Explore the vast range of titles available.

IntroductionRecent data suggest that margins ≥2 mm after breast-conserving surgery may improve local control in invasive breast cancer (BC). By allowing large resection volumes, oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OBCII; Clough level II/Tübingen 5-6) may achieve better local control than conventional breast conserving surgery (BCS; Tübingen 1-2) or oncoplastic breast conservation with low resection volumes (OBCI; Clough level I/Tübingen 3-4).MethodsData from consecutive high-risk BC patients treated in 15 centers from the Oncoplastic Breast Consortium (OPBC) network, between January 2010 and December 2013, were retrospectively reviewed.ResultsA total of 3,177 women were included, 30% of whom were treated with OBC (OBCI n = 663; OBCII n = 297). The BCS/OBCI group had significantly smaller tumors and smaller resection margins compared with OBCII (pT1: 50% vs. 37%, p = 0.002; proportion with margin <1 mm: 17% vs. 6%, p < 0.001). There were significantly more re-excisions due to R1 (“ink on tumor”) in the BCS/OBCI compared with the OBCII group (11% vs. 7%, p = 0.049). Univariate and multivariable regression analysis adjusted for tumor biology, tumor size, radiotherapy, and systemic treatment demonstrated no differences in local, regional, or distant recurrence-free or overall survival between the two groups.ConclusionsLarge resection volumes in oncoplastic surgery increases the distance from cancer cells to the margin of the specimen and reduces reexcision rates significantly. With OBCII larger tumors are resected with similar local, regional and distant recurrence-free as well as overall survival rates as BCS/OBCI.

Background Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) remains the standard and most popular option for women undergoing breast reconstruction after mastectomy worldwide. Recently, prepectoral IBBR has resurged in popularity, despite limited data comparing prepectoral with subpectoral IBBR. Methods A systematic search of PubMed and Cochrane Library from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2021, was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines, data were extracted by independent reviewers. Studies that compared prepectoral with subpectoral IBBR for breast cancer were included. Results Overall, 15 studies with 3,101 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Our results showed that patients receiving prepectoral IBBR experienced fewer capsular contractures (odds ratio [OR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32–0.92; P = 0.02), animation deformity (OR, 0.02; 95% CI, 0.00–0.25; P = 0.002), and prosthesis failure (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.42–0.80; P = 0.001). There was no significant difference between prepectoral and subpectoral IBBR in overall complications (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.64–1.09; P = 0.19), seroma (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.59-2.51; P = 0.60), hematoma (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.49–1.18; P = 0.22), infection (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.63–1.20; P = 0.39), skin flap necrosis (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.45–1.08; P = 0.11), and recurrence (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.52–3.39; P = 0.55). Similarly, no significant difference was found in Breast-Q scores between the prepectoral and subpectoral IBBR groups. Conclusions The results of our systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that prepectoral, implant-based, breast reconstruction is a safe modality and has similar outcomes with significantly lower rates of capsular contracture, prosthesis failure, and animation deformity compared with subpectoral, implant-based, breast reconstruction.

Background Immediate prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) rates have increased in recent years owing to improved cosmetic and psychological benefits. However, there is a lack of studies regarding complications rates following adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) among patients undergoing immediate prepectoral IBBR. Methods We conducted a retrospective monocentric analysis of a cohort of consecutively treated patients who underwent NSM following immediate prepectoral IBBR at our institution between March 2017 and November 2021. Patient demographics, quality of life, complication rates, and oncological safety were evaluated in the RT and non-RT groups. Data analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Version 24 (IMB Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Results A total of 98 patients were examined: 70 were assigned to have prepectoral IBBR without RT and 28 to the group who had prepectoral IBBR with RT. There was a statistically significant difference in overall capsular contracture rate between the RT and non-RT group (18% vs. 4.3%, p =0.04). The total implant loss in the cohort was 4% (10.7% vs. 1.4%, p =0.05). We obtained a high percentages of all BREAST-Q categories in both groups; however, satisfaction with the breast and sexual well-being was higher in the non-RT group. The three-year overall survivals were 97.4% in the RT group and 98.5% in the non-RT group. Conclusion Our findings showed that patients in the RT group had a higher rate of capsular contracture and implant loss than those in the non-RT group. However, complication rates were within acceptable range and with accurate preoperative information patients have more benefits from immediate reconstruction showing excellent overall quality of life irrespectively of radiation. 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 .

Background: Radiation therapy is a crucial component of breast cancer treatment. However, it is well known to increase the risk of unsatisfactory cosmetic outcomes and higher complication rates. The aim of this study is to provide further insight into the use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) for the prevention of capsular contracture. Materials and Methods: This single-center, retrospective study analyzed irradiated patients who underwent post-mastectomy, ADM-assisted implant reconstructions. Of the 60 patients included, 26 underwent expander-to-implant substitution after radiotherapy (Group A), while 34 required implant replacement due to capsular contracture following radiotherapy (Group B). The primary objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of ADMs in reducing reconstructive failures, complications, and capsular contracture after breast irradiation. Results: We recorded a total of 15 complications and four implant losses. Reconstructive failures were attributed to implant exposure in two cases, full-thickness skin necrosis in one case, and severe Baker grade IV contracture in one case. Both Group A and Group B showed a significant decrease in postoperative Baker grades. US follow-up was used to demonstrate ADM integration with host tissues over time. Conclusions: Based on our findings, the use of ADM in selected cases appears to be a viable option for treating and preventing capsular contracture in irradiated breasts. This approach is associated with relatively low complication rates, a low rate of reconstructive failure, and satisfactory cosmetic outcomes and can be applied both in breast reconstructed with implants and with expanders.