Oncologic outcomes after immediate breast reconstruction following mastectomy: Comparison of implant and flap using propensity score matching

doi:10.21203/rs.2.10909/v1

Download PDF

Research article

Oncologic outcomes after immediate breast reconstruction following mastectomy: Comparison of implant and flap using propensity score matching

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.2.10909/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 30 Jan, 2020

Read the published version in BMC Cancer →

You are reading this older preprint version

Read the latest preprint version →

Background

Although immediate breast reconstruction has been reported to be oncologically safe, no affirmative study comparing the two reconstruction methods exists. We investigated breast cancer recurrence rates in two breast reconstruction types; implant reconstruction and autologous flap reconstruction.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was performed on propensity score-matched (for age, stage, estrogen receptor status) patients who underwent IBR after mastectomy at Seoul National University Hospital between 2010 - 2014. The main outcomes determined were locoregional recurrence-free interval (LRRFI) and disease-free interval (DFI).

Results

We analyzed 496 patients among 731 patients following propensity score matching (Median age 43, 247 implant reconstruction and 249 flap reconstruction). During median follow-up of 58.2 months, DFI was not different between the two groups at each tumor stage. However, flap reconstruction showed inferior DFI compared to implant reconstruction in patients with high histologic grade (p=0.012), and with high Ki-67 (p=0.028). Flap reconstruction was related to short DFI in multivariate analysis in aggressive tumor subsets. Short DFI after flap reconstruction in aggressive tumor cell phenotype was most evident in hormone positive/Her-2 negative cancer (p=0.008). LRRFI, on the other hand, did not show difference according to reconstruction method regardless of tumor cell aggressiveness.

Conclusion

Although there is no difference in cancer recurrence according to reconstruction method in general, flap-based reconstruction showed higher systemic recurrence associated with histologically aggressive tumors.

Cancer Biology

Oncology

Breast neoplasm

breast reconstruction

flap

implant

oncologic safety

A combination of surgical excision, systemic chemotherapy, and radiation therapy are applied in breast cancer to improve the oncologic outcome. Immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) has become the mainstay method of aesthetic and functional improvement following mastectomy for breast cancer ¹. It is essential that breast reconstruction be safe from an oncologic point of view. In other words, IBR should not increase the chance of relapse or hinder subsequent anti-cancer treatment such as adjuvant chemotherapy by causing complications ².

It is well established that breast reconstruction provides psychological benefits and improvements in quality of life. Nevertheless, IBR has traditionally not been recommended over delayed reconstruction ³. The reluctance to use IBR originates from concerns that IBR might increase the risk of locoregional recurrence and that recurrence might be more difficult to detect after IBR. However, recent reports suggest that IBR is oncologically safe in invasive breast cancer and is practiced widely ^4-8. Although the locoregional recurrence rates after IBR vary across studies, it is commonly accepted that IBR does not significantly increase recurrence. For example, an anecdotal study by Eriksen et al.⁹ reported that implant-based IBR did not affect oncologic outcomes including locoregional and distant recurrence. The authors compared locoregional and distant recurrence between patients that underwent implant-based IBR and a mastectomy-only group in this study. Likewise, Howard et al.⁴ analyzed oncologic outcomes between patients that underwent TRAM flap-based IBR and a mastectomy-only control group. In the study, there was no difference in the local recurrence rate between the two groups.

Breast reconstruction methods include implant-based reconstruction and flap reconstruction. Implant-based reconstruction is a safe method with favorable outcomes, minimal morbidity, and short operative times. On the other hand, flap reconstruction is performed using microvascular free flap transfer or pedicled flap transfer. Reports suggest that flap reconstruction has certain advantages over implant-based reconstruction, such as a lower complication rate during adjuvant radiotherapy and better long-term aesthetic outcomes ^10-13. Some surgeons prefer flap reconstruction over implant-based reconstruction when the cancer is in a locally advanced stage, because the former is less likely than the latter to cause complications during adjuvant therapy¹⁴. In general, patient-specific factors such as breast size, degree of ptosis, comorbidity, age, and patient preference are used to determine the best method of reconstruction for each patient.

Although recent reports suggest that IBR does not affect cancer recurrence or detection ⁴^,¹⁵^,¹⁶ there are still concerns about the use of flap reconstruction¹⁷. There are no affirmative data comparing locoregional recurrence rates between implant-based reconstruction and flap reconstruction. Therefore, we investigated whether there is a difference in locoregional and overall recurrence between those two reconstruction methods in patients with breast cancer who undergo IBR.

Patients

We identified all patients who underwent IBR at Seoul National University Hospital (SNUH) from 2010 to 2014. We reviewed the patients’ demographics and oncologic and reconstructive data after receiving approval from the Institutional Review Board of Seoul National University Hospital (IRB No. H-1602-132-744). We excluded patients with pathologic results indicating phyllodes tumor, angiosarcoma, or metastatic cancer at initial presentation; those who underwent prophylactic mastectomy; and those with prior history of breast cancer. Cases with surgical complication which could delay adjuvant therapy, such as flap loss, implant loss, or delayed wound healing including infection were excluded. Cases converted to flap reconstruction after tissue expander insertion were also excluded. The primary endpoint in our study was locoregional recurrence or distant metastasis.

Comparison of clinical outcomes using propensity-score matching

We grouped the patients into two cohorts according to IBR method: (1) patients who underwent IBR with implant (including tissue expander), and (2) patients who underwent IBR with flap transfer. For the comparison of oncologic outcomes between the two IBR methods, we conducted propensity score matching. We calculated the propensity scores by logistic regression analysis including age, American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 7^th ed. tumor staging ¹⁸, and estrogen receptor (ER) status. We matched patients by propensity score using the nearest-neighbor method with a matching ratio of 1:1. The caliper width was equal to 0.2 times the standard deviation of the logit of the propensity score. After matching, we reviewed the covariate balance for statistical significance and standardized difference.

Immunohistochemistry

ER, progesterone receptor (PR), human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2), histologic grade (HG), nuclear grade (NG), and Ki-67 expressions were evaluated. ER, PR and HER2 was evaluated following ASCO/CAP Guideline ¹⁹^,²⁰,²¹. HG was graded according to Nottingham classification ²². The percentage of Ki-67 was determined by the number of Ki-67 positive cells among the total number of counted tumor cells. High expression of Ki-67 was defined as ≥10%, based on the previous study in our institution ²³^,²⁴.

Operative technique

We performed IBR using implant or flap after mastectomy. In the implant-based reconstructions, we inserted an implant (or tissue expander) according to the amount of skin resected during the mastectomy. We inserted the implant at the submuscular layer and used an acellular dermal matrix (ADM) [CG CryoDerm (CGBio Corp., Seongnam, Korea) or DermACELL (LifeNet Health, Virginia Beach, VA, USA)] to cover the inferolateral aspect. In the flap reconstructions, we transferred either a free vascularized flap or a pedicled flap (e.g., from the rectus abdominis or latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flap).

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses of 2×2 contingency tables of categorical variables were performed as appropriate using Fisher’s exact test or Pearson’s χ² test. We calculated the mean durations of survival using the Kaplan-Meier method. Comparisons between groups were performed using log-rank tests. We used logistic regression and a Cox regression model to analyze the effects of continuous numeric variables on clinical outcomes. Multivariate analysis was achieved using logistic regression and Cox regression with factors that showed p-values < 0.1 in the univariate analyses. Locoregional relapse-free interval (LRRFI) was defined as the time between the breast cancer surgery and the detection of locoregional recurrence by biopsy or imaging. Disease-free interval (DFI) was defined as the time between breast cancer surgery and the detection of any relapse. All statistical tests were two-sided with p < 0.05 as the threshold for statistical significance. Analyses were performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences for Windows Version 21.0 (IBM, Chicago, IL, USA).

Baseline characteristics and propensity score matching

Between January 2010 and December 2014, 731 patients underwent IBR after mastectomy at SNUH for primary breast cancer. A total of 664 patients who meet study criteria underwent propensity score matching based on age, cancer stage¹⁸, and ER status, which resulted in the inclusion of 496 patients (247 implants and 249 flaps) for further analysis. (Supplementary fig. 1)

There were no differences between the two groups in cancer stage, chemotherapy or radiotherapy status, ER status, PR status, NG, HG, and HER2 amplification after propensity score matching (Table 1, Supplementary table 1). Of the 247 patients from implant group, 60 (24.3%) patients received implant insertion, and 187 (75.7%) received tissue expander insertion. The majority of flap reconstructions used a free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flap (n=238, 95.6%); other used a pedicled latissimus dorsi myocoutaneous flap (n=7, 2.8%), a free superficial inferior epigastric artery perforator flap (n=1, 0.4%), a free inferior gluteal artery perforator flap (n=1, 0.4%), a free gracilis flap (n=1, 0.4%), or a free lumbar artery perforator flap (n=1, 0.4%).

Cancer recurrence after reconstruction

During median follow-up duration was 58.2 months (57.3 and 58.3 months for implant and flap group, respectively) there were 38 recurrence events. Cancer stage was an independent prognostic factor for recurrence (p<0.001). The NG (p=0.004), HG (p=0.001), and Ki-67 (p<0.001) were also prognostic factors for cancer recurrence. Vascular emboli and lymphatic emboli affected the DFI (p<0.001 and p<0.001, respectively); however, ER status (p=0.172), PR status (p=0.190), and HER-2 status (p=0.642) did not.

There was no difference in the DFI between implant group and flap group. During follow up, 14 patients relapsed in implant group and 24 patients relapsed in flap group. The 5-year DFI rate was 93% in implant group and 90% in flap group (p=0.100). (Fig. 1a) There were no differences in DFI between the patients that underwent one-stage implant and two-stage expander insertion (p=0.861) or between those that underwent TRAM flap and other types of flap reconstructions (p=0.859).

In a multivariate analysis for DFI including cancer stage, NG, HG, and Ki-67, cancer stage (p=0.007) was an independent prognostic factor (Supplementary table 2).

Systemic cancer recurrence affected by IBR method in aggressive tumors

When we considered the different cancer stages separately, there was no difference in DFI between the implant and flap group (p-value for stage 1=0.642; stage 2=0.195; stage 3=0.132). (Fig. 2)

On the other hand, when we considered the HG separately, patients with HG 3 (high HG) in flap group (n=74) had a lower 5-year DFI rate than implant group (n=75) (5-year DFI rate for implant group 92% vs. flap group 77%; p=0.012). There was no such difference among the patients with HG 1 or 2, however (p=0.917). Likewise, flap reconstruction showed short DFI in patients with high Ki-67 (p=0.028). In contrast, there was no difference in DFI between the two groups in low Ki-67 (p=0.278). When both HG and Ki-67 were considered, aggressive tumor (defined by high HG and high Ki-67) relapsed more frequently following flap reconstruction than implant reconstruction (p=0.004). (Fig. 3a-d) Patient characteristics between the two reconstruction groups in high HG and/or high Ki-67 group did not differ.

In multivariate analysis for DFI performed within high HG group considering cancer stage, hormone receptor (HR), HER2 and reconstruction type, the reconstruction type was the independent prognostic factor (p=0.018). (Table 2) Likewise, in high Ki-67 group, the reconstruction type was the independent prognostic factor for DFI in multivariate analysis (p=0.015, data not shown).

When HR and HER2 status was considered, DFI was not different between two groups in each tumor subtype: including triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC; p=0.668), and HR-positive breast cancer (p=0.230). However, in 71 aggressive tumors (high HG and high Ki-67), frequent relapse after flap reconstruction was seen especially in HR-positive breast cancers (HR-positive: p=0.008; HR-positive/HER2-negative: p=0.002), which accounts for majority of our study population. (Fig. 3e-f)

Next, we observed whether the reconstruction type affected locoregional recurrence. There were 20 locoregional recurrences during follow up: 9 in implant and 11 in flap group. The 5-year LRRFI rate was 95% in implant group and 95% in flap group (p=0.991). (Fig. 1B) Unlike the DFI, the LRRFI was not affected by reconstruction method neither in high HG tumor (p=0.445) nor in high Ki-67 tumor (p=0.791). The reconstruction type did not affect locoregional recurrence in a multivariate analysis (p=0.704).

IBR is widely performed and previous studies have tried to establish the oncologic safety of IBR, showing that IBR did not increase recurrence rates or delay the detection of recurrence ⁴^,⁹. However, those previous reports did not differentiate the outcomes according to specific IBR methods or tumor histologies ⁴^,⁹^,¹⁵. To our knowledge, no one has yet performed a matched case-control study comparing locoregional and distant metastasis rates between reconstruction methods. There may be, however, a chance of tumor spreading through vascular anastomosis of flap with surrounding breast envelope, raising doubts about oncologic safety. The hemodynamic environment, which may influence tumor spreading, is presumed to be different between the two reconstruction methods. Hence, although neither method is reported to increase the relapse risk in general, the oncologic safety of flap reconstruction still needs to be more precisely analyzed from diverse perspectives.

In this regard, we performed a propensity-matched, case-control study to compare oncologic safety between implant-based and flap reconstructions: we focused on DFI rather than DFS because there were a few deaths not related to breast cancer which would askew oncologic outcome in this subset. We excluded patients with major complications that may delay adequate postoperative anti-cancer treatment to achieve pure oncologic comparisons of the two reconstruction methods. In other words, we assumed that all implant or flap reconstructions were properly performed, assessing oncologic effects of each reconstruction method in terms of hemodynamic or immunologic flux, rather than focusing on pragmatic outcomes. We did not find any difference in DFI between the two reconstruction methods. We can therefore conclude that in general, the choice of reconstruction method does not affect oncological outcome. In addition, there were some unexpected findings in our subgroup analyses.

Among patients with high HG, the DFI was shorter in the flap group than in the implant group. In line with histologic grading, patients with high Ki-67 showed shorter tendency for DFI in flap group compared to implant group. This was confirmed both in univariate and multivariate analysis. When we combined HG and Ki-67 to define tumor aggressiveness, aggressive tumor showed higher rate of relapse following flap reconstruction than implant-based reconstruction. On the other hand, locoregional recurrence was not different based on reconstruction method among patients with aggressive histology suggesting that flap reconstruction was related to the systemic recurrence. There was no difference in chemotherapy status or cancer stage between the two reconstruction groups with high HG tumor (n=148), which excludes the possibility of selection bias in that finding. Due to small number of absolute relapse events, affirmative conclusion could not be drawn with this single study. However, it should be noted from this study that high HG tumor may have increased rate of systemic relapse with flap reconstruction which accompanies increased vascularity around surgical bed. Surgical stress imposed by flap operations may thus foster distant relapse of aggressive tumors, as in a mouse model of breast cancer.²⁵ Because perioperative immunomodulation, stemming from surgical stress, may figure prominently in antimetastatic immune activity,²⁶^,²⁷ it is not surprising that flap reconstruction, which entails prolonged operative time and therefore more surgical stress than implant reconstruction, is associated with shorter DFIs. Distant recurrences may be cultivated from preexisting micrometastases in aggressive cancer cell types due to perioperative immunosuppression.²⁶^,²⁷ There is also a possibility that an upsurge in M1 macrophages, promoted by acellular dermal matrix, may prevent systemic spread of cancer cells in implant-based IBR ²⁸. In fact, HG ²⁹ and Ki-67 ³⁰ are well-known prognostic factors for breast cancer. But we could not find similar findings as ours in the literature and concluded that it was because previous research did not focus on HG or Ki-67. Eriksen et al.⁹, Howard et al.⁴, and McCarthy et al.¹⁵ all analyzed the oncologic outcomes of implant or flap-based IBR. However, data regarding the HG and Ki-67 were not assessed in all studies. It should be noted that, on the other hand, DFI was not different depending on the reconstruction method when the analysis was stratified on other tumor characteristics such as cancer stage, nuclear emboli, or TNBC. This suggests that the tumor aggressiveness at the single-cell level represented by high HG or high Ki-67 is the most important factor in the increased risk of relapse after flap reconstruction in breast cancer.

We tried to overcome limitations of our study design. First, there was a possibility of bias in the patient characteristics between the two groups. Young patients may more likely want to undergo implant-based reconstruction for simultaneous augmentation of contralateral breast. On the other hand, surgeons might prefer flap reconstruction in advanced cancer, considering the possible radiation-related complications associated with implants. We tried to minimize this bias by using propensity score matching for more balanced comparison. Second, majority of our study population were HR-positive and HER2-negative. We could observe short DFI after flap reconstruction in aggressive tumor cell phenotype within this subgroup but not in other subgroups with statistical significance. Hence, effect on recurrence according to reconstruction method in less representative subtypes in our study should be analyzed in further studies. Lastly, since we used a retrospective design, we could not be certain that some information that might have influenced the outcome was not left out. However, as several previous important retrospective studies ³¹^,³² , we assume discovering novel findings from retrospective cohort study is virtually not impossible. We hope further study with robust research design (e.g. prospective study) would consolidate our anecdotal findings.

In conclusion, we report that there is no difference in cancer recurrence according to the method used for immediate breast reconstruction in general. There is, however, a possibility that flap reconstruction increases the risk of systemic recurrence in high HG and/or high Ki-67 tumors. Our study suggests that when breast cancers is revealed to have high HG or high Ki-67 upon preoperative biopsy, flap reconstruction after mastectomy should be performed with caution from an oncologic point of view.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All patients provided signed informed consent to allow research assays to be carried on their tissue samples. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Seoul National University Hospital (IRB No. H-1602-132-744)

Consent for publication

N/A

Availability of data and material

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests

Funding

N/A

Authors' contributions

J.H.H. collected clinical data, analyzed and interpreted the data, wrote the main manuscript text. K.Y.H. collected clinical data, analyzed the data and wrote the main manuscript text. H.L. contributed to the oncologic analysis and interpretation of the data. H.M., W.H., D.N. collected the patients’ clinicopathological records and played critical roles in oncologic interpretation of the data. J.L., S.Y., and H.C. collected the patients’ information and prepared the figures and participated in analysis. U.S.J supervised the manuscript and study design, and played critical roles in interpretation of data. All authors reviewed the manuscript and are accountable for the work.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express sincere gratitude to Youngil Koh for providing oncologic insight and Do Young Yoon for helping with propensity score matching.

Panchal, H. & Matros, E. Current Trends in Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction. Plastic and reconstructive surgery 140, 7S-13S (2017).
Xavier Harmeling, J., et al. The effect of immediate breast reconstruction on the timing of adjuvant chemotherapy: a systematic review. Breast cancer research and treatment 153, 241-251 (2015).
Berbers, J., et al. 'Reconstruction: before or after postmastectomy radiotherapy?' A systematic review of the literature. European journal of cancer 50, 2752-2762 (2014).
Howard, M.A., et al. Breast cancer local recurrence after mastectomy and TRAM flap reconstruction: incidence and treatment options. Plastic and reconstructive surgery 117, 1381-1386 (2006).
Godfrey, P.M., Godfrey, N.V. & Romita, M.C. Immediate autogenous breast reconstruction in clinically advanced disease. Plastic and reconstructive surgery 95, 1039-1044 (1995).
Patani, N., Devalia, H., Anderson, A. & Mokbel, K. Oncological safety and patient satisfaction with skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction. Surgical oncology 17, 97-105 (2008).
Zhang, P., et al. Comparison of immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy and mastectomy alone for breast cancer: A meta-analysis. European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology 43, 285-293 (2017).
Gieni, M., et al. Local breast cancer recurrence after mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction for invasive cancer: a meta-analysis. Breast 21, 230-236 (2012).
Eriksen, C., et al. Immediate reconstruction with implants in women with invasive breast cancer does not affect oncological safety in a matched cohort study. Breast cancer research and treatment 127, 439-446 (2011).
Hidalgo, D.A., et al. Immediate reconstruction after complete skin-sparing mastectomy with autologous tissue. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 187, 17-21 (1998).
Disa, J.J., et al. Skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate autologous tissue reconstruction after whole-breast irradiation. Plastic and reconstructive surgery 111, 118-124 (2003).
Nelson, J.A. & Disa, J.J. Breast Reconstruction and Radiation Therapy: An Update. Plastic and reconstructive surgery 140, 60S-68S (2017).
El-Sabawi, B., Sosin, M., Carey, J.N., Nahabedian, M.Y. & Patel, K.M. Breast reconstruction and adjuvant therapy: A systematic review of surgical outcomes. Journal of surgical oncology 112, 458-464 (2015).
Newman, L.A., et al. Feasibility of immediate breast reconstruction for locally advanced breast cancer. Annals of surgical oncology 6, 671-675 (1999).
McCarthy, C.M., et al. Breast cancer recurrence following prosthetic, postmastectomy reconstruction: incidence, detection, and treatment. Plastic and reconstructive surgery 121, 381-388 (2008).
Park, S.H., et al. Oncologic Safety of Immediate Breast Reconstruction for Invasive Breast Cancer Patients: A Matched Case Control Study. Journal of breast cancer 19, 68-75 (2016).
Isern, A.E., et al. Risk of recurrence following delayed large flap reconstruction after mastectomy for breast cancer. The British journal of surgery 98, 659-666 (2011).
Edge, S.B., American Joint Committee on Cancer. & American Cancer Society. AJCC cancer staging handbook : from the AJCC cancer staging manual, (Springer, New York, 2010).
Wolff, A.C., et al. Recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists clinical practice guideline update. Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine 138, 241-256 (2014).
Hammond, M.E., et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College Of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 28, 2784-2795 (2010).
Perez, E.A., et al. HER2 testing in patients with breast cancer: poor correlation between weak positivity by immunohistochemistry and gene amplification by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Mayo Clinic proceedings 77, 148-154 (2002).
Elston, C.W. & Ellis, I.O. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 19, 403-410 (1991).
Jung, S.Y., et al. Ki-67 expression gives additional prognostic information on St. Gallen 2007 and Adjuvant! Online risk categories in early breast cancer. Annals of surgical oncology 16, 1112-1121 (2009).
Keam, B., et al. Ki-67 can be used for further classification of triple negative breast cancer into two subtypes with different response and prognosis. Breast cancer research : BCR 13, R22 (2011).
Le, C.P., et al. Chronic stress in mice remodels lymph vasculature to promote tumour cell dissemination. Nat Commun 7, 10634 (2016).
Neeman, E., Zmora, O. & Ben-Eliyahu, S. A new approach to reducing postsurgical cancer recurrence: perioperative targeting of catecholamines and prostaglandins. Clin Cancer Res 18, 4895-4902 (2012).
Zhou, L., et al. Propranolol Attenuates Surgical Stress-Induced Elevation of the Regulatory T Cell Response in Patients Undergoing Radical Mastectomy. J Immunol 196, 3460-3469 (2016).
Bygd, H.C., Forsmark, K.D. & Bratlie, K.M. The significance of macrophage phenotype in cancer and biomaterials. Clin Transl Med 3, 62 (2014).
Henson, D.E., Ries, L., Freedman, L.S. & Carriaga, M. Relationship among outcome, stage of disease, and histologic grade for 22,616 cases of breast cancer. The basis for a prognostic index. Cancer 68, 2142-2149 (1991).
Duffy, M.J., et al. Clinical use of biomarkers in breast cancer: Updated guidelines from the European Group on Tumor Markers (EGTM). Eur J Cancer 75, 284-298 (2017).
Hong, K.Y., et al. Opportunistic Biopsy of Internal Mammary Lymph Nodes During Immediate Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy for Breast Malignancies. Annals of surgical oncology 24, 1881-1888 (2017).
Lhenaff, M., et al. A single-center study on total mastectomy versus skin-sparing mastectomy in case of pure ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology (2019).

IBR : Immediate breast reconstruction; LRRFI : Locoregional recurrence-free interval; DFS : Disease-free survival; AJCC : American Joint Committee on Cancer, 7th ed.; ER : Estrogen receptor; PR : Progesterone receptor; HER2 : Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; HG : Histologic grade; NG : Nuclear grade; NSM : Nipple-sparing mastectomy; SSM : Skin-sparing mastectomy; TM : Total mastectomy; NAC : Nipple-areola complex; TRAM : Transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous; HR : Hormone receptor

Table 1. Patients demographics

Characteristics		Reconstruction type		p-value
Characteristics		*Implant (n=247)**	Flap (n=249)	p-value
Age, years	Average	43 ± 6.99	41 ± 8.73
Diagnosis				0.076
	IDC	164	172
	DCIS	46	50
	ILD	17	8
	LCIS	0	4
	Mixed	11	8
	Others	9	7
Mastectomy type				0.151
	TM	115	107
	SSM	64	84
	NSM	68	58
AJCC Stage				0.278
	0	47	57
	IA	99	82
	IB	1	0
	IIA	49	53
	IIB	24	26
	IIIA	20	19
	IIIB	0	3
	IIIC	7	9
Chemotherapy				0.647
	none	111	117
	perioperative	136	132
Radiotherapy				0.702
	none	195	200
	adjuvant	51	48
Nuclear grade, no. (%)				0.487
	1	4	4
	2	101	84
	3	94	100
Histological grade, no. (%)				0.896
	1	16	14
	2	104	95
	3	74	74
ER, no. (%)				0.462
	Negative	49	43
	Positive	198	206
PR, no. (%)				0.952
	Negative	76	76
	Positive	171	173
HER2, no. (%)				0.128
	Negative	174	193
	Positive	56	44
Ki67, no. (%)				0.014
	<10%	198	174
	≥10%	48	71

IDC, invasive ductal carcinoma; ILC, invasive lobular carcinoma; DCIS, ductal carcinoma in situ; LCIS, lobular carcinoma in situ; TM, total mastectomy; SSM, skin-sparing mastectomy; NSM, nipple-sparing mastectomy; AJCC, American Joint Committee on Cancer; ER, estrogen receptor; PR, progesterone receptor; HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2

*Implant group includes patients who received reconstruction with tissue expander

Table 2. Hazard ratio and p-value of disease-free interval in high histologic grade (grade 3) group using a Cox proportional hazard model in multivariate analysis

Characteristics	HR	95% CI
Characteristics	HR	Lower	Upper	p-value
Reconstruction type				0.018
Prosthesis	1.00
Flap	3.39	1.23	9.32
Stage				0.040
I	1.00
II	1.79	0.56	5.78
III	4.55	1.32	15.67
Hormone receptor				0.491
Positive	1.00
Negative	1.42	0.52	9.32
HER2				0.430
Positive	1.52	0.54	4.33
Negative	1.00

HR, Hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 30 Jan, 2020

Read the published version in BMC Cancer →

Editorial decision: Major revision
10 Dec, 2019
Review #2 received at journal
08 Dec, 2019
Reviewer #2 agreed at journal
20 Nov, 2019
Review #1 received at journal
01 Nov, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed at journal
29 Oct, 2019
Reviewers invited by journal
25 Jul, 2019
Submission checks completed at journal
28 Jun, 2019
Editor assigned by journal
28 Jun, 2019
Editor invited by journal
27 Jun, 2019
First submitted to journal
24 May, 2019

You are reading this older preprint version

Read the latest preprint version →

Oncologic outcomes after immediate breast reconstruction following mastectomy: Comparison of implant and flap using propensity score matching

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Background

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusions

Declarations

References

Abbreviations

Tables

Supplementary Files

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1