BACKGROUND: The optimal sequence of mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) and radiotherapy (RT) for the treatment of locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) is still under debate. Increased rates of postoperative complications are described following postmastectomy RT. Neoadjuvant RT aims to improve the aesthetic results and simplify the reconstructive pathway. PATIENTS: A total of 22 patients diagnosed with LABC and treated with neoadjuvant RT followed by mastectomy and IBR between 04/2012 and 03/2015 were retrospectively analyzed. RT consisted of external beam RT to the breast and the regional lymphatics, if indicated. Both implant-based and autologous tissue-transfer reconstruction techniques were used. RESULTS: At the time of RT, 10 patients had no prior surgery and 12 patients had previously undergone breast-conserving surgery (BCS) with positive resection margins without the possibility to perform a second BCS. Additional neoadjuvant chemotherapy was administered in 18 patients prior to RT. A complete pathological response was achieved in 55.0% of patients. The 2‑year overall survival rate was 89.3%, the 2‑year disease-free-survival 79.8% and the local-recurrence-free survival was 95.2%. The cosmetic result was excellent or good in 66% of the patients treated with upfront mastectomy and 37% of the patients who had previously undergone BCS. Among patients who received implant-based IBR, 4 patients developed serious wound-healing problems with implant loss. The most satisfactory results were achieved with autologous tissue reconstruction. CONCLUSION: A sequential neoadjuvant chemo-/radiotherapy to allow IBR following mastectomy in selected cases of LABC seems feasible and can be safely attempted. Careful patient selection, close monitoring, and continuous patient support is mandatory to ensure compliance in this treatment strategy.
BACKGROUND: The optimal sequence of mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) and radiotherapy (RT) for the treatment of locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) is still under debate. Increased rates of postoperative complications are described following postmastectomy RT. Neoadjuvant RT aims to improve the aesthetic results and simplify the reconstructive pathway. PATIENTS: A total of 22 patients diagnosed with LABC and treated with neoadjuvant RT followed by mastectomy and IBR between 04/2012 and 03/2015 were retrospectively analyzed. RT consisted of external beam RT to the breast and the regional lymphatics, if indicated. Both implant-based and autologous tissue-transfer reconstruction techniques were used. RESULTS: At the time of RT, 10 patients had no prior surgery and 12 patients had previously undergone breast-conserving surgery (BCS) with positive resection margins without the possibility to perform a second BCS. Additional neoadjuvant chemotherapy was administered in 18 patients prior to RT. A complete pathological response was achieved in 55.0% of patients. The 2‑year overall survival rate was 89.3%, the 2‑year disease-free-survival 79.8% and the local-recurrence-free survival was 95.2%. The cosmetic result was excellent or good in 66% of the patients treated with upfront mastectomy and 37% of the patients who had previously undergone BCS. Among patients who received implant-based IBR, 4 patients developed serious wound-healing problems with implant loss. The most satisfactory results were achieved with autologous tissue reconstruction. CONCLUSION: A sequential neoadjuvant chemo-/radiotherapy to allow IBR following mastectomy in selected cases of LABC seems feasible and can be safely attempted. Careful patient selection, close monitoring, and continuous patient support is mandatory to ensure compliance in this treatment strategy.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast neoplasms; Mammaplasty; Premastectomy; Radiotherapy; Wound healing
Authors: Hani Sbitany; Frederick Wang; Anne W Peled; Rachel Lentz; Michael Alvarado; Cheryl A Ewing; Laura J Esserman; Barbara Fowble; Robert D Foster Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Shiv Desai; Judith Hurley; Cristiane Takita; Isildinha M Reis; Wei Zhao; Steven E Rodgers; Jean L Wright Journal: Breast J Date: 2013-06-11 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: S Corradini; O M Niemoeller; M Niyazi; F Manapov; M Haerting; N Harbeck; C Belka; S Kahlert Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2014-02-07 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Harry D Bear; Stewart Anderson; Roy E Smith; Charles E Geyer; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Bernard Fisher; Ann M Brown; Andre Robidoux; Richard Margolese; Morton S Kahlenberg; Soonmyung Paik; Atilla Soran; D Lawrence Wickerham; Norman Wolmark Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-04-10 Impact factor: 44.544
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: N Paillocher; A S Florczak; M Richard; J M Classe; A S Oger; P Raro; R Wernert; G Lorimier Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2016-04-25 Impact factor: 4.424
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: Montserrat Pazos; Stephan Schönecker; Daniel Reitz; Paul Rogowski; Maximilian Niyazi; Filippo Alongi; Christiane Matuschek; Michael Braun; Nadia Harbeck; Claus Belka; Stefanie Corradini Journal: Breast Care (Basel) Date: 2018-05-24 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: James Meehan; Mark Gray; Carlos Martínez-Pérez; Charlene Kay; Jimi C Wills; Ian H Kunkler; J Michael Dixon; Arran K Turnbull Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2021-08-14
Authors: Won Sup Yoon; Chai Hong Rim; Dae Sik Yang; Jung Ae Lee; Gil Soo Son; Young Woo Chang; Sang Uk Woo; Deok-Woo Kim; Eun-Sang Dhong Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2019-12