C Aristei1, L Falcinelli, V Bini, I Palumbo, A Farneti, R P Petitto, S Gori, E Perrucci. 1. Radiation Oncology Section, Department of Surgery, Radiology and Dentistry, University of Perugia and Santa Maria della Misericordia Hospital, Sant'Andrea delle Fratte, 06156, Perugia, Italy. cynthia.aristei@unipg.it
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Radiotherapy (RT) of reconstructed breasts was associated with major complications and poor cosmetic outcome. The present study assessed complication rates, the link between risk factors and prosthesis removal, as well as cosmetic outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 1997 to 2009, 101 consecutive patients received RT after breast reconstruction because of risk factors for relapse (92) or because relapse had occurred (9). At RT, 90 patients had temporary tissue expanders and 11 had permanent implants. Twelve patients underwent neo-adjuvant chemotherapy; all patients received adjuvant chemo- and/or hormone therapy. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 50 months, late toxicities occurred in 28 patients: pain in 7, lymphedema in 6, G1 cutaneous toxicity in 5, and subcutaneous toxicity in 19 (2G1, 9G2, 7G3, 1G4), with more than one side effect in 12. In 8 patients the prosthesis ruptured (3), was displaced (3), was displaced and ruptured (1), or lost shape (1). Capsular contracture was classified in 89 patients as IA in 14, IB in 47, II in 10, III in 11, and IV in 7. Twelve prostheses (11.9%) were removed. The only significant factor for prosthesis removal was age (p = 0.007). Judgments of cosmetic results were available from 81 physicians and 84 patients. Outcome was excellent/good in 58/81 physician judgments and in 57/84 patient evaluations. Overall inter-rater agreement on outcome was good (κ-value 0.64; 95% CI: 0.48-0.79). CONCLUSION: RT to reconstructed breasts was associated with low rates of late toxicity and prosthesis removal. Cosmetic outcomes were, on the whole, good to excellent.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Radiotherapy (RT) of reconstructed breasts was associated with major complications and poor cosmetic outcome. The present study assessed complication rates, the link between risk factors and prosthesis removal, as well as cosmetic outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 1997 to 2009, 101 consecutive patients received RT after breast reconstruction because of risk factors for relapse (92) or because relapse had occurred (9). At RT, 90 patients had temporary tissue expanders and 11 had permanent implants. Twelve patients underwent neo-adjuvant chemotherapy; all patients received adjuvant chemo- and/or hormone therapy. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 50 months, late toxicities occurred in 28 patients: pain in 7, lymphedema in 6, G1 cutaneous toxicity in 5, and subcutaneous toxicity in 19 (2G1, 9G2, 7G3, 1G4), with more than one side effect in 12. In 8 patients the prosthesis ruptured (3), was displaced (3), was displaced and ruptured (1), or lost shape (1). Capsular contracture was classified in 89 patients as IA in 14, IB in 47, II in 10, III in 11, and IV in 7. Twelve prostheses (11.9%) were removed. The only significant factor for prosthesis removal was age (p = 0.007). Judgments of cosmetic results were available from 81 physicians and 84 patients. Outcome was excellent/good in 58/81 physician judgments and in 57/84 patient evaluations. Overall inter-rater agreement on outcome was good (κ-value 0.64; 95% CI: 0.48-0.79). CONCLUSION: RT to reconstructed breasts was associated with low rates of late toxicity and prosthesis removal. Cosmetic outcomes were, on the whole, good to excellent.
Authors: M Clarke; R Collins; S Darby; C Davies; P Elphinstone; V Evans; J Godwin; R Gray; C Hicks; S James; E MacKinnon; P McGale; T McHugh; R Peto; C Taylor; Y Wang Journal: Lancet Date: 2005-12-17 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Joseph Ragaz; Ivo A Olivotto; John J Spinelli; Norman Phillips; Stewart M Jackson; Kenneth S Wilson; Margaret A Knowling; Christopher M L Coppin; Lorna Weir; Karen Gelmon; Nhu Le; Ralph Durand; Andrew J Coldman; Mohamed Manji Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-01-19 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: M Overgaard; M B Jensen; J Overgaard; P S Hansen; C Rose; M Andersson; C Kamby; M Kjaer; C C Gadeberg; B B Rasmussen; M Blichert-Toft; H T Mouridsen Journal: Lancet Date: 1999-05-15 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: M Overgaard; P S Hansen; J Overgaard; C Rose; M Andersson; F Bach; M Kjaer; C C Gadeberg; H T Mouridsen; M B Jensen; K Zedeler Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1997-10-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ashish K Chawla; Lisa A Kachnic; Alphonse G Taghian; Andrzej Niemierko; Daniel T Zapton; Simon N Powell Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-10-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Peter G Cordeiro; Andrea L Pusic; Joseph J Disa; Beryl McCormick; Kimberly VanZee Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Julia S Wong; Alice Y Ho; Carolyn M Kaelin; Karyn L Bishop; Barbara Silver; Rebecca Gelman; Jay R Harris; Charles A Hergrueter Journal: Breast J Date: 2008 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Frederik Wenz; Elena Sperk; Wilfried Budach; Jürgen Dunst; Petra Feyer; Rainer Fietkau; Wulf Haase; Wolfgang Harms; Marc D Piroth; Marie-Luise Sautter-Bihl; Felix Sedlmayer; Rainer Souchon; Christoph Fussl; Rolf Sauer Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Víctor Fuertes; Mónica Francés; José M Casarrubios; Javier Fernández-Palacios; Jesús María González; Juan Francisco Loro-Ferrer Journal: Gland Surg Date: 2020-04