| Literature DB >> 29782518 |
Yujin Myung1, Yousung Son1, Tae-Hyun Nam2, Eunyoung Kang3, Eun-Kyu Kim3, In Ah Kim4, Keun-Yong Eom4, Chan Yeong Heo1, Jae Hoon Jeong1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of immediate breast reconstruction and adjuvant radiation therapy is increasing in breast cancer patients. This study aimed to analyze the aesthetic outcome and changes in flap volume in patients with breast cancer undergoing radiation therapy of the surgical site after immediate autologous tissue reconstruction.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29782518 PMCID: PMC5962051 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0197615
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Volumetric analysis.
(A) Three-dimensional reconstructed image of chest computed tomographic study. (B) Outline of abdominal flap was manually marked in each scan image.
Fig 2Reconstructed images of the flap.
Anterior view and lateral view of reconstructed images.
Fig 3Photographic image of a patient.
(A) 43-year old patient 4 weeks after nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction with a free transverse rectus abdominis flap. (B) After completion of adjuvant radiation therapy. (C) One year after the completion of radiation therapy. Increased symmetry and a decrease in the upper part of the reconstructed breast is observed.
Fig 4Breast cosmesis analysis.
Breast cosmesis assessment using the Breast Cancer Conservative Treatment (BCCT)-core program.
Patient demographic characteristics.
| Radiation | Non-radiation | p-value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age at surgery (years) | 46.7 | 47.1 | 0.37 | |
| Weight (kg) | 68.1 | 70.5 | 0.51 | |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 26.3 | 26.9 | 0.76 | |
| Type of mastectomy | RM | 2 | 0 | |
| MRM | 5 | 2 | ||
| TM | 6 | 7 | ||
| SSM | 4 | 7 | ||
| NSM | 4 | 5 | ||
| Excised weight (g) | 421 | 412 | 0.59 | |
| Insetted flap weight(g) | 434 | 420 | 0.53 | |
| Total radiation dose (Gy) | 52.4 | 0 |
BMI, Body mass index; RM, radical mastectomy; MRM, modified radical mastectomy TM, total mastectomy; SSM, skin sparing mastectomy; NSM, nipple sparing mastectomy.
Type and frequency of complications.
| Radiation | Non-radiation | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | n | % | |
| Flap loss | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Fat necrosis | 7 | 33 | 3 | 14 |
| Postoperative infection | 4 | 19 | 2 | 10 |
| Skin contracture | 10 | 48 | 0 | 0 |
| Hyperpigmentation | 18 | 86 | 0 | 0 |
| Asymmetry | 9 | 43 | 2 | 10 |
Assessment of flap volume changes.
| Radiation | Average v value | Z & p value | |
| pre | 396 | Z = -4.015 | |
| post1 | 355 | ||
| pre-post (%) | 12.3% | p<0.01 | |
| Non-radiation | |||
| < 6m | 401 | Z = -1.356 | |
| > 12m | 393 | ||
| pre-post (%) | 2.60% | p = 0.175 |
* p<0.01.
Assessment of breast cosmesis using the Breast Cancer Conservative Treatment (BCCT)-core program.
| Radiation | Pre (n, %) | Post (n/%) | |
| Excellent | 11 (52.3) | 7 (33.3) | |
| Good | 7 (33.3) | 7 (33.3) | |
| Fair | 3 (14.2) | 5 (23.8) | |
| Poor | 0 (0) | 2 (9.5%) | |
| Non-radiation | < 6m (n, %) | > 12m (n/%) | |
| Excellent | 10 (47.6) | 10 (47.6) | |
| Good | 8 (38) | 9 (42.8) | |
| Fair | 3 (14.2) | 2 (9.5) | |
| Poor | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |