Therapeutic mammaplasty is a safe and effective alternative to mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic mammaplasty (TM) may be an alternative to mastectomy, but few well designed studies have evaluated the success of this approach or compared the short-term outcomes of TM with mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). Data from the national iBRA-2 and TeaM studies were combined to compare the safety and short-term outcomes of TM and mastectomy with or without IBR. METHODS: The subgroup of patients in the TeaM study who underwent TM to avoid mastectomy were identified, and data on demographics, complications, oncology and adjuvant treatment were compared with those of patients undergoing mastectomy with or without IBR in the iBRA-2 study. The primary outcome was the percentage of successful breast-conserving procedures in the TM group. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications and time to adjuvant therapy. RESULTS: A total of 2916 patients (TM 376; mastectomy 1532; mastectomy and IBR 1008) were included in the analysis. Patients undergoing TM were more likely to be obese and to have undergone bilateral surgery than those having IBR. However, patients undergoing mastectomy with or without IBR were more likely to experience complications than the TM group (TM: 79, 21·0 per cent; mastectomy: 570, 37·2 per cent; mastectomy and IBR: 359, 35·6 per cent; P < 0·001). Breast conservation was possible in 87·0 per cent of patients who had TM, and TM did not delay adjuvant treatment. CONCLUSION: TM may allow high-risk patients who would not be candidates for IBR to avoid mastectomy safely. Further work is needed to explore the comparative patient-reported and cosmetic outcomes of the different approaches, and to establish long-term oncological safety.

ANTECEDENTES: La mamoplastia terapéutica (therapeutic mammaplasty, TM) puede ser una alternativa a la mastectomía, pero hay pocos estudios bien diseñados que hayan evaluado el éxito de esta estrategia o hayan comparado los resultados a corto plazo de la TM con la mastectomía con o sin (+/-) reconstrucción mamaria inmediata (immediate breast reconstruction, IBR). Para comparar la seguridad y los resultados a corto plazo de la TM y la mastectomía +/- IBR se combinaron los datos de los estudios nacionales iBRA-2 y TeaM. MÉTODOS: En el estudio TeaM se identificó el subgrupo de pacientes al que se realizó una TM para evitar la mastectomía y se compararon los datos demográficos, las complicaciones, los resultados oncológicos y el tratamiento adyuvante con las pacientes sometidas a mastectomía +/- IBR del estudio iBRA-2. La variable principal fue el porcentaje de éxito de la cirugía conservadora de mama en el grupo TM. Las variables secundarias fueron las complicaciones postoperatorias y el intervalo de tiempo hasta el inicio del tratamiento adyuvante. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron en el análisis 2.916 pacientes (TM n = 376; mastectomía n = 1.532; IBR n = 1.008). La TM era más frecuente en pacientes obesas o en las sometidas a cirugía bilateral en comparación con las pacientes con IBR. Sin embargo, las pacientes sometidas a una mastectomía +/- IBR tenían más probabilidades de desarrollar complicaciones que las del grupo TM (TM n = 79, 21,0%; mastectomía n = 570, 37,2%; mastectomía y IBR n = 359, 35,6%; P < 0,001). La conservación de la mama fue posible en el 87% de las pacientes con TM y el procedimiento no retrasó el inicio del tratamiento adyuvante. CONCLUSIÓN: La TM puede permitir que pacientes de alto riesgo que no serían candidatas a IBR eviten la mastectomía de una forma segura. Se necesitan más trabajos para comparar los resultados percibidos por las pacientes y los estéticos de las diferentes estrategias terapéuticas y establecer la seguridad oncológica a largo plazo.

Current practice and short-term outcomes of therapeutic mammaplasty in the international TeaM multicentre prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic mammaplasty, which combines breast reduction and mastopexy techniques with tumour excision, may extend the boundaries of breast-conserving surgery and improve outcomes for patients, but current practice is unknown and high-quality outcome data are lacking. This prospective multicentre cohort study aimed to explore the practice and short-term outcomes of the technique. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing therapeutic mammaplasty at participating centres between 1 September 2016 and 30 June 2017 were recruited to the study. Demographic, preoperative, operative, oncological and complication data were collected. The primary outcome was unplanned reoperation for complications within 30 days of surgery. Secondary outcomes included re-excision rates and time to adjuvant therapy. RESULTS: Overall, 880 patients underwent 899 therapeutic mammaplasty procedures at 50 centres. The most common indications were avoidance of poor cosmetic outcomes associated with standard breast-conserving surgery (702 procedures, 78·1 per cent) or avoidance of mastectomy (379, 42·2 per cent). Wise-pattern skin incisions were the most common (429 of 899, 47·7 per cent), but a range of incisions and nipple-areola pedicles were used. Immediate contralateral symmetrization was performed in one-third of cases (284 of 880, 32·3 per cent). In total, 205 patients (23·3 per cent) developed a complication, but only 25 (2·8 per cent) required reoperation. Median postoperative lesion size was 24·5 (i.q.r. 16-38) mm. Incomplete excision was seen in 132 procedures (14·7 per cent), but completion mastectomy was required for only 51 lesions (5·7 per cent). Median time to adjuvant therapy was 54 (i.q.r. 42-66) days. CONCLUSION: Therapeutic mammaplasty is a safe and effective alternative to mastectomy or standard breast-conserving surgery. Further work is required to explore the impact of the technique on quality of life, and to establish cost-effectiveness.

Which lesions with a radiological or core biopsy diagnosis of fibroadenoma should be excised?

INTRODUCTION: A recent Association of Breast Surgery summary statement on fibroadenoma management recommends excision only for cellular fibroepithelial lesions and rapidly growing lesions with a core biopsy diagnosis of fibroadenoma; persistent pain is a relative indication for excision. METHODS: This retrospective study looked at the impact this approach would have on the diagnosis of phyllodes tumours. RESULTS: From 2014 to 2018, there were 1,058 core biopsy diagnoses of fibroadenoma; 112 lesions were excised, of which 98 were fibroadenomas, 4 were hamartomas and 10 were phyllodes tumours. In this group, an excision diagnosis of phyllodes tumour was associated with size more than 40 mm, age more than 40 years and radiological suspicion of phyllodes tumour or carcinoma. One hundred and sixty-six excised fibroepithelial lesions with no previous core biopsy included eight phyllodes tumours; in this group, rapid growth was associated with phyllodes tumour diagnosis. Twelve of the 26 fibroepithelial lesions classified as B3 (cellular fibroepithelial lesion or phyllodes tumour) were diagnosed as phyllodes tumours on excision. Using a combination of radiological, clinical and pathological features it was possible to create an excision policy that would recommend excision of 22 of the 31 phyllodes tumours in this period. Eight of the nine 'missed' phyllodes tumours were benign. CONCLUSION: The Association of Breast Surgery summary statement will reduce the number of fibroadenomas excised, but may also result in delayed diagnosis of some phyllodes tumours. Appropriate safety netting advice should be provided to identify rapidly growing lesions.

Patient-reported outcomes of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without biological or synthetic mesh.

BACKGROUND: Biological and synthetic meshes may improve the outcomes of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) by facilitating single-stage procedures and improving cosmesis. Supporting evidence is, however, limited. The aim of this study was to explore the impact of biological and synthetic mesh on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of IBBR 18 months after surgery. METHODS: Consecutive women undergoing immediate IBBR between February 2014 and June 2016 were recruited to the study. Demographic, operative, oncological and 3-month complication data were collected, and patients received validated BREAST-Q questionnaires at 18 months. The impact of different IBBR techniques on PROs were explored using mixed-effects regression models adjusted for clinically relevant confounders, and including a random effect to account for clustering by centre. RESULTS: A total of 1470 participants consented to receive the questionnaire and 891 completed it. Of these, 67 women underwent two-stage submuscular reconstructions. Some 764 patients had a submuscular reconstruction with biological mesh (495 women), synthetic mesh (95) or dermal sling (174). Fourteen patients had a prepectoral reconstruction. Compared with two-stage submuscular reconstructions, no significant differences in PROs were seen in biological or synthetic mesh-assisted or dermal sling procedures. However, patients undergoing prepectoral IBBR reported better satisfaction with breasts (adjusted mean difference +6.63, 95 per cent c.i. 1.65 to11.61; P = 0.009). PROs were similar to those in the National Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction Audit 2008-2009 cohort, which included two-stage submuscular procedures only. CONCLUSION: This study found no difference in PROs of subpectoral IBBR with or without biological or synthetic mesh, but provides early data to suggest improved satisfaction with breasts following prepectoral reconstruction. Robust evaluation is required before this approach can be adopted as standard practice.

Experiences of implant loss after immediate implant-based breast reconstruction: qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is the most commonly performed reconstructive procedure in the UK, but almost one in ten women experience implant loss and reconstructive failure after this technique. Little is known about how implant loss impacts on patients' quality of life. The first phase of the Loss of implant Breast Reconstruction (LiBRA) study aimed to use qualitative methods to explore women's experiences of implant loss and develop recommendations to improve care. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of women who experienced implant loss after immediate IBBR, performed for malignancy or risk reduction across six centres. Interviews explored decision-making regarding IBBR, and experiences of implant loss and support received. Thematic analysis was used to explore the qualitative interview data. Sampling, data collection and analysis were undertaken concurrently and iteratively until data saturation was achieved. RESULTS: Twenty-four women were interviewed; 19 had surgery for malignancy and five for risk reduction. The median time between implant loss and interview was 42 (range 22-74) months. Ten women had undergone secondary reconstruction, two were awaiting surgery, and 12 had declined further reconstruction. Three key themes were identified: the need for accurate information about the risks and benefits of IBBR; the need for more information about 'early-warning' signs of postoperative problems, to empower women to seek help; and better support following implant loss. CONCLUSION: Implant loss is a devastating event for many women. Better preoperative information and support, along with holistic patient-centred care when complications occur, may significantly improve the experience and outcome of care.

ANTECEDENTES: La reconstrucción mamaria inmediata con prótesis (implant-based breast reconstruction, IBBR) es el procedimiento reconstructivo más utilizado en el Reino Unido, pero casi una de cada diez mujeres presentará pérdida de la prótesis y fallo del procedimiento reconstructivo tras esta técnica. Se sabe poco de cómo la pérdida de la prótesis afecta la calidad de vida de las pacientes. La primera fase del estudio LiBRA tuvo como objetivo explorar la percepción de las mujeres ante la pérdida de la prótesis, utilizando métodos cualitativos, y proponer una serie de medidas para mejorar la atención sanitaria de estas pacientes. MÉTODOS: Se realizaron entrevistas semiestructuradas en una muestra de mujeres que padecieron la pérdida de la prótesis tras una IBBR inmediata, realizada por neoplasia o como procedimiento de reducción de riesgo, en seis centros. Las entrevistas analizaron la toma de decisiones con respecto a la IBBR inmediata, así como la percepción ante la pérdida del implante y el soporte recibido. Se utilizó un análisis por temas para examinar los datos de la entrevista cualitativa. El muestreo, la recopilación de datos y el análisis se realizaron de forma simultánea e iterativa hasta que se logró la saturación de datos. RESULTADOS: Se entrevistaron 24 pacientes; 19 en las que la indicación quirúrgica fue por cáncer y 5 por reducción de riesgo. La mediana del tiempo entre la pérdida del implante y la entrevista fue de 42 (rango 22-52) meses. Diez mujeres se habían sometido a una reconstrucción secundaria; dos estaban a la espera de la cirugía y 12 habían rechazado la reconstrucción posterior. Se identificaron tres temas clave, siendo las necesidades de: i) información precisa sobre los riesgos y beneficios de la IBBR, ii) más información sobre los signos de "alarma precoz" de las complicaciones postoperatorias que permitiesen a las mujeres buscar ayuda, y iii) mejor soporte tras la pérdida de la prótesis. CONCLUSIÓN: La pérdida de una prótesis es una complicación catastrófica para muchas mujeres. Una mejor información y apoyo preoperatorios, junto con una atención holística centrada en la paciente cuando se presentan las complicaciones, podrían mejorar significativamente la experiencia y el resultado de la atención.

Oncoplastic techniques: Attitudes and changing practice amongst breast and plastic surgeons in Great Britain.

PURPOSE: The availability, acceptability and practice of oncoplastic surgery has increased over the last 5 years. This study aims to describe how the breast and plastic surgical workforce has adapted to provide oncoplastic breast surgery. METHODS: A questionnaire was distributed to members of the Association of Breast Surgery and BAPRAS, and results compared to a survey completed in 2010. RESULTS: In 2010, 228 respondents completed the survey compared to 237 in 2015, of whom 204 were consultants (105 General or Breast Surgeons and 99 Plastic Surgeons). The range of procedures performed by Plastic Surgeons has remained static, the General and Breast Surgeons are performing proportionally more therapeutic mammaplasty (p < 0.001), breast reduction/mastopexy, and latissimus dorsi reconstructions. In 2015, surgeons are less concerned about the risks of lipomodelling than in 2010, with an increase the proportion of breast (55% vs. 26%) and plastic (91% vs. 58%) surgeons performing the technique. DISCUSSION: Specific concerns about oncoplastic surgery have decreased over the last five years, with a greater proportion of surgeons performing oncoplastic surgery including lipomodelling. The majority of breast surgeons in 2015 remain interested in further training in oncoplastic techniques (75%) but over the last 5 years, plastic surgeons interest in further training in oncoplastic surgery has dropped from 62% to 27%. About half of all breast and plastic surgeons felt that oncoplastic surgery should be available for all women and oncological and wound healing concerns had significantly reduced between 2010 and 2015 (p < 0.05).