S Potter1,2, A Trickey1, T Rattay3, R L O'Connell4, R Dave5, E Baker6, L Whisker7, J Skillman8, M D Gardiner9,10, R D Macmillan7, C Holcombe11. 1. Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK. 2. Bristol Breast Care Centre, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK. 3. Cancer Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester, UK. 4. Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, UK. 5. Nightingale Breast Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK. 6. Department of Breast Surgery, Airedale General Hospital, Keighley, UK. 7. Nottingham Breast Institute, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK. 8. Department of Plastic Surgery, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Coventry, UK. 9. Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford, UK. 10. Department of Plastic Surgery, Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust, Slough, UK. 11. Linda McCartney Centre, Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospital, Liverpool, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Therapeutic mammaplasty (TM) may be an alternative to mastectomy, but few well designed studies have evaluated the success of this approach or compared the short-term outcomes of TM with mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). Data from the national iBRA-2 and TeaM studies were combined to compare the safety and short-term outcomes of TM and mastectomy with or without IBR. METHODS: The subgroup of patients in the TeaM study who underwent TM to avoid mastectomy were identified, and data on demographics, complications, oncology and adjuvant treatment were compared with those of patients undergoing mastectomy with or without IBR in the iBRA-2 study. The primary outcome was the percentage of successful breast-conserving procedures in the TM group. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications and time to adjuvant therapy. RESULTS: A total of 2916 patients (TM 376; mastectomy 1532; mastectomy and IBR 1008) were included in the analysis. Patients undergoing TM were more likely to be obese and to have undergone bilateral surgery than those having IBR. However, patients undergoing mastectomy with or without IBR were more likely to experience complications than the TM group (TM: 79, 21·0 per cent; mastectomy: 570, 37·2 per cent; mastectomy and IBR: 359, 35·6 per cent; P < 0·001). Breast conservation was possible in 87·0 per cent of patients who had TM, and TM did not delay adjuvant treatment. CONCLUSION: TM may allow high-risk patients who would not be candidates for IBR to avoid mastectomy safely. Further work is needed to explore the comparative patient-reported and cosmetic outcomes of the different approaches, and to establish long-term oncological safety.
BACKGROUND: Therapeutic mammaplasty (TM) may be an alternative to mastectomy, but few well designed studies have evaluated the success of this approach or compared the short-term outcomes of TM with mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). Data from the national iBRA-2 and TeaM studies were combined to compare the safety and short-term outcomes of TM and mastectomy with or without IBR. METHODS: The subgroup of patients in the TeaM study who underwent TM to avoid mastectomy were identified, and data on demographics, complications, oncology and adjuvant treatment were compared with those of patients undergoing mastectomy with or without IBR in the iBRA-2 study. The primary outcome was the percentage of successful breast-conserving procedures in the TM group. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications and time to adjuvant therapy. RESULTS: A total of 2916 patients (TM 376; mastectomy 1532; mastectomy and IBR 1008) were included in the analysis. Patients undergoing TM were more likely to be obese and to have undergone bilateral surgery than those having IBR. However, patients undergoing mastectomy with or without IBR were more likely to experience complications than the TM group (TM: 79, 21·0 per cent; mastectomy: 570, 37·2 per cent; mastectomy and IBR: 359, 35·6 per cent; P < 0·001). Breast conservation was possible in 87·0 per cent of patients who had TM, and TM did not delay adjuvant treatment. CONCLUSION: TM may allow high-risk patients who would not be candidates for IBR to avoid mastectomy safely. Further work is needed to explore the comparative patient-reported and cosmetic outcomes of the different approaches, and to establish long-term oncological safety.
Authors: Charlotte Davies; Christopher Holcombe; Joanna Skillman; Lisa Whisker; William Hollingworth; Carmel Conefrey; Nicola Mills; Paul White; Charles Comins; Douglas Macmillan; Patricia Fairbrother; Shelley Potter Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-04-16 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Alice Lee; Richard M Kwasnicki; Hasaan Khan; Yasmin Grant; Abigail Chan; Angela E E Fanshawe; Daniel R Leff Journal: BJS Open Date: 2021-11-09
Authors: Jenny Ingram; Lucy Beasant; John Benson; Adrian Murray Brunt; Anthony Maxwell; James Richard Harvey; Rosemary Greenwood; Nicholas Roberts; Norman Williams; Debbie Johnson; Zoe Winters Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud Date: 2022-02-28