Nalee Kim1, Haeyoung Kim2, Won Park1, Doo Ho Choi1, Won Kyung Cho1, Seok Jin Nam3, Jeong Eon Lee3, Seok Won Kim3, Jonghan Yu3, Sei Kyung Lee3, Byung-Joon Jeon4, Jai Kyong Pyon4, Goo-Hyun Mun4, Tae Gyu Kim5. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 06351, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 06351, Republic of Korea. haeyoung0131.kim@samsung.com. 3. Division of Breast and Endocrine Surgery, Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 4. Department of Plastic Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Changwon Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the impact of immediate breast reconstruction (iBR) on patients treated with post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) using propensity score matching (PSM). METHODS: After a retrospective review of patients treated with PMRT between 2008 and 2017, we included 153 patients who underwent iBR and 872 patients who did not undergo iBR. Among the 153 patients who underwent iBR, 34 received one-stage iBR with autologous tissue and 119 received two-stage iBR. Conventional fractionated PMRT with a total dose of 50-50.4 Gy in 25-28 fractions was performed in all patients. Propensity scores were calculated via logistic regression. RESULTS: Patients who underwent iBR were younger, had early stage disease, and had more frequent hormone receptor-positive tumor than those who did not undergo iBR. After PSM, 127 patients from each group with well-balanced characteristics were selected. With a median follow-up of 67.5 months, iBR led to better 6-year disease-free survival rates compared to no iBR before PSM (84.8% vs. 71.4%, p = 0.003); after PSM, there was no significant difference (84.8% vs. 75.5%, p = 0.130). On multivariable analysis in the matched cohort, iBR was not associated with inferior disease-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.67; p = 0.175). In the sensitivity analysis, iBR was not associated with a lower disease-free survival across all prognostic groups. The 5-year cumulative incidence of iBR failure was 15.0%. CONCLUSION: In patients with adverse pathologic factors planning to receive PMRT, iBR did not compromise oncologic outcomes. In addition, iBR can be considered in patients treated with PMRT with several clinicopathologic risk factors.
PURPOSE: To investigate the impact of immediate breast reconstruction (iBR) on patients treated with post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) using propensity score matching (PSM). METHODS: After a retrospective review of patients treated with PMRT between 2008 and 2017, we included 153 patients who underwent iBR and 872 patients who did not undergo iBR. Among the 153 patients who underwent iBR, 34 received one-stage iBR with autologous tissue and 119 received two-stage iBR. Conventional fractionated PMRT with a total dose of 50-50.4 Gy in 25-28 fractions was performed in all patients. Propensity scores were calculated via logistic regression. RESULTS: Patients who underwent iBR were younger, had early stage disease, and had more frequent hormone receptor-positive tumor than those who did not undergo iBR. After PSM, 127 patients from each group with well-balanced characteristics were selected. With a median follow-up of 67.5 months, iBR led to better 6-year disease-free survival rates compared to no iBR before PSM (84.8% vs. 71.4%, p = 0.003); after PSM, there was no significant difference (84.8% vs. 75.5%, p = 0.130). On multivariable analysis in the matched cohort, iBR was not associated with inferior disease-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.67; p = 0.175). In the sensitivity analysis, iBR was not associated with a lower disease-free survival across all prognostic groups. The 5-year cumulative incidence of iBR failure was 15.0%. CONCLUSION: In patients with adverse pathologic factors planning to receive PMRT, iBR did not compromise oncologic outcomes. In addition, iBR can be considered in patients treated with PMRT with several clinicopathologic risk factors.
Authors: Shailesh Agarwal; Kelley M Kidwell; Aaron Farberg; Jeffrey H Kozlow; Kevin C Chung; Adeyiza O Momoh Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-01-07 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Youssef H Zeidan; Joyce G Habib; Lieveke Ameye; Marianne Paesmans; Evandro de Azambuja; Richard D Gelber; Ian Campbell; Bo Nordenskjöld; Jorge Gutiérez; Michael Anderson; Ana Lluch; Michael Gnant; Aron Goldhirsch; Angelo Di Leo; David J Joseph; John Crown; Martine Piccart-Gebhart; Prudence A Francis Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-02-06 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Hae Jin Park; Kyung Hwan Shin; Jin Ho Kim; Seung Do Ahn; Ja Young Kim; Won Park; Yong Bae Kim; Yeon-Joo Kim; Jin Hee Kim; Kyubo Kim; Kyung Ran Park; Hyun Soo Shin; Bae Kwon Jeong; Sun Young Lee; Suzy Kim Journal: Cancer Res Treat Date: 2016-10-19 Impact factor: 4.679
Authors: Andri Thorarinsson; Victoria Fröjd; Lars Kölby; Johan Ljungdal; Charles Taft; Hans Mark Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2017-06-21
Authors: P McGale; C Taylor; C Correa; D Cutter; F Duane; M Ewertz; R Gray; G Mannu; R Peto; T Whelan; Y Wang; Z Wang; S Darby Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-03-19 Impact factor: 79.321