D D Oh1, K Flitcroft2, M E Brennan2, A J Spillane3. 1. Breast and Surgical Oncology, The Poche Centre, 40 Rocklands Rd, North Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 2. Breast and Surgical Oncology, The Poche Centre, 40 Rocklands Rd, North Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Northern Clinical School, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 3. Breast and Surgical Oncology, The Poche Centre, 40 Rocklands Rd, North Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Northern Clinical School, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Royal North Shore and Mater Hospitals, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Electronic address: andrew.spillane@sydney.edu.au.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Older age is associated with lower rates of breast reconstruction (BR) for women requiring mastectomy. The purpose was to assess the available evidence on uptake, outcome and quality of life (QoL) after BR in older women. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed via Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases using the search terms breast reconstruction, breast cancer, and mastectomy. Eligible studies reported rates of BR, rates of different reconstructive techniques, complication rates, and/or patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) of BR in women aged 60 years or older undergoing mastectomy for ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive carcinoma. RESULTS: A total of 42 eligible studies were included, with 32 of these reporting BR rates, 10 reporting rates of different reconstructive techniques, 10 reporting rates of complications, and four reporting PROMs. The studies reported 24,746 cases of BR in 407,570 mastectomy patients aged 60 years or older from 1987 to 2012. Implant based BR was more common than autologous techniques. Mostly, complication rates were not higher in older women, and QoL outcomes were similar to younger women. CONCLUSIONS: This review confirms that BR rates are lower in older women despite recent studies demonstrating its efficacy. The perception among some surgeons and women requiring mastectomy that the potential risks of BR in older women outweigh the benefits needs to be revisited. Education of consumers and surgeons along with public advocacy for offering BR to all clinically eligible women are the most promising means of changing practice.
PURPOSE: Older age is associated with lower rates of breast reconstruction (BR) for women requiring mastectomy. The purpose was to assess the available evidence on uptake, outcome and quality of life (QoL) after BR in older women. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed via Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases using the search terms breast reconstruction, breast cancer, and mastectomy. Eligible studies reported rates of BR, rates of different reconstructive techniques, complication rates, and/or patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) of BR in women aged 60 years or older undergoing mastectomy for ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive carcinoma. RESULTS: A total of 42 eligible studies were included, with 32 of these reporting BR rates, 10 reporting rates of different reconstructive techniques, 10 reporting rates of complications, and four reporting PROMs. The studies reported 24,746 cases of BR in 407,570 mastectomy patients aged 60 years or older from 1987 to 2012. Implant based BR was more common than autologous techniques. Mostly, complication rates were not higher in older women, and QoL outcomes were similar to younger women. CONCLUSIONS: This review confirms that BR rates are lower in older women despite recent studies demonstrating its efficacy. The perception among some surgeons and women requiring mastectomy that the potential risks of BR in older women outweigh the benefits needs to be revisited. Education of consumers and surgeons along with public advocacy for offering BR to all clinically eligible women are the most promising means of changing practice.
Authors: Luis Chang-Azancot; Pedro Abizanda; María Gijón; Nitzan Kenig; Manuel Campello; Jessica Juez; Antonio Talaya; Gregorio Gómez-Bajo; Javier Montón; Rodrigo Sánchez-Bayona Journal: Aesthetic Plast Surg Date: 2022-08-04 Impact factor: 2.708
Authors: Chandler S Cortina; Carmen R Bergom; Julie Kijack; Abigail A Thorgerson; Chiang-Ching Spencer Huang; Amanda L Kong Journal: Surgery Date: 2021-04-20 Impact factor: 4.348
Authors: Lauren V Kuykendall; Angie Zhang; Bugra Tugertimur; Sara Bijan; Corin Agoris; Ambuj Kumar; Deniz Dayicioglu Journal: Cancer Control Date: 2018 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 3.302
Authors: Karl Schwaiger; Laurenz Weitgasser; Maximilian Mahrhofer; Kathrin Bachleitner; Selim Abed; Julia Wimbauer; Elisabeth Russe; Thomas Schoeller; Gottfried Wechselberger Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 4.241