Jai Min Ryu1, Sungmin Park1, Hyun-June Paik1, Seok Jin Nam1, Seok Won Kim1, Se Kyung Lee1, Jonghan Yu1, Soo Youn Bae1, Isaac Kim1, Sa Ik Bang2, Goo-Hyun Mun2, Jai-Kyong Pyon2, Byung-Joon Jeon3, Jeong Eon Lee4. 1. Division of Breast and Endocrine surgery, Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. 2. Department of Plastic Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. 3. Department of Plastic Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. Electronic address: byungjoon.jeon@samsung.com. 4. Division of Breast and Endocrine surgery, Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. Electronic address: jeongeon.lee@samsung.com.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although the indication for immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) after skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) or nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) has been expanded, IBR after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) is still controversial. We conducted retrospective matched case-control study to analyze oncologic outcomes between patients who underwent TM only and those who underwent IBR after SSM or NSM after NACT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of breast cancer patients who underwent IBR after SSM or NSM after NACT between 2008 and 2015 at a single center was conducted. These cases were maximally matched by 1:5 to patients who underwent total mastectomy (TM) alone after NACT. Matching variables included age, clinical T and N stage before NACT, response to NACT, and pathologic stage after NACT. Pathologic stage followed the 7th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) classification. RESULTS: Overall, 31 patients were enrolled onto the IBR after SSM or NSM group (study group) and matched to 85 patients (control group). In the study group, 13 patients (41.9%) underwent NSM and 18 (58.1%) underwent SSM. Median follow-up duration was 29.2 (range, 7-31) and 38.8 (range, 11-85) months for the study and control groups (P = .012), respectively, and median age was 37.0 (range, 26-57) and 40.0 (range, 24-56) years (P = .890), respectively. Overall survival (P = .971), disease-free survival (P = .520), distant metastasis-free survival (P = .795), and local recurrence-free survival (P = .628) did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: IBR after SSM or NSM might be a feasible surgical treatment option even in breast cancer patients who underwent NACT.
INTRODUCTION: Although the indication for immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) after skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) or nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) has been expanded, IBR after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) is still controversial. We conducted retrospective matched case-control study to analyze oncologic outcomes between patients who underwent TM only and those who underwent IBR after SSM or NSM after NACT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of breast cancerpatients who underwent IBR after SSM or NSM after NACT between 2008 and 2015 at a single center was conducted. These cases were maximally matched by 1:5 to patients who underwent total mastectomy (TM) alone after NACT. Matching variables included age, clinical T and N stage before NACT, response to NACT, and pathologic stage after NACT. Pathologic stage followed the 7th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) classification. RESULTS: Overall, 31 patients were enrolled onto the IBR after SSM or NSM group (study group) and matched to 85 patients (control group). In the study group, 13 patients (41.9%) underwent NSM and 18 (58.1%) underwent SSM. Median follow-up duration was 29.2 (range, 7-31) and 38.8 (range, 11-85) months for the study and control groups (P = .012), respectively, and median age was 37.0 (range, 26-57) and 40.0 (range, 24-56) years (P = .890), respectively. Overall survival (P = .971), disease-free survival (P = .520), distant metastasis-free survival (P = .795), and local recurrence-free survival (P = .628) did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: IBR after SSM or NSM might be a feasible surgical treatment option even in breast cancerpatients who underwent NACT.
Authors: Zhen-Yu Wu; Hyun Ho Han; Hee Jeong Kim; Jong Won Lee; Il Yong Chung; Jisun Kim; Sae Byul Lee; Byung-Ho Son; Jin Sup Eom; Jae Ho Jung; Sung- Bae Kim; Gyungyub Gong; Hak Hee Kim; Sei -Hyun Ahn; BeomSeok Ko Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-03-19 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Nalee Kim; Haeyoung Kim; Won Park; Doo Ho Choi; Won Kyung Cho; Seok Jin Nam; Jeong Eon Lee; Seok Won Kim; Jonghan Yu; Sei Kyung Lee; Byung-Joon Jeon; Jai Kyong Pyon; Goo-Hyun Mun; Tae Gyu Kim Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2022-01-16 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: René Aloisio da Costa Vieira; Luciana Machado Ribeiro; Guilherme Freire Angotti Carrara; Lucas Faria Abrahão-Machado; Ligia Maria Kerr; Afonso Celso Pinto Nazário Journal: Breast Care (Basel) Date: 2019-05-03 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Kate R Pawloski; Andrea V Barrio; Mary L Gemignani; Varadan Sevilimedu; Tiana Le; Joseph Dayan; Monica Morrow; Audree B Tadros Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2021-05-03 Impact factor: 6.532
Authors: Seung Ho Baek; Soon June Bae; Chang Ik Yoon; So Eun Park; Chi Hwan Cha; Sung Gwe Ahn; Young Seok Kim; Tai Suk Roh; Joon Jeong Journal: J Breast Cancer Date: 2019-01-22 Impact factor: 3.588
Authors: Sung Mi Jung; Byung-Joon Jeon; Jinsun Woo; Jai Min Ryu; Se Kyung Lee; Byung-Joo Chae; Jonghan Yu; Seok Won Kim; Seok Jin Nam; Jai-Kyong Pyon; Goo-Hyun Mun; Sa Ik Bang; Jeong Eon Lee Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2021-01-22 Impact factor: 4.430