Explore the vast range of titles available.

Oncoplastic surgery level II techniques (OPSII) are used in patients with operable breast cancer. There is no evidence regarding their safety and efficacy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). The aim of this study was to compare the oncological and aesthetic outcomes of this technique compared with those observed in mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction (MIBR), in post-NAC patients undergoing surgery between January 2016 and March 2021. Local disease-free survival (L-DFS), regional disease-free survival (R-DFS), distant disease-free survival (D-DFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared; the aesthetic results and quality of life (QoL) were evaluated using BREAST-Q. A total of 297 patients were included, 87 of whom underwent OPSII and 210 of whom underwent MIBR. After a median follow-up of 39.5 months, local recurrence had occurred in 3 patients in the OPSII group (3.4%), and in 13 patients in the MIBR group (6.1%) (p = 0.408). The three-year L-DFS rates were 95.1% for OPSII and 96.2% for MIBR (p = 0.286). The three-year R-DFS rates were 100% and 96.4%, respectively (p = 0.559). The three-year D-DFS rate were 90.7% and 89.7% (p = 0.849). The three-year OS rates were 95.7% and 95% (p = 0.394). BREAST-Q highlighted significant advantages in physical well-being for OPSII. No difference was shown for satisfaction with breasts (p = 0.656) or psychosocial well-being (p = 0.444). OPSII is safe and effective after NAC. It allows oncological and aesthetic outcomes with a high QoL, and is a safe alternative for locally advanced tumors which are partial responders to NAC.

Background: Conservative mastectomy with immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction (IPBR) is an oncologically accepted technique that offers improved esthetic results and patient quality of life. Traditionally, implants have been placed in a submuscular (SM) plane beneath the pectoralis major muscle (PMM). Recently, prepectoral (PP) placement of the prosthesis has been increasingly used in order to avoid morbidities related to manipulation of the PMM. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of SM vs. PP IPBR after conservative mastectomy in patients with histologically proven breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Methods: In this retrospective observational study, we analyzed two cohorts of patients that underwent mastectomy with IPBR after NAC in our institution from January 2018 to December 2021. Conservative mastectomy was performed in 146 of the 400 patients that underwent NAC during the study period. Patients were divided into two groups based on the positioning of implants: 56 SM versus 90 PP. Results: The two cohorts were similar for age (mean age 42 and 44 years in the SM and PP group respectively) and follow-up (33 and 20 months, respectively). Mean operative time was 56 min shorter in the PP group (300 and 244 min in the SM and PP group). No significant differences were observed in overall major complication rates. Implant loss was observed in 1.78% of patients (1/56) in the SM group and 1.11% of patients (1/90) in PP group. No differences were observed between the two groups in local or regional recurrence. Conclusions: Our preliminary experience, which represents one of the largest series of patients undergoing PP-IPBR after NAC at a single institution documented in the literature, seems to confirm that PP-IPBR after NAC is a safe, reliable and effective alternative to traditional SM-IPBR with excellent esthetic and oncological outcomes; it is easy to perform, reduces operative time and minimizes complications related to manipulation of PPM. However, this promising results need to be confirmed in prospective trials with longer follow-up.

Background/Objectives: Breast cancer treatment increasingly incorporates immediate prepectoral prosthetic reconstruction after conservative mastectomy, including nipple-sparing (NSMs) and skin-sparing mastectomies (SSMs). Although recent data from the literature show that postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) after prepectoral reconstruction presents good clinical results, with reduction in capsular contracture and implant migration, compared to the traditional submuscular technique, these patients have higher rates of long-term complications when compared with nonradiated patients. This study evaluates the protective effects of autologous fat grafting to reduce long-term radiotherapy-induced complications in breast cancer patients submitted for prepectoral reconstruction with polyurethane-covered (PU) implants. Methods: A pilot study with two parallel cohorts of patients undergoing an NSM or SSM followed by PMRT was conducted. Patients were randomly assigned to either of the two groups to ensure homogeneity. One cohort underwent autologous fat grafting sessions, individually tailored based on periodic evaluations by the principal investigator (PI), M. Salgarello, at least six months after PMRT. The control group received standard clinical follow-ups without fat grafting. Inclusion criteria ensured participants were disease-free, non-smokers, and had a LENT-SOMA score within 2. Results: Preliminary findings indicate significant differences between the groups, with improved outcomes observed in patients undergoing tailored lipofilling. Specifically, these patients experienced a notable reduction in capsular contracture severity and reported higher satisfaction with the aesthetic results compared to the control group. Conclusions: Autologous fat grafting, customized per patient by the PI based on ongoing evaluations, appears to mitigate some adverse effects of radiotherapy in prepectoral breast reconstruction, suggesting a viable option for enhancing surgical outcomes in irradiated patients. Further research is needed to substantiate these findings and evaluate long-term benefits.

Background: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction (IPBR) using traditional submuscular (SM) positioning of implants versus prepectoral (PP) positioning of micropolyurethane-foam-coated implants (microthane) without further coverage. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of breast cancer patients treated by nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) and IPBR in our institution during the two-year period from January 2018 to December 2019. Patients were divided into two groups based on the plane of implant placement: SM versus PP. Results: 177 patients who received IPBR after NSM were included in the study; implants were positioned in a SM plane in 95 patients and in a PP plane in 82 patients. The two cohorts were similar for mean age (44 years and 47 years in the SM and PP groups, respectively) and follow-up (20 months and 16 months, respectively). The mean operative time was 70 min shorter in the PP group. No significant differences were observed in length of hospital stay or overall major complication rates. Statistically significant advantages were observed in the PP group in terms of aesthetic results, chronic pain, shoulder dysfunction, and skin sensibility (p < 0.05), as well as a trend of better outcomes for sports activity and sexual/relationship life. Cost analysis revealed that PP-IPBR was also economically advantageous over SM-IPBR. Conclusions: Our preliminary experience seems to confirm that PP positioning of a polyurethane-coated implant is a safe, reliable and effective method to perform IPBR after NSM.

Background: Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) following conservative mastectomy is the most common approach for women undergoing breast cancer surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the oncological outcomes of conservative mastectomy combined with prepectoral IBBR to the subpectoral technique. Methods: The clinical and demographic data of consecutive breast cancer patients who underwent conservative mastectomy with either prepectoral or subpectoral IBBR between January 2018 and December 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. The primary outcome was the impact of conservative mastectomy with prepectoral IBBR on local recurrence-free survival (LRFS). Secondary outcomes included distant disease-free survival (DDFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: A total of 842 women (with a median age of 46 years and a range of 20–79 years) were included in the study. Of these, 648 patients (77.0%) underwent prepectoral IBBR, while 194 (23.0%) received subpectoral IBBR. The median follow-up was 32 months (3–74). Locoregional relapse occurred in 19 patients (2.9%) in the prepectoral group and 14 (7.2%) in the subpectoral group. Distant metastases were observed in 21 (3.2%) patients in the prepectoral group and 11 (5.7%) in the subpectoral group. Deaths were reported in eight patients (1.2%) in the prepectoral group and five (2.6%) in the subpectoral group. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of the LRFS, DDFS, and OS (p = 0.676; p = 0.994; p = 0.940, respectively). Conclusions: Our study indicates that conservative mastectomy combined with prepectoral IBBR produces similar results to those of the subpectoral approach, with no significant differences in LRFS, DDFS, and OS.

Breast cancer treatment has evolved significantly in recent decades, with personalized care models gaining prominence both for the optimization of oncological outcomes and aesthetic results. At the Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS in Rome, Italy, we have developed a multidisciplinary, evidence-based model for the management of breast cancer patients, called ROME (Radiological and Oncoplastic Multidisciplinary Evaluation). This innovative model integrates the expertise of various specialists in a seamless, patient-centered approach to improve treatment planning and outcomes. ROME involves a collaborative framework between radiologists, oncologists, surgeons, pathologists, oncoplastic specialists and psychologists. The process begins with the detailed radiological evaluation of tumors using advanced imaging techniques, which is then complemented by an oncoplastic assessment to evaluate potential surgical approaches that ensure optimal oncological resections while preserving or enhancing breast aesthetics. The combination of these evaluations allows the team to tailor treatment plans according to the patient’s specific clinical profile, including tumor characteristics, genetic factors, and aesthetic considerations. A key feature of the ROME model is the continuous integration of evidence-based guidelines with real-time multidisciplinary input. This enables the personalization of surgical strategies, ensuring that each patient receives a treatment plan that balances the need for effective cancer control with the desire for an optimal aesthetic result. Since its implementation, ROME has demonstrated significant improvements in both oncological and cosmetic outcomes, leading to enhanced patient satisfaction and quality of life. The success of ROME underscores the importance of a holistic and collaborative approach to breast cancer treatment, one that integrates clinical, radiological, and aesthetic perspectives to offer a truly personalized and patient-focused care experience. As evidence continues to accumulate, ROME stands as a model for personalized breast cancer surgery, setting a new standard for care in multidisciplinary oncology settings.

The submuscular implant-based breast reconstruction is the most common reconstructive technique following mastectomy. Recently, subcutaneous implant positioning, together with acellular dermal matrix, has become a promising technique in selected patients. We present the case of a 42-year-old woman who underwent left nipple-sparing mastectomy with prepectoral acellular dermal matrix (ADM) assisted direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction and contralateral mastopexy. The implant was completely wrapped around by Braxon®, a preshaped porcine ADM. A few months after surgery, she experienced a severe weight loss resulting in the aesthetic deterioration of both breasts. The patient showed a migration of the left implant inferiorly and laterally, and deflation of the contralateral breast. In order to improve the left breast, a lateral capsulectomy was performed to reduce the prepectoral pocket size and lift the implant. Subsequently, a modified donut mastopexy was performed to obtain an upward migration of the nipple-areolar complex. One of the limiting factors of prosthetic reconstruction, as compared to autologous reconstruction, is the aesthetic deterioration determined by any weight change. Differently from submuscular implant reconstruction, the prepectoral implant reconstruction follows body changes after weight changes and ageing. In fact, Braxon’s integration determines the formation of a capsule adhering to the mastectomy flap which makes the implant more sensible to dermatochalasis. The greater thickness of the mastectomy flap due to the larger representation of the subcutaneous tissue makes the reconstruction more sensitive to weight changes. A tailored partial capsulectomy combined with a donut mastopexy can be a solution in these patients after an important weight loss. Level of Evidence: Level V, therapeutic study.

Background With the development and refinement of techniques most mastectomy patients nowadays are candidates for breast reconstruction. No one surgical technique fits all, however. Treatment choices are driven by patient characteristics and preferences, alongside policy and operational factors. These, in turn, might be expected to differ on several levels of aggregation, for example, countries, regions, and hospitals. The aim of this study was to compare choices for breast reconstruction timing and modality in Uppsala (Sweden), Maastricht (the Netherlands), and Rome (Italy). Methods In this cross-sectional study, patients presenting for first-time post-mastectomy breast reconstruction in three teaching hospitals were included. The primary study outcomes were breast reconstruction timing and modality. Covariables were body habitus ( i.e. , body mass index, waist circumference, and mastectomy weight), health-related quality of life assessed with the BREAST-Q Reconstruction module, patient preferences assessed with a self-constructed questionnaire, and shared decision making assessed with the CollaboRATE questionnaire. Statistical tests were used to compare data across study sites. Results Sixty-six participants were included. The most common choices for breast reconstruction timing and modality were delayed DIEP flaps in Uppsala (53%), immediate DIEP flaps in Maastricht (44%), and immediate prepectoral implants in Rome (92%). Participants in Rome were much slenderer than participants in Uppsala and Maastricht (mean body mass index 21.6, 26.2, and 26.3 kg/m 2 , respectively; p  < 0.05). Participants in Uppsala and Maastricht highly valued material used for the reconstruction; participants in Rome were significantly more concerned with complications, scars, and recovery duration associated with the reconstruction. Conclusions This study shows large differences in choices for breast reconstruction timing and modality in Uppsala, Maastricht, and Rome. Possible reasons for the observed variation include differences in patient characteristics, patient preferences, reconstructive techniques available, and reimbursement. Level of evidence Level IV, Therapeutic study.

Introduction: The selection of surgery post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) is difficult and based on surgeons’ expertise. The aim of this study was to create a post-NEoadjuvant Score System (pNESSy) to choose surgery, optimizing oncological and aesthetical outcomes. Methods: Patients (stage I–III) underwent surgery post-NACT (breast-conserving surgery (BCS), oncoplastic surgery (OPS), and conservative mastectomy (CMR) were included. Data selected were BRCA mutation, ptosis, breast volume, radiological response, MRI, and mammography pre- and post-NACT prediction of excised breast area. pNESSy was created using the association between these data and surgery. Area under the curve (AUC) was assessed. Patients were divided into groups according to correspondence (G1) or discrepancy (G2) between score and surgery; oncological and aesthetic outcomes were analyzed. Results: A total of 255 patients were included (118 BCS, 49 OPS, 88 CMR). pNESSy between 6.896–8.724 was predictive for BCS, 8.725–9.375 for OPS, and 9.376–14.245 for CMR; AUC was, respectively, 0.835, 0.766, and 0.825. G1 presented a lower incidence of involved margins (5–14.7%; p = 0.010), a better locoregional disease-free survival (98.8–88.9%; p < 0.001) and a better overall survival (96.1–86.5%; p = 0.017), and a better satisfaction with breasts (39.8–27.5%; p = 0.017) and physical wellbeing (93.5–73.6%; p = 0.001). Conclusion: A score system based on clinical and radiological features was created to select the optimal surgery post-NACT and improve oncological and aesthetic outcomes.

The deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap is used with increasing frequency in post-mastectomy breast reconstruction. Preoperative mapping with CT angiography (CTa) is crucial in reducing surgical complications and optimizing surgical techniques. Our study’s goal was to investigate the accuracy of conventional CT (cCT), performed during disease staging, compared to CTa in preoperative DIEP flap planning. In this retrospective, single-center study, we enrolled patients scheduled for mastectomy and DIEP flap breast reconstruction, subjected to cCT within 24 months after CTa. We included 35 patients in the study. cCT accuracy was 95% (CI 0.80–0.98) in assessing the three largest perforators, 100% (CI 0.89–100) in assessing the dominant perforator, 93% (CI 0.71–0.94) in assessing the perforator intramuscular course, and 90.6% (CI 0.79–0.98) in assessing superficial venous communications. Superficial inferior epigastric artery (SIEA) caliber was recognized in 90% of cases (CI 0.84–0.99), with an excellent assessment of superficial inferior epigastric vein (SIEV) integrity (96% of cases, CI 0.84–0.99), and a lower accuracy in the evaluation of deep inferior epigastric artery (DIEA) branching type (85% of cases, CI 0.69–0.93). The mean X-ray dose spared would have been 788 ± 255 mGy/cm. Our study shows that cCT is as accurate as CTa in DIEP flap surgery planning.