Explore the vast range of titles available.

PurposeNeoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) is increasingly used in breast cancer treatment. One of the main goals of NACT is to reduce the extent of local surgery of the breast and axilla. The aim of this study was to determine surgical outcomes for patients receiving breast-conserving therapy (BCT) after NACT, including margin status plus secondary surgeries, excision volumes, and cosmetic outcomes.MethodsA systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA principles. Pubmed, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies investigating the results of BCT following NACT. The main study outcomes were margin status, additional local therapies, excision volumes, and cosmetic outcomes. Non-comparative studies on NACT were also included. Exclusion criteria were studies with less than 25 patients, and studies excluding secondary mastectomy patients.FindingsOf the 1219 studies screened, 26 studies were deemed eligible for analysis, including data from 5379 patients treated with NACT and 10,110 patients treated without NACT. Included studies showed wide ranges of tumor-involved margins (2–39.8%), secondary surgeries (0–45.4%), and excision volumes (43.2–268 cm3) or specimen weight (26.4–233 g) after NACT. Most studies were retrospective, with a high heterogeneity and a high risk of bias. Cosmetic outcomes after NACT were reported in two single-center cohort studies. Both studies showed acceptable cosmetic outcomes.InterpretationThere is currently insufficient evidence to suggest that NACT improves surgical outcomes of BCT. It is imperative that clinical trials include patient outcome measures in order to allow monitoring and meaningful comparison of treatment outcomes in breast cancer.

The evidence justifying the use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is limited. We did a prospective randomised trial to compare the safety of IBBR with an ADM immediately after mastectomy with that of two-stage IBBR. We did an open-label, randomised, controlled trial in eight hospitals in the Netherlands. Eligible women were older than 18 years with breast carcinoma or a gene mutation linked with breast cancer who intended to undergo skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate IBBR. Randomisation was done electronically, stratified per centre and in blocks of ten to achieve roughly balanced groups. Women were assigned to undergo one-stage IBBR with ADM (Strattice, LifeCell, Branchburg, NJ, USA) or two-stage IBBR. The primary endpoint was quality of life and safety was assessed by the occurrence of adverse outcomes. Analyses were done per protocol with logistic regression and generalised estimating equations. This study is registered at Nederlands Trial Register, number NTR5446. 142 women were enrolled between April 14, 2013, and May 29, 2015, of whom 59 (91 breasts) in the one-stage IBBR with ADM group and 62 (92 breasts) in the two-stage IBBR group were included in analyses. One-stage IBBR with ADM was associated with significantly higher risk per breast of surgical complications (crude odds ratio 3·81, 95% CI 2·67–5·43, p<0·001), reoperation (3·38, 2·10–5·45, p<0·001), and removal of implant, ADM, or both (8·80, 8·24–9·40, p<0·001) than two-stage IBBR. Severe (grade 3) adverse events occurred in 26 (29%) of 91 breasts in the one-stage IBBR with ADM group and in five (5%) of 92 in the two-stage IBBR group. The frequency of mild to moderate adverse events was similar in the two groups. Immediate one-stage IBBR with ADM was associated with adverse events and should be considered very carefully. Understanding of selection of patients, risk factors, and surgical and postsurgical procedures needs to be improved. Pink Ribbon, Nuts-Ohra, and LifeCell.

[...]we commend Potter and colleagues for their excellent work and look forward to the results of the iBRA study.4 We are fully aware that this trial has limitations. Randomised control trials are considered the gold standard; however, when expert judgment and surgical skills play an important role in the success of treatment, a randomised controlled trial might not be the optimum study design.5 Charalampoudis and colleagues state that ADM-assisted IBBR is a delicate procedure and...

In the original publication of the article, Table 2 was published incorrectly. The corrected Table 2 is given in this erratum. The original article has been corrected.

There is increasing interest in the use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR). Suggested advantages are that ADMs facilitate one-stage IBBR and improve aesthetic outcomes. We compared immediate one-stage ADM-assisted IBBR with two-stage IBBR (current standard of care). Our previously reported secondary endpoint showed that one-stage ADM-assisted IBBR was associated with significantly more adverse outcomes. Here, we present the primary endpoint results aiming to assess whether one-stage IBBR with ADM provides higher patient-reported quality of life (QOL) compared with two-stage IBBR. This multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial (BRIOS study) was done in eight hospitals in the Netherlands. We recruited women aged older than 18 years with breast carcinoma or a genetic predisposition who intended to undergo skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate IBBR. Participants were randomly assigned to undergo one-stage IBBR with ADM (Strattice, LifeCell, Branchburg, NJ, USA) or two-stage IBBR. Randomisation was stratified by centre and indication for surgery (oncological or prophylactic) in blocks of ten participants. The primary endpoint was patient-reported QOL, as measured with the BREAST-Q (ie, health-related QOL scales and satisfaction scales), in the modified intention-to-treat population. The study follow-up is complete. This study is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, number NTR5446. Between April 14, 2013, and May 29, 2015, we enrolled 142 women, of whom 69 were randomly assigned to receive one-stage ADM-assisted IBBR and 73 to receive two-stage IBBR. After exclusions, the modified intention-to-treat population comprised 60 patients in the one-stage group and 61 patients in the two-stage group. Of these, 48 women (mean follow-up 17·0 months [SD 7·8]) in the one-stage group and 44 women (17·2 months [SD 6·7]) in the two-stage group completed the BREAST-Q at least 1 year after implant placement. We found no significant differences in postoperative patient-reported QOL domains, including physical wellbeing (one-stage mean 78·0 [SD 14·1] vs two-stage 79·3 [12·2], p=0·60), psychosocial wellbeing (72·6 [17·3] vs 72·8 [19·6], p=0·95), and sexual wellbeing (58·0 [17·0] vs 57·1 [19·5], p=0·82), or in the patient-reported satisfaction domains: satisfaction with breasts (63·4 [15·8] vs 60·3 [15·4], p=0·35) and satisfaction with outcome (72·8 [19·1] vs 67·8 [16·3], p=0·19). Taken together with our previously published findings, one-stage IBBR with ADM does not yield superior results in terms of patient-reported QOL compared with two-stage IBBR. Risks for adverse outcomes were significantly higher in the one-stage ADM group. Use of ADM for one-stage IBBM should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Pink Ribbon, Nuts-Ohra, and LifeCell.