The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Surgical Management of Breast Cancer: Global Trends and Future Perspectives.

INTRODUCTION: The rapid spread of COVID-19 across the globe is forcing surgical oncologists to change their daily practice. We sought to evaluate how breast surgeons are adapting their surgical activity to limit viral spread and spare hospital resources. METHODS: A panel of 12 breast surgeons from the most affected regions of the world convened a virtual meeting on April 7, 2020, to discuss the changes in their local surgical practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Similarly, a Web-based poll based was created to evaluate changes in surgical practice among breast surgeons from several countries. RESULTS: The virtual meeting showed that distinct countries and regions were experiencing different phases of the pandemic. Surgical priority was given to patients with aggressive disease not candidate for primary systemic therapy, those with progressive disease under neoadjuvant systemic therapy, and patients who have finished neoadjuvant therapy. One hundred breast surgeons filled out the poll. The trend showed reductions in operating room schedules, indications for surgery, and consultations, with an increasingly restrictive approach to elective surgery with worsening of the pandemic. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 emergency should not compromise treatment of a potentially lethal disease such as breast cancer. Our results reveal that physicians are instinctively reluctant to abandon conventional standards of care when possible. However, as the situation deteriorates, alternative strategies of de-escalation are being adopted. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study aimed to characterize how the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting breast cancer surgery and which strategies are being adopted to cope with the situation.

Is Breast Implant Associated-Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma linked to textured implants?

Breast Implant Associated-Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) is a distinctive type of T-cell lymphoma arising around breast implants. We performed a review of the existing literature with the aim of providing an evidence-based overview of the available data on BIA-ALCL with a standardized evaluation of the quality of the studies and investigating the potential association between textured breast implants and BIA-ALCL.We analyzed the literature reporting estimates of relative or absolute risks of BIA-ALCL in case-control, cohort studies and case series studies. The total number of BIA-ALCL cases reported in literature is very low. Furthermore, most of the reported cases have been reported in case-control studies or case series. This means that our knowledge is based on a low level of evidence. Moreover, low-medium quality scores were observed in the included case series studies. In relation to the rarity of the event, better information could only derived by international cooperation to pool together data deriving from all over the world, with the clear need of better reporting patients and implant characteristics in case series and when adding data to public registries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Why Do We Need Anatomical Implants? the Science and Rationale for Maintaining Their Availability and Use in Breast Surgery.

The choice between anatomical and round implants is an important decision in breast augmentation surgery; however, both have their place and the decision between them that should be made on a patient-by-patient basis, taking into account the patient's desires, anatomy, and surgical history. In some individuals, there are clear indications for using either anatomical or round devices, and there is good evidence that aesthetic outcomes are better with anatomical implants in some instances. When both types are an option, anatomical devices may offer increased flexibility and, despite a longer learning curve needed to properly manage them, they are associated with positive long-term outcomes and high levels of patient satisfaction. Concerns about implant rotation can be minimized with proper patient selection and surgical technique, and the overall complication rate may favor anatomical over round devices in appropriate patients. Breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma is an important issue, and while rare, it must be considered in the context of the entire patient risk profile. Both anatomical and round implants remain key elements of a complete surgical toolbox in breast augmentation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

Breast Shape Analysis With Curvature Estimates and Principal Component Analysis for Cosmetic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery.

Background: Breast shape is defined utilizing mainly qualitative assessment (full, flat, ptotic) or estimates, such as volume or distances between reference points, that cannot describe it reliably. Objectives: The authors quantitatively described breast shape with two parameters derived from a statistical methodology denominated by principal component analysis (PCA). Methods: The authors created a heterogeneous dataset of breast shapes acquired with a commercial infrared 3-dimensional scanner on which PCA was performed. The authors plotted on a Cartesian plane the two highest values of PCA for each breast (principal components 1 and 2). Testing of the methodology on a preoperative and posttreatment surgical case and test-retest was performed by two operators. Results: The first two principal components derived from PCA characterize the shape of the breast included in the dataset. The test-retest demonstrated that different operators obtain very similar values of PCA. The system is also able to identify major changes in the preoperative and posttreatment stages of a two-stage reconstruction. Even minor changes were correctly detected by the system. Conclusions: This methodology can reliably describe the shape of a breast. An expert operator and a newly trained operator can reach similar results in a test/re-testing validation. Once developed and after further validation, this methodology could be employed as a good tool for outcome evaluation, auditing, and benchmarking.

Different types of implants for reconstructive breast surgery.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women worldwide, and is a leading cause of cancer death among women. Prophylactic or curative mastectomy is often followed by breast reconstruction for which there are several surgical approaches that use breast implants with which surgeons can restore the natural feel, size and shape of the breast. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different types of breast implants on capsular contracture, surgical short- and long-term complications, postoperative satisfaction level and quality of life in women who have undergone reconstructive breast surgery after mastectomy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register on 20 July 2015, MEDLINE (1985 to 20 July 2015), EMBASE (1985 to 20 July 2015) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 8, 2015). We also searched the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov on 16 July 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared different types of breast implants for reconstructive surgery. We considered the following types of intervention: implant envelope surfaces - texturised versus smooth; implant filler material - silicone versus saline, PVP-Hydrogel versus saline; implant shape - anatomical versus round; implant volume - variable versus fixed; brands - different implant manufacturing companies and implant generation (fifth versus previous generations). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed methodological quality and extracted data. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. MAIN RESULTS: Five RCTs with 202 participants met the inclusion criteria. The women participants were typically in their 50s, and the majority of them (about 82%) received reconstructive surgery following breast cancer, while the others had reconstructive surgery after prophylactic mastectomy. The studies were heterogenous in terms of implant comparisons, which prevented us from pooling the data.The studies were judged as being at an unclear risk of bias for most risk of bias items owing to poor quality of reporting in the trial publications. Three of the five RCTs were judged to be at high risk of attrition bias, and one at high risk of detection bias.Textured silicone versus smooth silicone implants: textured implants were associated with worse outcomes when compared to smooth implants (capsular contracture: risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% CI 0.14 to 4.71; 1 study, 20 participants; very low quality evidence; reintervention: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.14 to 4.71; 1 study, 20 participants; very low quality evidence). No results in this comparison were statistically significant.Silicone versus saline implants: saline-filled implants performed better than silicone-filled implants for some outcomes; specifically, they produced less severe capsular contracture (RR 3.25, 95% CI 1.24 to 8.51; 1 study, 60 participants; very low quality evidence) and increased patient satisfaction (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.88; 1 study, 58 participants; very low quality evidence). However reintervention was significantly more frequent in the saline-filled implant group than in the silicone-filled group (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.43; 1 study, 60 participants; very low quality evidence).Poly(N-vinyl-2-pyrrolidone) hydrogel-filled (PVP-hydrogel) versus saline-filled implants: PVP-hydrogel-filled implants were associated with worse outcomes when compared to saline-filled implants (capsular contracture: RR 3.50, 95% CI 0.83 to 14.83; 1 study, 40 participants; very low quality evidence; short-term complications: RR 2.10, 95% CI 0.21 to 21.39; 1 study, 41 participants; very low quality evidence).Anatomical versus round implants: anatomical implants were associated with worse outcomes than round implants (capsular contracture: RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.20 to 20.15; 1 study, 36 participants; very low quality evidence; short-term complications: RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.42 to 9.58; 1 study, 36 participants; very low quality evidence; reintervention: RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.51 to 4.43; 1 study, 36 participants; very low quality evidence). No results in this comparison were statistically significant.Variable-volume versus fixed-volume implants: data about one-stage reconstruction using variable-volume implants were compared with data about fixed-volume implants positioned during the second surgical procedure of two-stage reconstructions. Fixed-volume implant reconstructions were possibly associated with a greater number of women reporting that their reconstruction corresponded with expected results (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.62; 1 study, 40 participants; very low quality evidence) and fewer reinterventions (RR 7.00, 95% CI 1.82 to 26.89; 1 study, 40 participants; very low quality evidence) when compared to variable-volume implants. A higher patient satisfaction level (rated from 1 to 6, with 1 being very bad and 6 being very good) was found with the fixed-volume implants for overall aesthetic result (mean difference (MD) -1.10, 95% CI -1.59 to -0.61; 1 study, 40 participants; very low quality evidence).There were no studies that examined the effects of recent (fifth) generation silicone implants versus previous generations or different implant manufacturing companies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite the central role of breast reconstruction in women with breast cancer, the best implants to use in reconstructive surgery have been studied rarely in the context of RCTs. Furthermore the quality of these studies and the overall evidence they provide is largely unsatisfactory. Some of our results can be interpreted as early evidence of potentially large differences between different surgical approaches, which should be confirmed in new high-quality RCTs that include a larger number of women. These days - even after a few million women have had breasts reconstructed - surgeons cannot inform women about the risks and complications of different implant-based breast reconstructive options on the basis of results derived from RCTs.

Avoiding Complications in Abdominal Wall Surgery: A Mathematical Model to Predict the Course of the Motor Innervation of the Rectus Abdominis.

Ever since its introduction, the transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap has become the mainstay of autologous breast reconstruction. However, concerns regarding donor site morbidity due to the breach of abdominal wall musculature integrity soon followed. Muscle-sparing techniques, eventually eliminating the muscle from the flap all-together with the deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap, did not eliminate the problem of abdominal wall weakness. This led to the conclusion that motor innervation might be at fault. Studies have shown that even in the presence of an intact rectus abdominis muscle, and an intact anterior rectus sheath, denervation of the rectus abdominis muscle results in significant abdominal wall weakness leading to superior and inferior abdominal bulges, and abdominal herniation. Our aim was to establish a mathematical model to predict the location of the motor innervation to the rectus abdominis muscle, and thus provide surgeons with a tool that will allow them to reduce abdominal morbidity during deep inferior epigastric artery perforator and free muscle-sparing transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous surgery. We dissected 42 cadaveric hemiabdomens and mapped the course of the thoracolumbar nerves. We then standardized and analyzed our findings and presented them as a relative map which can be adjusted to body type and dimensions. Our dissections show that the motor innervation is closely related to the lateral vascular supply. Thus, when possible, we support the preferred utilization of the medial vascular supply, and the preservation of the lateral supply and motor innervation.

Benefits and Limitations of Macrotextured Breast Implants and Consensus Recommendations for Optimizing Their Effectiveness.

Implant texture is an important factor influencing implant selection for breast augmentation. Natrelle Biocell implants are characterized by macrotextured shell surfaces containing irregularly arranged concavities with large open-pore diameters and depths. These properties facilitate adhesion of the implant to the surrounding tissue, thereby promoting implant immobilization. Relative to implants with other surfaces, macrotextured implants offer low rates of capsular contracture; low rates of malposition, rotation, and rippling; and high rates of patient satisfaction. However, macrotextured implants are associated with a slightly higher risk of double capsule and late seroma. The surgeon can minimize these risks with straightforward techniques that encourage tissue adhesion. This report presents experience-based recommendations to optimize the effectiveness of Biocell anatomic implants. The authors discuss the application of best practices to all aspects of the breast implantation process, from implant selection and surgical planning to operative technique and postoperative management. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 3.

Easy Anthropometric Measurements Are Representative of Baseline Values of Breast Q Values in Asymptomatic Women.

BACKGROUND: Measurements of breast morphology are a determinant of the assessment of any surgical procedure, either reconstructive or cosmetic. This study aims to investigate the association between easy anthropometric measurements and values of quality of life assessed in a sample of asymptomatic women. METHODOLOGY: Healthy asymptomatic women were admitted for this study. The following measurements were assessed: height, weight, nipple to sternal notch distance, areola to infra-mammary fold distance (right vs. left), right-left nipple distance. The Breast Q questionnaire (Italian translation V.1, pre-op breast conservation surgery) in the following domains: satisfaction with breasts; psycho-social satisfaction; physical satisfaction; sexual satisfaction, which was used to assess breast-related quality of life. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-five women responded to the breast Q questionnaire. The mean age of the sample was 44.3 years; the medium BMI was 24.1; Spearman correlation coefficients revealed that all the investigated values were negatively correlated to the "satisfaction with breasts" domain. Psychosexual satisfaction was associated with age; BMI; nipple to sternal notch distance. After normalization for age values, we observed that "satisfaction with breast" was, once again, highly correlated to BMI; nipple to sternal notch distance; areola to IMF distance. In all cases, the higher the values, the lower the scores. CONCLUSIONS: Distances between easy relevant anatomical landmarks are representative of patients' breast-related quality of life in a population of asymptomatic women. These findings allow us to identify an ideal anthropometric framework that can be used as a validated surgical endpoint for cosmetic and oncological procedures.

Oncologic surveillance of breast cancer patients after lipofilling.

BACKGROUND: The regenerative effects of fat injections are based on the same hormones, growth factors, and stem cells that stimulate neoplastic angiogenesis and cancer progression in basic research. Few studies have analyzed the oncologic risk. No report has covered 5 years of oncologic surveillance, and no long-term risk has been estimated. The in vivo relationship between lipofilling and breast cancer remains unclear and controversial. This observational study focused on locoregional recurrence (LR) risk after lipofilling. METHODS: The study enrolled 60 patients after breast cancer surgery (total mastectomy) from 2000 to 2007 treated by lipofilling (82 single-surgeon procedures with the same fat-decanting technique). The study ended when follow-up observation reached 10 years. RESULTS: The study included invasive carcinoma (55 cases), in situ carcinoma (five cases), T1 (71.6 %) and T2 (23.3 %) carcinoma, N+ carcinoma (45 %), and stages 1 (43.3 %) and 2 (45 %) carcinoma. The overall 12-year incidence of LR was 5 % (1.6 % before and 3.3 % after lipofilling). The incidence of local relapse per 100 person-years was 0.36 in the first observation period and 0.43 after lipofilling. All LRs were stage 2, and the same rate, limited to stage 2, was 1.04. The crude cumulative incidence after lipofilling was 7.25 % (95 % confidence interval [CI], 0-15.4 %) for LR and 7.6 % (95 % CI, 0.2-15 %) for distant metastases. DISCUSSION: Clinical data and recurrence incidences were compared with those of prior publications concerning lipofilling oncologic risk and discussed in relation to the inherent cancer literature. CONCLUSIONS: Lipofilling may be used safely to treat tumor node metastasis stage 1 subjects after mastectomy. The local risk is low. For stage 2 patients, local failure was not significantly higher. Compared with institutional data and prior publications, the risk still is reliable. Breast conservative treatment must be investigated further because of the high risk for local relapse. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

The Evolution of Educational Events during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Experience of G.Re.T.A. Foundation.

Introduction: The educational and professional lives of everyone have significantly been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Many courses and meetings traditionally structured and organized as face-to-face events have been transformed into virtual events. Methods: We report on the experience of G.Re.T.A. Fondazione in organizing international conferences, webinars, and masterclasses on oncoplastic and aesthetic breast surgery before, during, and after the pandemic. Results: The organization of the meetings as online or hybrid events allowed to maintain a high number of participants with numbers being in line with those achieved in the traditional face-to-face events or even showing an increased number of participants, in particular from countries not traditionally involved such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, India, and Russian Federation. Discussion: We think that the hybrid modality is likely to become a gold standard, even though purely online meetings will still survive in the post-pandemic era. Webinars are frugal and highly efficient events that can easily reach a worldwide audience with acceptable interaction.

Evaluation of Different Breast Implant Shapes in the Same Patient: Is There Really a Difference between Round and Anatomical Implants?

Background: The choice of the right implant shape is one of the most frequent debates in cosmetic breast augmentation. In current literature, the question of whether there is a difference in the appearance of different implant shapes is still an argument of highly controversial discussion. The aim of the present work was, therefore, to analyze whether any difference exists in terms of aesthetic outcome between round and anatomical implants, and if they can be distinguished from each other in a like for like swap, making sure the evaluation was made in exactly similar conditions. Methods: Fourteen consecutive patients who underwent aesthetic breast augmentations received primarily an implant of a given volume, projection, and shape (round or anatomical) and then decided to undergo implant replacement to a different shape but maintaining the same volume and projection. At 12-months follow-up, standardized photographs were taken, blinded and randomized. They were evaluated by 10 plastic surgeons and 10 nurses. Results: All 20 observers could distinguish between round and anatomical shape in all 14 cases (100%), which was highly significant (P < 0.0001) for each observer. Conclusions: The present data indicate that there is a clear difference between anatomical and round-shaped implants in terms of aesthetic appearance, when a comparison is properly performed. With the use of both round and anatomical implant shapes, aesthetically appealing results can be achieved in cosmetic breast augmentation. The right implant choice must be made, based on patients' anatomy and desires.

Natural Language Processing to Extract Meaningful Information from a Corpus of Written Knowledge in Breast Cancer: Transforming Books into Data.

Introduction: Books and papers are the most relevant source of theoretical knowledge for medical education. New technologies of artificial intelligence can be designed to assist in selected educational tasks, such as reading a corpus made up of multiple documents and extracting relevant information in a quantitative way. Methods: Thirty experts were selected transparently using an online public call on the website of the sponsor organization and on its social media. Six books edited or co-edited by members of this panel containing a general knowledge of breast cancer or specific surgical knowledge have been acquired. This collection was used by a team of computer scientists to train an artificial neural network based on a technique called Word2Vec. Results: The corpus of six books contained about 2.2 billion words for 300d vectors. A few tests were performed. We evaluated cosine similarity between different words. Discussion: This work represents an initial attempt to derive formal information from textual corpus. It can be used to perform an augmented reading of the corpus of knowledge available in books and papers as part of a discipline. This can generate new hypothesis and provide an actual estimate of their association within the expert opinions. Word embedding can also be a good tool when used in accruing narrative information from clinical notes, reports, etc., and produce prediction about outcomes. More work is expected in this promising field to generate "real-world evidence."

Outcomes of Different Quality of Life Assessment Modalities After Breast Cancer Therapy: A Network Meta-analysis.

Importance: Improvement in clinical understanding of the priorities of patients with breast cancer (BC) regarding postoperative aesthetic outcomes (AOs) is needed. Objective: To assess expert panel and computerized evaluation modalities against patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), the gold standard of AO assessment, in patients after surgical management of BC. Data Sources: Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov were interrogated from inception through August 5, 2022. Search terms included breast conserving AND aesthetic outcome AND breast cancer. Ten observational studies were eligible for inclusion, with the earliest date of database collection on December 15, 2022. Study Selection: Studies with at least 1 pairwise comparison (PROM vs expert panel or PROM vs computerized evaluation with Breast Cancer Conservation Treatment cosmetic results [BCCT.core] software) were considered eligible if they included patients who received BC treatment with curative intent. Studies reporting solely on risk reduction or benign surgical procedures were excluded to ensure transitivity. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two independent reviewers extracted study data with an independent cross-check from a third reviewer. The quality of included observational studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and the level of evidence quality was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool. Confidence in network meta-analysis results was analyzed with the Confidence in Network Meta-analysis semiautomated tool. Effect size was reported using random-effects odds ratios (ORs) and cumulative ratios of ORs with 95% credibility intervals (CrIs). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of this network meta-analysis was modality (expert panel or computer software) discordance from PROMs. Four-point Likert responses across PROMs, expert panel assessment, and BCCT.core evaluation of AOs were assessed. Results: A total of 10 observational studies including 3083 patients (median [IQR] age, 59 [50-60] years; median [range] follow-up, 39.0 [22.5-80.5] months) with reported AOs were assessed and homogenized in 4 distinct Likert response groups (excellent, very good, satisfactory, and bad). Overall network incoherence was low (χ22 = 0.35; P = .83). Overall, panel and software modalities graded AO outcomes worse than PROMs. Specifically, for excellent vs all other responses, the panel to PROM ratio of ORs was 0.30 (95% CrI, 0.17-0.53; I2 = 86%) and the BCCT.core to PROM ratio of ORs was 0.28 (95% CrI, 0.13-0.59; I2 = 95%), while the BCCT.core to panel ratio of ORs was 0.93 (95% CrI, 0.46-1.88; I2 = 88%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, patients scored AOs higher than both expert panels and computer software. Standardization and supplementation of expert panel and software AO tools with racially, ethnically, and culturally inclusive PROMs is needed to improve clinical evaluation of the journey of patients with BC and to prioritize components of therapeutic outcomes.

Should Acellular Dermal Matrices Be Used for Implant-based Breast Reconstruction after Mastectomy? Clinical Recommendation Based on the GRADE Approach.

Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) entered the market in the early 2000s and their use has increased thereafter. Several retrospective cohort studies and single surgeon series reported benefits with the use of ADMs. However, robust evidence supporting these advantages is lacking. There is the need to define the role for ADMs in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) after mastectomy. Methods: A panel of world-renowned breast specialists was convened to evaluate evidence, express personal viewpoints, and establish recommendation for the use of ADMs for subpectoral one-/two-stage IBBR (compared with no ADM use) for adult women undergoing mastectomy for breast cancer treatment or risk reduction using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results: Based on the voting outcome, the following recommendation emerged as a consensus statement: the panel members suggest subpectoral one- or two-stage IBBR either with ADMs or without ADMs for adult women undergoing mastectomy for breast cancer treatment or risk reduction (with very low certainty of evidence). Conclusions: The systematic review has revealed a very low certainty of evidence for most of the important outcomes in ADM-assisted IBBR and the absence of standard tools for evaluating clinical outcomes. Forty-five percent of panel members expressed a conditional recommendation either in favor of or against the use of ADMs in subpectoral one- or two-stages IBBR for adult women undergoing mastectomy for breast cancer treatment or risk reduction. Future subgroup analyses could help identify relevant clinical and pathological factors to select patients for whom one technique could be preferable to another.