Oncoplastic Surgery Outcomes in the Older Breast Cancer Population: A Matched-Cohort Comparison Study.

BACKGROUND: Oncoplastic breast surgery (OBS) is a form of breast conservation surgery (BCS) that involves a partial mastectomy followed by immediate volume displacement or volume replacement surgical techniques. To date, there are few studies evaluating OBS in older patients. Therefore, we sought to determine if outcomes differed between patients 65 years and older versus younger patients who underwent oncoplastic surgical procedures. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed for all oncoplastic breast operations within a single health system from 2015 to 2021. Patients were stratified by age, with patients 65 years and older (OBS65+) identified and then matched with younger patients (OBS <65) based on BMI. Primary outcomes were positive margin rates and overall complication rates; secondary outcomes were locoregional recurrence (LR), distant recurrence (DR), disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and long-term breast asymmetry. RESULTS: A total of 217 patients underwent OBS over the 6-year period, with 22% being OBS65+. Preoperatively, older patients experienced higher American Anesthesia (ASA) scores, Charlson Co-morbidity index (CCI) scores, and higher rates of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and grade 3 breast ptosis. Despite this, no significant differences were found between primary or secondary outcomes compared to younger patients undergoing the same procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Oncoplastic breast reconstruction is a safe option in patients 65 years and older, with overall similar recurrence rates, positive margin rates, and survival when compared to younger patients. Although the older cohort of patients had greater preoperative risk, there was no difference in overall surgical complication rates or outcomes. Supporting the argument that all oncoplastic breast reconstruction techniques should be offered to eligible patients, irrespective of age.

Variable Accessibility to Consumer Pricing Among Breast Cancer Operations.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) mandate that every US hospital provide public online pricing information for services rendered. This allows patients to compare prices across hospital systems before establishing care. The goal of this project was to evaluate hospital compliance and patient-level accessibility to price transparency for common breast cancer surgical procedures. METHODS: A sample case of a 62-year-old female with a T2N0 breast cancer was chosen. The patient would have the option of undergoing a partial mastectomy or mastectomy, both with sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). Eight Massachusetts academic medical centers were evaluated. Searches were performed by authors for each hospital system and procedure using the sample case. RESULTS: Every hospital had a cost calculator on its website. The average success rate of establishing a cost for partial mastectomy, mastectomy, and SLNB was 58, 35, and 25%, respectively. The median time to reach the cost calculator tool was 32 s (range 25-37 s). In successful attempts, the median pre-insurance estimated cost of a partial mastectomy was $16,509 (range $11,776-22,169), compared with $24,541 (range $16,921-25,543) for mastectomy and $12,342 (range $4034-20,644) for SLNB. SLNB costs varied significantly across hospitals (p = 0.025), but no statistically significant difference was observed for partial mastectomy or mastectomy. CONCLUSION: Despite new regulatory requirements by CMS for increased price transparency for surgical procedures, our results demonstrate poor success rates in obtaining cost estimates and significant variability of reported hospital charges. Further efforts to improve the quality of hospital cost estimate calculators are necessary for informed decision-making for patients with breast cancer.

External Validation of the Breast Cancer Surgery Risk Calculator (BCSRc): A Predictive Model for Postoperative Complications.

BACKGROUND: The breast cancer surgical risk calculator (BCSRc) is a prognostic tool that determines a breast cancer patient's unique risk of acute complications following each possible surgical intervention. When used in the preoperative setting, it can help to stratify patients with an increased complication risk and enhance the patient-physician informed decision-making process. The objective of this study was to externally validate the four models used in the BCSRc on a large cohort of patients who underwent breast cancer surgery. METHODS: The BCSRc was developed by using a retrospective cohort from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database from 2005 to 2018. Four models were built by using logistic regression methods to predict the following composite outcomes: overall, infectious, hematologic, and internal organ complications. This study obtained a new cohort of patients from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program by utilizing participant user files from 2019 to 2020. The area under the curve, brier score, and Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit test measured model performance, accuracy, and calibration, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 192,095 patients met inclusion criteria in the development of the BCSRc, and the validation cohort included 60,144 women. The area under the curve during external validation for each model was approximately 0.70. Accuracy, or Brier scores, were all between 0.04 and 0.003. Model calibration using the Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic found all p-values > 0.05. All of these model coefficients will be updated on the web-based BCSRc platform: www.breastcalc.org . CONCLUSIONS: The BCSRc continues to show excellent external-validation measures. Collectively, this prognostic tool can enhance the decision-making process, help stratify patients with an increased complication risk, and improve expectant management.

Single Versus Dual Surgeon Approaches to Oncoplastic Surgery: A Comparison of Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Oncoplastic surgery (OPS) is traditionally performed using a dual surgeon (DS) approach that involves both a breast surgeon and a plastic surgeon. It is also performed using a single surgeon (SS) approach with a surgeon trained in both breast surgical oncology and plastic surgery. We sought to determine if outcomes differed between SS versus DS OPS approaches. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of all OPS performed in a single health system over a 6-y period by either an SS or a DS approach. Primary outcomes were rates of positive margins and the overall complication rate; secondary outcomes were loco-regional recurrence, disease-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 217 patients were identified; 117 were SS cases and 100 were DS cases. Baseline preoperative patient characteristics were similar between the two groups as there was no difference in mean Charlson Comorbidity Index scores (P = 0.07). There was no difference in tumor stage (P = 0.09) or nodal status (P = 0.31). Rates of positive margins were not significantly different (10.9% (SS) versus 9% (DS); P = 0.81), nor were rates of complications (11.1% (SS) versus 15% (DS); P = 0.42). Rates of locoregional recurrence were also not significantly different (1.7% (SS) versus 0% (DS); P = 0.5). Disease-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different at 1-y, 3-y, and 5-y time points (P = 0.20 and P = 0.23, respectively) although follow-up time was not sufficient for definitive analysis regarding survival. CONCLUSIONS: Both SS and DS approaches to OPS have similar outcomes with regards to positive margin rates and surgical complication rates and are comparably safe.

The impact of body mass index on oncoplastic breast surgery: A multicenter analysis.

BACKGROUND: Obesity has nearly tripled in the last 50 years. During the last decades, oncoplastic breast surgery has become an important choice in the surgical treatment of breast cancer. An association exists between higher body mass index (BMI) and wound complications for major operations, but there is scarce literature on oncoplastic surgery. Hence, our aim was to compare the complication rates among patients who underwent oncoplastic surgery, stratified by BMI. METHODS: Patient data were analyzed from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (NSQIP) for oncoplastic breast procedures (2005-2020). Patients were stratified according to World Health Organization obesity classifications. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to assess risk factors for complications (overall, operative, and wound-related). RESULTS: From a total of 6887 patients who underwent oncoplastic surgery, 4229 patients were nonobese, 1380 had Class 1 obesity (BMI: 30 to <35 kg/m2 ), 737 Class 2 obesity (BMI: 35 to <40 kg/m2 ), and 541 Class 3 obesity (BMI: ≥ 40 kg/m2 ). Greater operative time was found according to higher BMI (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis adjusted for baseline characteristics showed that patients with obesity Class 2 (odds ratio [OR] = 1.51, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03-2.23, p = 0.037) and 3 (OR = 1.87, 95% CI 1.24-2.83, p = 0.003) had increased risk of overall and wound complications compared with Nonobese patients. Comparing obese with nonobese patients, there were no differences in rates of deep SSI, organ/space SSI, pneumonia, reintubation, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, urinary tract infection, stroke, bleeding, postoperative sepsis, length of stay, and readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Oncoplastic surgery is a safe procedure for most patients. However, caution should be exercised when performing oncoplastic surgery for patients with Class 2 or 3 obesity (BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2 ), given there was a higher rate of overall and wound-specific complications, compared with patients who were not obese or had Class 1 obesity.

The adoption of oncoplastic surgery: Is there a learning curve?

INTRODUCTION: Oncoplastic surgery (OPS) is a form of breast conservation surgery involving partial mastectomy followed by volume displacement or replacement surgery. As the field of OPS is growing, we sought to determine if there was a learning curve to this surgery. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of all patients who underwent OPS over a 6-year period with a single surgeon formally trained in both Plastic Surgery and Breast Oncology. Cumulative summation analysis (CUSUM) was performed on mean operative time to generate the learning curve and learning curve phases. Outcomes were compared between phases to determine significance. RESULTS: Mean operative time decreased significantly across the 6-year period, generating three distinct learning curve phases: Learner phase (cases 1-23), Competence phase (24-73), and Mastery phase (74 and greater). The overall positive margin rate was 10.9% and there was no significant difference in rates between phases (p = 0.49). Overall complication rates, reoperation rates, and locoregional recurrence remained the same across all phases (p = 0.16; p = 0.65; p = 0.41). The rate of partial nipple loss decreased between phases (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: As with many complex operations, there does appear to be a learning curve with OPS, as the operative time and the rates of partial nipple loss decreased over time.

Does Breast-Conserving Surgery with Radiotherapy have a Better Survival than Mastectomy? A Meta-Analysis of More than 1,500,000 Patients.

BACKGROUND: There have been conflicting studies reporting on survival advantages between breast-conserving surgery with radiotherapy (BCS) in comparison with mastectomy. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of BCS and mastectomy in terms of overall survival (OS) comparing all past published studies. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive review of literature through October 2021 in PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE. The studies included were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohorts that compare BCS versus mastectomy. We excluded studies that included male sex, stage 0, distant metastasis at diagnosis, bilateral synchronous cancer, neoadjuvant radiation/chemotherapy, and articles with incomplete data. We performed a meta-analysis following the random-effect model with the inverse variance method. RESULTS: From 18,997 publications, a total of 30 studies were included in the final analysis: 6 studies were randomized trials, and 24 were retrospective cohorts. A total of 1,802,128 patients with a follow-up ranging from 4 to 20 years were included, and 1,075,563 and 744,565 underwent BCS and mastectomy, respectively. Among the population, BCS is associated with improved OS compared with mastectomy [relative risk (RR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-0.74]. This effect was similar when analysis was performed in cohorts and multi-institutional databases (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.49-0.67). Furthermore, the benefit of BCS was stronger in patients who had less than 10 years of follow-up (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.46-0.64). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent BCS had better OS compared with mastectomy. Such results depicting survival advantage, especially using such a large sample of patients, may need to be included in the shared surgical decision making when discussing breast cancer treatment with patients.

Comparing oncoplastic breast reduction with immediate symmetry surgery to standard breast reduction surgery: Are postoperative complications worse?

INTRODUCTION: Oncoplastic breast reduction mammoplasty (ORM) is an excellent treatment option for women with breast cancer and macromastia undergoing breast conservation therapy. Here, we aim to better understand the risks associated with ORM compared to standard reduction mammoplasty (SRM). METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed of patients undergoing ORM or SRM from 2015 to 2021. Primary outcomes included the occurrence of major or minor postoperative complications in the two groups and delays to adjuvant therapy (>90 days) among the women undergoing ORM. RESULTS: Women in the ORM group (n = 198) were significantly older (p < 0.001) with a higher prevalence of smoking (p < 0.001), diabetes mellitus (p < 0.01), and a Charlson comorbidity index ≥ 3 (p < 0.001) compared to women undergoing SRM (n = 177). After controlling for potential confounders, there were no significant between-group differences in the odds of developing postoperative complications (odds ratio = 0.80, 95% confidence interval: 0.36-1.69). Only 3% (n = 4) of the 150 women undergoing adjuvant radiation or chemotherapy experienced delays related to postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: ORM has a similar safety profile as SRM, despite the older age and higher number of comorbidities often seen in patients undergoing ORM, and is a safe option for achieving contralateral symmetry at the time of partial mastectomy without delays to adjuvant therapy.

Does the false-negative rate for 1 or 2 negative sentinel nodes after neo-adjuvant chemotherapy translate into a high local recurrence rate?

Prospective trials demonstrate that sentinel node (SN) biopsy after neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) has a significant false-negative rate (FNR) when only 1 or 2 SNs are removed. It is unknown whether this increased FNR correlates with an elevated risk of recurrence. Tumor Registry data at an NCI-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center were reviewed from 2004 to 2018 for patients having a negative SN biopsy after NACT. Among 190 patients with histologically negative nodes after NACT having 1 (n = 42), 2 (n = 46), and ≥3 (n = 102) SNs, axillary recurrences occurred in 7.14%, 0%, and 1.96% (p = 0.09), breast recurrences occurred in 2.38%, 6.52%, and 0.98% (p = 0.12), and distance recurrences occurred in 16.67%, 8.70%, and 7.84% (p = 0.27), respectively. Time to first recurrence did not differ by SN count (p = 0.41). After adjustment for age, race, clinical stage, and receptor status, there were no differences in the rates of axillary (p = 0.26), breast (p = 0.44), or distance recurrence (p = 0.24) by numbers of SNs harvested. Median follow-up was 46.8 months. Despite higher post-NACT FNRs reported in randomized trials for patients having <3 sentinel nodes, recurrence rates were not significantly different for 1 versus 2 versus ≥3 SNs. This suggests that patients having 1 or 2 post-NACT SNs identified may not necessitate axillary dissection.

An Oncoplastic Surgery Primer: Common Indications, Techniques, and Complications in Level 1 and 2 Volume Displacement Oncoplastic Surgery.

Oncoplastic surgery is a form of breast-conservation surgery that involves volume displacement and replacement techniques for optimal aesthetic results after oncologic resection with partial mastectomy. With growing emphasis on breast conservation, oncoplastic surgery is becoming a critical component in the approach to breast cancer in appropriately selected patients. Thus, it is paramount that surgeons are informed about oncoplastic surgery and its use in breast cancer treatment. This primer aims to provide key information regarding oncoplastic surgery. To accomplish this, we used supportive evidence from the literature, combined with clinical experience. The primer uses the American Society of Breast Surgeon's consensus definition and classification system for oncoplastic surgery, focusing on level 1 and 2 volume displacement techniques. We outline procedures within these categories, review common indications, and provide a guide to approaching tumors based on their quadrant position. The paper also describes complications specific to these procedures, as well as their management. Understanding these concepts will allow surgeons to assist patients in making informed decisions using these breast-conservation techniques.

Practical oncoplastic surgery techniques needed for practice.

Oncoplastic breast surgery (OPS) is a form of breast conservation surgery that includes immediate breast reconstruction. OPS has previously been shown to be a safe and effective treatment for breast cancer. In a special series on Breast Reconstruction, we aimed to describe oncoplastic breast reconstruction options and the corresponding technical details. Sections were divided by descriptions of OPS specific preoperative workup, volume displacement techniques, volume replacement techniques, and postoperative considerations. In addition, to sharing expert surgical pearls gained through performing OPS procedures over the years. Innovations in breast reconstruction offer women treatment options that are both oncologically safe and aesthetically preferred. The rise in reconstructive procedures is changing how patients make decisions based on their diagnosis. The ultimate surgical decision should be determined by the patient's anatomy, patient's personal preferences, tumor characteristics, and clinical presentation in a shared decision-making fashion with a multidisciplinary team. However, with both volume displacement and volume replacement techniques, women of all breast sizes can achieve an aesthetic outcome without sacrificing oncologic resection.

Closed Incision Negative Pressure Therapy in Oncoplastic Breast Surgery: A Comparison of Outcomes.

We aim to discern the impact of closed incision negative pressure therapy (ciNPT) on wound healing in the oncoplastic breast surgery population. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent oncoplastic breast surgery with and without ciNPT in a single health system over 6 years. Oncoplastic breast surgery was defined as breast conservation surgery involving partial mastectomy with immediate volume displacement or replacement techniques. Primary outcomes were rates of clinically significant complications requiring either medical or operative intervention, including seroma, hematoma, fat necrosis, wound dehiscence, and infection. Secondary outcomes were rates of minor complications. Results: ciNPT was used in 75 patients; standard postsurgical dressing was used in 142 patients. Mean age (P = 0.73) and Charlson Comorbidity Index (P = 0.11) were similar between the groups. The ciNPT cohort had higher baseline BMIs (28.23 ± 4.94 versus 30.55 ± 6.53; P = 0.004), ASA levels (2.35 ± 0.59 versus 2.62 ± 0.52; P = 0.002), and preoperative macromastia symptoms (18.3% versus 45.9%; P ≤ 0.001). The ciNPT cohort had statistically significant lower rates of clinically relevant complications (16.9% versus 5.3%; P = 0.016), the number of complications (14.1% versus 5.3% with one complication, 2.8% versus 0% with >2; P = 0.044), and wound dehiscence (5.6% versus 0%; P = 0.036). Conclusions: The use of ciNPT reduces the overall rate of clinically relevant postoperative complications, including wound dehiscence. The ciNPT cohort had higher rates of macromastia symptoms, BMI, and ASA, all of which put them at increased risk for complications. Therefore, ciNPT should be considered in the oncoplastic population, especially in those patients with increased risk for postoperative complications.

Oncoplastic Surgery in the Large-Breasted Breast Cancer gene Patient: A Staged Step to Enable Nipple Sparing Mastectomy.

Patients with macromastia and/or moderate-severe ptosis who desire mastectomy are typically offered skin sparing mastectomies. Recent technical advances have broadened the inclusion criteria to allow for nipple sparing mastectomy (NSM) in this population; however, they have been limited to patients with unifocal disease. We report on the multidisciplinary approach used to offer a NSM to a patient with multicentric triple-negative breast cancer and symptomatic macromastia with severe ptosis in the setting of positive genetic testing. We discuss the combination of a staged oncoplastic approach with neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy, as well as the foundations of these approaches. We encourage further research and inclusion of patients such as ours in the criteria for NSM.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Lymph Node Transfer vs Lymphovenous Bypass for Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema.

BACKGROUND: Lymph node transfer (LNT) and lymphovenous bypass (LVB) have been described as 2 major surgical options for patients with breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) who have failed conservative therapy. The objective of our study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing LNT and LVB for the treatment of BCRL. STUDY DESIGN: Rates of infection, lymph leak, and failure of LNT and LVB were obtained from a previously published meta-analysis. Failure of surgery was defined as the inability to cease compression therapy postoperatively. Procedural costs were calculated from Medicare reimbursement rates. Cost of conservative management of postoperative surgical site infection, lymph leak, and continued decongestive physiotherapy after failed surgery were obtained from literature review. Average utility scores for each health state were calculated using a visual analog scale survey, then converted to quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). A decision tree was constructed, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was assessed at $50,000/QALY. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of our findings. RESULTS: LNT was less costly ($22,492 vs $31,927) and more effective (31.82 QALY vs 29.24 QALY) than LVB. One-way (deterministic) sensitivity analysis demonstrated that LNT became cost-ineffective when its failure rate was more than 43.8%. LVB became more cost-effective than LNT when its failure rate was less than 21.4%. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte-Carlo simulation indicated that even with uncertainty present in the variables analyzed, the majority of simulations (97%) favored LNT as the more cost-effective strategy. CONCLUSIONS: LNT is a dominant, cost-effective strategy compared to LVB for the treatment of BCRL.

Immediate breast reconstruction for women having inflammatory breast cancer in the United States.

Inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) is an aggressive malignancy having a poor prognosis. Traditionally, reconstruction is not offered due to concerns about treatment delay, margin positivity, recurrence, and poor long-term survival. There is a paucity of literature, however, evaluating whether immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) is associated with greater mortality in patients with IBC. A population-based study was conducted via the SEER-Medicare-linked database (1991-2009). Female patients greater than 65 years were reviewed who had mastectomy and reconstruction claims for nonmetastatic IBC. Competing risk and Cox regression were used to assess whether IBR was associated with higher breast cancer-specific mortality (BCSM) or overall mortality (OM). Among 552 936 patients, 1472 (median age 74 years) were diagnosed with IBC and had a mastectomy. Forty-four patients (3%) underwent IBR. Younger age, a lower Charlson comorbidity score, and a greater median income were predictors of IBR use. Tumor grade, hormone receptor status, and lymph node status were independent predictors of adjusted OM and BCSM. There was no difference by IBR status in BCSM or covariate-adjusted BCSM (sHR 1.04; CI 0.71-1.54; P = .83 and sHR 1.13; CI 0.84-1.93; P = .58, respectively). Cumulative incidence of OM was lower among IR patients (P = .013), and IR did not influence the cumulative incidence of BCSM (P = .91). IBR was not associated with increased overall and BCSM mortality. Although further study of IBR in the IBC setting may be of value, these data suggest that IBC should not be considered an absolute contraindication to IBR.