant increase was observed in distant metastasis or all-cause mortality. These findings suggest that autologous fat grafting after oncologic resection and reconstruction was not associated with an increased risk of future metastasis or death.

BMI is Not Associated with Chest-Specific Body Image, Complications or Revisions in Gender-Affirming Mastectomy: A Single-Center Cross-Sectional Study.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the impact of Body Mass Index (BMI) on clinical and patient-reported outcomes following gender-affirming mastectomy (GM). BACKGROUND: BMI is a barrier for obese patients seeking GM despite increasing evidence that it is safe in this population. Currently little is known about the impact of BMI on chest-specific body image and satisfaction following GM. METHODS: This single-center, cross-sectional study included individuals 18 years and older who underwent GM between 1990-2020 and were at least 2 years post-operative. Patient-reported chest-specific body image was measured using the BODY-Q and Gender Congruence and Life Satisfaction (GCLS) chest subscales. Satisfaction was measured using the Holmes-Rovner Satisfaction with Decision (SWD) scale. Clinical and demographic variables were identified from chart review. Bivariate analysis was performed to determine if BMI was associated with chest-specific body image, satisfaction, complications within 30 days or revisions in GM. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-seven individuals meeting eligibility criteria were contacted to participate and one hundred thirty-seven responded (60.4% response rate). The mean age was 29.1 (SD=9.0) and mean BMI was 30.9 (SD=8.0), with 26.4% (N=60) of the cohort having a BMI>35. Chest-specific body image, and satisfaction with decision did not vary by BMI or breast resection weight. Complications and revisions were not associated with BMI. CONCLUSION: Individuals undergoing GM reported high rates of satisfaction following GM regardless of BMI. Complication and revision rates did not vary significantly by BMI or breast resection weight. Surgeons should re-evaluate the role BMI plays in patient selection and counseling for GM.

Long-Term Regret and Satisfaction With Decision Following Gender-Affirming Mastectomy.

Importance: There has been increasing legislative interest in regulating gender-affirming surgery, in part due to the concern about decisional regret. The regret rate following gender-affirming surgery is thought to be approximately 1%; however, previous studies relied heavily on ad hoc instruments. Objective: To evaluate long-term decisional regret and satisfaction with decision using validated instruments following gender-affirming mastectomy. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this cross-sectional study, a survey of patient-reported outcomes was sent between February 1 and July 31, 2022, to patients who had undergone gender-affirming mastectomy at a US tertiary referral center between January 1, 1990, and February 29, 2020. Exposure: Decisional regret and satisfaction with decision to undergo gender-affirming mastectomy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Long-term patient-reported outcomes, including the Holmes-Rovner Satisfaction With Decision scale, the Decision Regret Scale, and demographic characteristics, were collected. Additional information was collected via medical record review. Descriptive statistics and univariable analysis using Fisher exact and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were performed to compare responders and nonresponders. Results: A total of 235 patients were deemed eligible for the study, and 139 responded (59.1% response rate). Median age at the time of surgery was 27.1 (IQR, 23.0-33.4) years for responders and 26.4 (IQR, 23.1-32.7) years for nonresponders. Nonresponders (n = 96) had a longer postoperative follow-up period than responders (median follow-up, 4.6 [IQR, 3.1-8.6] vs 3.6 [IQR, 2.7-5.3] years, respectively; P = .002). Nonresponders vs responders also had lower rates of depression (42 [44%] vs 94 [68%]; P < .001) and anxiety (42 [44%] vs 97 [70%]; P < .001). No responders or nonresponders requested or underwent a reversal procedure. The median Satisfaction With Decision Scale score was 5.0 (IQR, 5.0-5.0) on a 5-point scale, with higher scores noting higher satisfaction. The median Decision Regret Scale score was 0.0 (IQR, 0.0-0.0) on a 100-point scale, with lower scores noting lower levels of regret. A univariable regression analysis could not be performed to identify characteristics associated with low satisfaction with decision or high decisional regret due to the lack of variation in these responses. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional survey study, the results of validated survey instruments indicated low rates of decisional regret and high levels of satisfaction with decision following gender-affirming mastectomy. The lack of dissatisfaction and regret impeded the ability to perform a more complex statistical analysis, highlighting the need for condition-specific instruments to assess decisional regret and satisfaction with decision following gender-affirming surgery.

Outcomes of breast reconstruction in patients with stage IV breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with Stage IV breast cancer are living longer but breast reconstruction in this setting remains controversial. There is limited research evaluating the benefits of breast reconstruction in this patient cohort. STUDY DESIGN: Drawing from the Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium (MROC) dataset, a prospective cohort study that involved 11 leading medical centers in the US and Canada, we compared patient-reported outcomes (PROs) assessed utilizing the BREAST-Q, a condition-specific, validated patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for mastectomy reconstruction, as well as complications between a cohort of patients with Stage IV disease undergoing reconstruction and a control group of women with Stage I-III disease also receiving reconstruction. RESULTS: Among the MROC population, 26 patients with Stage IV and 2613 women with Stage I-III breast cancer underwent breast reconstruction. Preoperatively, the Stage IV cohort reported significantly lower baseline scores for satisfaction with breast (p = 0.004), psychosocial well-being (p = 0.043) and sexual well-being (p = 0.001), compared with Stage I-III women. Following breast reconstruction, Stage IV patients' mean PRO scores improved over baseline and were not significantly different from those of Stage I-III reconstruction patients. There were also no significant differences in overall/any (p = 0.782), major (p = 0.751) or minor complication (p = 0.787) rates between the two groups at two years following reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS: The findings in this study suggest that breast reconstruction offers significant quality-of-life benefits for women with advanced breast cancer with no increase in postoperative complications and thus may be a reasonable option in this clinical setting.

Towards Patient-centered Decision-making in Breast Cancer Surgery: Machine Learning to Predict Individual Patient-reported Outcomes at 1-year Follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: We developed, tested, and validated machine learning algorithms to predict individual patient-reported outcomes at 1-year follow-up to facilitate individualized, patient-centered decision-making for women with breast cancer. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Satisfaction with breasts is a key outcome for women undergoing cancer-related mastectomy and reconstruction. Current decision-making relies on group-level evidence which may lead to suboptimal treatment recommendations for individuals. METHODS: We trained, tested, and validated 3 machine learning algorithms using data from 1921 women undergoing cancer-related mastectomy and reconstruction conducted at eleven study sites in North America from 2011 to 2016. Data from 1921 women undergoing cancer-related mastectomy and reconstruction were collected before surgery and at 1-year follow-up. Data from 10 of the 11 sites were randomly split into training and test samples (2:1 ratio) to develop and test 3 algorithms (logistic regression with elastic net penalty, extreme gradient boosting tree, and neural network) which were further validated using the additional site's data.AUC to predict clinically-significant changes in satisfaction with breasts at 1-year follow-up using the validated BREAST-Q were the outcome measures. RESULTS: The 3 algorithms performed equally well when predicting both improved or decreased satisfaction with breasts in both testing and validation datasets: For the testing dataset median accuracy = 0.81 (range 0.73-0.83), median AUC = 0.84 (range 0.78-0.85). For the validation dataset median accuracy = 0.83 (range 0.81-0.84), median AUC = 0.86 (range 0.83-0.89). CONCLUSION: Individual patient-reported outcomes can be accurately predicted using machine learning algorithms, which may facilitate individualized, patient-centered decision-making for women undergoing breast cancer treatment.

Gender Affirming Mastectomy Improves Quality of Life in Transmasculine Patients: A Single-center Prospective Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of gender-affirming mastectomy on depression, anxiety, and body image. BACKGROUND: There are many cross-sectional and ad-hoc studies demonstrating the benefits of gender-affirming surgery. There are few prospective investigations of patient-reported outcomes in gender-affirming surgery using validated instruments. METHODS: In this prospective study, patients presenting to the University of Michigan for gender-affirming Mastectomy were surveyed preoperatively and 6-months postoperatively. Primary outcomes were patient-reported measurements of anxiety measured by General Anxiety Disorder-7, depression measured by Patient Health Questionnaire-9, body image measured by BODY-Q and Body Image Quality of Life Index, psychosocial and sexual functioning measured by BREAST-Q, and satisfaction with decision measured by BREAST-Q. Linear regression analysis was used to control for presence of complication and existing history of mental health conditions. RESULTS: A total of 70 patients completed the study. The average age of participants was 26.7. The mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score pre-operatively was 7.8 and postoperatively was 5.4 ( P =0.001). The mean preoperative and postoperative General Anxiety Disorder-7 scores were 7.6 and 4.6, respectively ( P <0.001). There were significant improvements in both psychosocial (35 to 79.2, P <0.001) and sexual (33.9 to 67.2, P< 0.001) functioning related to chest appearance as measured by the BREAST-Q and global psychosocial functioning (-15.6 to +32, P <0.001) as measured by the Body Image Quality of Life Index. Satisfaction with chest contour (14.3 to 93.8, P <0.001) and nipple appearance (29.3 to 85.9, P <0.001) measured by the BODY-Q significantly improved. Patients had a mean satisfaction with outcome score of 93.1. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing gender-affirming mastectomy in this single-center prospective study reported significant improvements in anxiety, depression, body image, psychosocial, and sexual functioning after this procedure. Patients were extremely satisfied with the decision to undergo this operation.

Machine learning to predict individual patient-reported outcomes at 2-year follow-up for women undergoing cancer-related mastectomy and breast reconstruction (INSPiRED-001).

BACKGROUND: Women undergoing cancer-related mastectomy and reconstruction are facing multiple treatment choices where post-surgical satisfaction with breasts is a key outcome. We developed and validated machine learning algorithms to predict patient-reported satisfaction with breasts at 2-year follow-up to better inform the decision-making process for women with breast cancer. METHODS: We trained, tested, and validated three machine learning algorithms (logistic regression (LR) with elastic net penalty, Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) tree, and neural network) to predict clinically important differences in satisfaction with breasts at 2-year follow-up using the validated BREAST-Q. We used data from 1553 women undergoing cancer-related mastectomy and reconstruction who were followed-up for two years at eleven study sites in North America from 2011 to 2016. 10-fold cross-validation was used to train and test the algorithms on data from 10 of the 11 sites which were further validated using the additional site's data. Area-under-the-receiver-operating-characteristics-curve (AUC) was the primary outcome measure. RESULTS: Of 1553 women, 702 (45.2%) experienced an improved satisfaction with breasts and 422 (27.2%) a decreased satisfaction. In the validation set (n = 221), the algorithms showed equally high performance to predict improved or decreased satisfaction with breasts (all P > 0.05): For improved satisfaction AUCs were 0.86-0.87 and for decreased satisfaction AUCs were 0.84-0.85. CONCLUSION: Long-term, individual patient-reported outcomes for women undergoing mastectomy and breast reconstruction can be accurately predicted using machine learning algorithms. Our algorithms may be used to better inform clinical treatment decisions for these patients by providing accurate estimates of expected quality of life.

Perceived versus Patient-Reported Significance of Surgeon Gender in Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Previous investigators demonstrated that female patients often prefer female providers. However, these studies have not determined whether there are gender preferences for breast reconstruction surgeons or whether the effects of surgeon gender impacts patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: Adult women were crowdsourced using Amazon Mechanical Turk to characterize societal preferences for the gender of breast and plastic surgeons in a hypothetical scenario. The authors also used data from the Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium to determine the association between surgeon gender and patient satisfaction after breast reconstruction. The BREAST-Q questionnaire was used to assess patient-reported outcomes at 3 months and 2 years following reconstruction. Regression analyses were performed to investigate the effects of surgeon gender on patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: In total, 1413 surveys were collected. Forty-two percent preferred female plastic surgeons, 5 percent preferred male surgeons, and 53 percent reported no preference. The Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium analysis included 2236 patients of 55 male and nine female plastic surgeons. In this cohort, 1921 patients (82.2 percent) had male surgeons, whereas 415 patients (17.8 percent) had female surgeons. Regression analysis at 2 years revealed no differences in satisfaction with surgeon, outcome, or psychosocial well-being. Only satisfaction with information differed, as patients of female surgeons reported greater satisfaction in this category, with an adjusted mean difference of 2.82 (p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: Although nonpatient women hypothetically prefer female providers, surgeon gender makes little difference in actual patient satisfaction with breast reconstruction. More investigation is needed to determine whether the difference in information delivery is clinically significant and whether it reflects variations in practices between male and female surgeons. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Association of Clinical Complications of Chemotherapy and Patient-Reported Outcomes After Immediate Breast Reconstruction.

Importance: Women undergoing immediate breast reconstruction often require chemotherapy. The effects of chemotherapy on reconstruction are not well described. Objective: To evaluate the association of neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy with complications and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in immediate reconstruction. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium Study is a cohort study that prospectively assessed PROs and retrospectively evaluated complications in patients undergoing immediate implant-based or autologous reconstruction at 11 centers from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2017. Women 18 years or older undergoing immediate reconstruction after mastectomy with 2 years of follow-up were included. Patients were excluded if they had prophylactic mastectomy; delayed reconstruction; mixed-timing reconstruction; mixed reconstruction; a latissimus dorsi, superior gluteal artery perforator, or inferior gluteal artery perforator flap; or both neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy. Data were analyzed from May 1 to June 30, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Complications and PROs (satisfaction with breast and physical, psychosocial, and sexual well-being) using the BREAST-Q questionnaire, a validated, condition-specific PRO measure. Baseline patient characteristics were collected. Results: A total of 1881 women were included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 49.9 [9.9] years). Of these, 1373 (73.0%) underwent implant-based procedures; 508 (27.0%), autologous reconstruction; 200 (10.6%), neoadjuvant chemotherapy; 668 (35.5%), adjuvant chemotherapy; and 1013 (53.9%), no chemotherapy. Patients without chemotherapy were significantly older (mean [SD] age, 51.6 [9.4] years; P < .001), and patients with chemotherapy were more likely to have received radiotherapy (108 of 200 [54.0%] for neoadjuvant chemotherapy and 321 of 668 [48.1%] for adjuvant chemotherapy; P < .001). Among the cohort undergoing implant-based reconstruction, the rates of any complication were significantly different, with higher rates seen for adjuvant (153 of 490 [31.2%]) and neoadjuvant (44 of 153 [28.8%]) chemotherapy compared with no chemotherapy (176 of 730 [24.1%]; P = .02). On multivariable analysis, these differences were not statistically significant. For autologous reconstruction, no significant differences in complications were observed. Controlling for clinical covariates, no significant differences were seen across chemotherapy groups for the BREAST-Q subscales except for sexual well-being in the implant cohort, in which adjuvant chemotherapy had significantly lower scores (ß, -4.97 [95% CI, -8.68 to -1.27]; P = .009). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, neither neoadjuvant nor adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with the likelihood of complications in patients undergoing implant-based or autologous reconstruction, and chemotherapy was not associated with patient satisfaction with reconstruction or psychosocial well-being. This information can help patients and clinicians make informed decisions about breast reconstruction in the setting of chemotherapy.

Comparing Nipple-sparing Mastectomy to Secondary Nipple Reconstruction: A Multi-institutional Study.

OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of women who underwent immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) after receiving either: (1) nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) or (2) simple mastectomy with subsequent nipple reconstruction (SNR). BACKGROUND: The goal of post-mastectomy breast reconstruction is to restore body image and quality-of-life after mastectomy, but removal of the nipple-areolar complex may have its own negative psychosocial consequences. NSM may have increased in popularity due to its perceived oncologic safety in many women and to reports of superior aesthetic results with this technique. Despite the increased utilization of NSM, few studies have evaluated the impact of NSM on PROs and complications in women undergoing immediate IBBR. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of the Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium study, a multicenter, prospective cohort study that recruited patients between February 2012 and July 2015. The primary aim of this study was to compare PROs as measured by BREAST-Q scores between women who underwent IBBR after NSM versus SNR. The secondary aim was to compare complication rates. Mixed-effects regression models controlled for demographic and clinical covariates. RESULTS: Of the 600 women in the study, 286 (47.7%) underwent NSM. After controlling for baseline patient characteristics, we found no significant differences in satisfaction with breast, psychosocial well-being, physical well-being or sexual well-being between women undergoing NSM versus SNR. Mastectomy type was not a significant predictor of complications or reconstructive failure. CONCLUSIONS: Despite reports of superior aesthetics for NSM over simple mastectomy with nipple reconstruction in immediate IBBR, we found no significant differences at 2 years after reconstruction in patient satisfaction, quality-of-life, or complication rates.

The Global Macroeconomic Burden of Breast Cancer: Implications for Oncologic Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: In this study, we quantified the global macroeconomic burden of breast cancer to underscore the critical importance of improving access to oncologic surgical care internationally. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Breast cancer mortality in many low and middle-income countries (LMICs) is dramatically higher than in high-income countries. Prior to identifying solutions, however, it is important to first define the burden of disease. METHODS: Data from the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation (2005-2015) were used to assess epidemiologic trends for 194, middle, and low-income countries. Economic burden defined by Welfare Loss (WL) was calculated by measuring disability-adjusted-life-years lost to breast cancer alongside the dollar equivalent of a value of statistical life year and as a function of each country's gross domestic product (GDP). RESULTS: Annual mortality rates among breast cancer patients were significantly greater in LMICs in South Asia (3.06 per 100 women) and Sub-Saharan Africa (2.76 per 100 women), compared with high-income countries like the United States (1.69 per 100 women). From 2005-2015, mortality in South Asia increased by 8.20% and decreased by 6.45% in Sub-Saharan Africa; mortality rates in 2015 were observed as 27.9 per 100,000 in South Asia and 18.61 per 100,000 in Sub-Saharan Africa. Countries in South Asia demonstrated the greatest rise in WL due to breast cancer, from 0.05% to 0.08% of GDP. CONCLUSIONS: The burden of disease and economic impact of breast cancer is intensifying in LMICs. Global efforts to improve access to surgical care for women with breast cancer could reduce mortality and mitigate the social and financial impact of this disease in LMICs.

Development of an evidence-based approach to the use of acellular dermal matrix in immediate expander-implant-based breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Although acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is widely used in expander-implant-based breast reconstructions, previous analyses have been unable to demonstrate improvements in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with this approach over non-ADM procedures. This study aims to develop a more selective, evidence-based approach to the use of ADM in expander-implant-based breast reconstruction by identifying patient subgroups in which ADM improved clinical outcomes and PROs. STUDY DESIGN: The Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium Study prospectively evaluated immediate expander-implant reconstructions at 11 centers from 2012 to 2015. Complications (any/overall and major), and PROs (satisfaction, physical, psychosocial, and sexual well-being) were assessed two years postoperatively using medical records and the BREAST-Q, respectively. Using mixed-models accounting for centers and with interaction terms, we analyzed for differential ADM effects across various clinical subgroups, including age, body mass index, radiation timing, and chemotherapy. RESULTS: Expander-implant-based breast reconstruction was performed in 1451 patients, 738 with and 713 without ADM. Major complication risk was higher in ADM users vs. nonusers (22.9% vs. 16.4% and p = 0.04). Major complication risk with ADM increased with higher BMI (BMI=30, OR=1.70; BMI=35, OR=2.29, interaction p = 0.02). No significant ADM effects were observed for breast satisfaction, psychosocial, sexual, and physical well-being within any subgroups. CONCLUSION: In immediate expander-implant-based breast reconstruction, ADM was associated with a greater risk of major complications, particularly in high-BMI patients. We were unable to identify patient subgroups where ADM was associated with significant improvements in PROs. Given these findings and the financial costs of ADM, a more critical approach to the use of ADM in expander-implant reconstruction may be warranted.

Review of Outcomes in Prepectoral Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction with and without Surgical Mesh Assistance.

BACKGROUND: In the past decade, surgeons have increasingly advocated for a return to prepectoral breast reconstruction with claims that surgical mesh (including acellular dermal matrix) can reduce complication rates. However, numerous surgical and implant advancements have occurred in the decades since the initial prepectoral studies, and it is unclear whether mesh is solely responsible for the touted benefits. METHODS: The authors conducted a systematic review of all English language articles reporting original data for prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction. Articles presenting duplicate data were excluded. Complications were recorded and calculated on a per-breast basis and separated as mesh-assisted, no-mesh prior to 2006, and no-mesh after 2006 (date of first silicone gel-filled breast implant approval). Capsular contracture comparisons were adjusted for duration of follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 58 articles were included encompassing 3120 patients from 1966 to 2019. The majority of the included studies were retrospective case series. Reported complication outcomes were variable, with no significant difference between groups in hematoma, infection, or explantation rates. Capsular contracture rates were higher in historical no-mesh cohorts, whereas seroma rates were higher in contemporary no-mesh cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Limited data exist to understand the benefits of surgical mesh devices in prepectoral breast reconstruction. Level I studies with an appropriate control group are needed to better understand the specific role of mesh for these procedures. Existing data are inconclusive but suggest that prepectoral breast reconstruction can be safely performed without surgical mesh.

Prevalence of Psychosocial Distress in Transmen Seeking Gender-Affirming Mastectomy.

BACKGROUND: Although the benefits of gender-affirming surgery may be apparent to patients and providers, there remains a paucity of studies assessing the impact of these procedures. As an initial step, preoperative patient-reported outcomes using validated measures of depression, anxiety, and body image were used and compared to cisgender normative data. METHODS: Patients presenting for gender-affirming mastectomy were approached and surveyed using validated instruments measuring anxiety, depression, and body image. In addition, clinical data were collected from the medical record. Results were compared to published instrument norms in the general cisgender population. RESULTS: One hundred three patients completed the preoperative assessment; 70.3 percent and 66.3 percent of the cohort screened positive for mild to severe depression and anxiety, respectively. Only 25 percent and 29.8 percent of the cohort, respectively, had a previous diagnosis of depression and anxiety. The rates of depression and anxiety were significantly higher than those in cisgender normative data [mean Patient Health Questionnaire score, 2.7 (p < 0.0001); mean Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale 7 score, 2.66 (p < 0.0001)]. Body Image Quality of Life Index and BREAST-Q scores were also significantly lower than those in cisgender normative data. CONCLUSIONS: Patients seeking gender-affirming mastectomy have a significant mental health burden that appears to be underdiagnosed. They further have significant challenges with body image compared with cisgender normative data. These findings signify dramatic mental health disparities in the preoperative transgender population and the need for ongoing prospective research of gender-affirming surgery.

Patient-Reported Outcomes after Irradiation of Tissue Expander versus Permanent Implant in Breast Reconstruction: A Multicenter Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Whether to irradiate the tissue expander before implant exchange or to defer irradiation until after exchange in immediate, two-stage expander/implant reconstruction remains uncertain. The authors evaluated the effects of irradiation timing on complication rates and patient-reported outcomes in patients undergoing immediate expander/implant reconstruction. METHODS: Immediate expander/implant reconstruction patients undergoing postmastectomy radiation therapy at 11 Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium sites with demographic, clinical, and complication data were analyzed. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed with BREAST-Q, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Breast Cancer-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire surveys preoperatively and 2 years postoperatively. Survey scores and complication rates were analyzed using bivariate comparison and multivariable regressions. RESULTS: Of 317 patients who met inclusion criteria, 237 underwent postmastectomy radiation therapy before expander/implant exchange (before-exchange cohort), and 80 did so after exchange (after-exchange cohort). Timing of radiation had no significant effect on risks of overall complications (OR, 1.25; p = 0.46), major complications (OR, 1.18; p = 0.62), or reconstructive failure (OR, 0.72; p = 0.49). Similarly, radiation timing had no significant effect on 2-year patient-reported outcomes measured by the BREAST-Q or the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer survey. Outcomes measured by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System showed less anxiety, fatigue, and depression in the after-exchange group. Compared with preoperative assessments, 2-year patient-reported outcomes significantly declined in both cohorts for Satisfaction with Breasts, Physical Well-Being, and Sexual Well-Being, but improved for anxiety and depression. CONCLUSIONS: Radiation timing (before or after exchange) had no significant effect on complication risks or on most patient-reported outcomes in immediate expander/implant reconstruction. Although lower levels of anxiety, depression, and fatigue were observed in the after-exchange group, these differences may not be clinically significant. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.

Outcomes of Immediate Implant-Based Mastectomy Reconstruction in Women with Previous Breast Radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to determine whether women with a history of radiation therapy before mastectomy experience a risk for postoperative complications and patient-reported outcomes similar to those of women undergoing postmastectomy radiation therapy in the setting of immediate implant reconstruction. METHODS: The cohort included patients undergoing immediate implant reconstruction at 11 centers across North America. Women were categorized into three groups: prior breast conservation therapy, postmastectomy radiation therapy, and no radiation therapy. Mixed effect logistic regressions were used to analyze the effects of radiation therapy status on complication rates and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED NINETY-FOUR: patients were analyzed, including 84 women with prior breast conservation therapy, 329 women who underwent postmastectomy radiation therapy, and 1181 women with no history of radiation therapy. Compared with postmastectomy radiation therapy, breast conservation was associated with lower rates of all complications and major complications (OR, 0.65; 95 percent CI, 0.37 to 1.14; p = 0.13; and OR, 0.61; 95 percent CI, 0.33 to 1.13; p = 0.12). These differences were not statistically significant. Rates of reconstructive failure between the two cohorts were comparable. Before reconstruction, satisfaction with breasts was lowest for women with prior breast conservation therapy (p < 0.001). At 2 years postoperatively, satisfaction with breasts was lower for women with postmastectomy radiation therapy compared with breast conservation patients (p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Higher postoperative complication rates were observed in women exposed to radiation therapy regardless of timing. Although women with prior breast conservation experienced greater satisfaction with their breasts and fewer complications when compared to women undergoing postmastectomy radiation therapy, there was a similar risk for reconstruction failure. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.

Obesity and Breast Reconstruction: Complications and Patient-Reported Outcomes in a Multicenter, Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: The authors' purpose was to evaluate the effects of body mass index, as defined by World Health Organization criteria, on complications and patient-reported outcomes in implant-based and autologous breast reconstruction. METHODS: Complications and BREAST-Q patient-reported outcomes were analyzed 2 years after breast reconstruction for women from 11 participating sites. Separate mixed-effects regressions were performed to assess body mass index effects on outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 2259 patients (1625 implant-based and 634 autologous) were included. Women with class II/III obesity had higher risks of any complication in both the implant (OR, 1.66; p = 0.03) and autologous (OR, 3.35; p < 0.001) groups, and higher risks of major complications in both the implant (OR, 1.71, p = 0.04) and autologous (OR, 2.72; p = 0.001) groups, compared with underweight/normal weight patients. Both class I (OR, 1.97; p = 0.03) and class II/III (OR, 3.30; p = 0.001) obesity patients experienced higher reconstructive failures in the implant cohort. Class I obesity implant patients reported significantly lower Satisfaction with Breasts scores (mean difference, -5.37; p = 0.007). Body mass index did not significantly affect patient-reported outcomes for autologous reconstruction patients. CONCLUSIONS: Obesity was associated with higher risks for complications in both implant-based and autologous breast reconstruction; however, it only significantly affected reconstruction failure and patient-reported outcomes in the implant reconstruction patients. Quality-of-life benefits and surgical risk should be presented to each patient as they relate to her body mass index, to optimize shared decision-making for breast reconstruction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, I.

Elective Revisions after Breast Reconstruction: Results from the Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Rates of breast reconstruction following mastectomy continue to increase. The objective of this study was to determine the frequency of elective revision surgery and the number of procedures required to achieve a stable breast reconstruction 2 years after mastectomy. METHODS: Women undergoing first-time breast reconstruction after mastectomy were enrolled and followed for 2 years, with completion of reconstruction occurring in 1996. Patients were classified based on the absence or presence of complications. Comparisons within cohorts were performed to determine factors associated with revisions and total procedures. Mixed-effects regression modeling identified factors associated with elective revisions and total operations. RESULTS: Overall, 1534 patients (76.9 percent) had no complications, among whom 40.2 percent underwent elective revisions. The average number of elective revisions differed by modality (p < 0.001), with abdominally based free autologous reconstruction patients undergoing the greatest number of elective revisions (mean, 0.7). The mean total number of procedures also differed (p < 0.001), with tissue expander/implant reconstruction patients undergoing the greatest total number of procedures (mean, 2.4). Complications occurred in 462 patients (23.1 percent), with 67.1 percent of these patients undergoing elective revisions, which was significantly higher than among patients without complications (p < 0.001). The mean number of procedures again differed by modality (p < 0.001) and followed similar trends, but with an increased mean number of revisions and procedures overall. Mixed-effects regression modeling demonstrated that patients experiencing complications had increased odds of undergoing elective revision procedures (OR, 3.2; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Breast reconstruction patients without complications undergo over two procedures on average to achieve satisfactory reconstruction, with 40 percent electing revisions. If a complication occurs, the number of procedures increases. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, II.

Impact of Unilateral versus Bilateral Breast Reconstruction on Procedure Choices and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: In choosing between implant-based and autologous breast reconstruction, surgeons and patients must weigh relative risks and benefits. However, differences in outcomes across procedure types may vary between unilateral versus bilateral reconstructions. Procedure-related differences in complications and patient-reported outcomes were evaluated for unilateral and bilateral reconstruction. METHODS: Complications and patient-reported outcomes (BREAST-Q and Patient-Reported Outcomes measurement Information System surveys) were assessed at 2 years for patients undergoing autologous or implant-based reconstructions. Stratified regression models compared outcomes between autologous and implant-based reconstructions, separately for unilateral and bilateral cohorts. RESULTS: Among 2125 patients, 917 underwent unilateral (600 implant and 317 autologous) and 1208 underwent bilateral (994 implant and 214 autologous) reconstructions. Complication rates were significantly higher in the autologous versus implant-based group for both unilateral (overall: OR, 2.50, p < 0.001; major: OR, 2.19, p = 0.001) and bilateral (overall: OR, 2.13, p < 0.001; major: OR, 1.69, p = 0.014) cohorts. In unilateral reconstruction, the autologous group demonstrated significantly better patient-reported outcomes versus implant-based group in satisfaction with breast (mean difference, 9.85; p < 0.001), psychosocial well-being (mean difference, 4.84; p = 0.006), and sexual well-being (mean difference, 11.42; p < 0.001). In bilateral reconstruction, the autologous group demonstrated significantly higher patient-reported outcomes only for satisfaction with breast (mean difference, 5.13; p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although autologous reconstruction is associated with significantly better patient-reported outcomes compared to implant-based techniques in unilateral reconstruction, procedure choice has far less impact in bilateral reconstruction. Autologous procedures have higher complications rates in both unilateral and bilateral settings. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.