METHODS: A cross sectional, retrospective study analysed MA and IABRs performed from January 2007 to December 2017 and their pre- and post-operative anterior chest radiographs. The change in Cobb's angle (degrees) less than 1 year, 1 to 2 years, more than 2 years post-operatively were analysed using GE Healthcare Centricity Picture Archive and Communications Systems.
RESULTS: 537 patients underwent mastectomy; 76 fulfilled the inclusion criteria (36 IABR, 40 MA). No significant difference existed between mean pre- and post-operative Cobb's angle change across all 3 groups, less than 1 year (MA 3.57±3.84, IABR 3.316±2.72, p=0.81), 1 to 2 years (MA 1.84±4.81, IABR -2.68±3.21, p=0.577) and more than 2 years post-operatively (MA -1.14±5.30, IABR -0.94±5.10, p=0.898). However raw data indicated IABR improved spinal alignment in the short and intermediate period post-operatively. Among IABR, free flap breast reconstruction improved spinal alignment compared to pedicled flaps [free flaps: 2.21±3.28, pedicled flaps: 0.01±3.67 (p=0.027)].
CONCLUSION: IABR has a positive impact on spinal alignment in early and intermediate post-operative period compared to MA, especially in women with larger breast volume. Physical benefits of IABR should be highlighted to improve patient's access to breast reconstruction globally.
METHODS: We studied 522 patients who underwent mastectomy between 1998 and 2002 and followed them up until 2008. We defined PMLRR as recurrence to the axilla, supraclavicular nodes and or chest wall. ILR was defined as PMLRR occurring as an isolated event. Prognostic factors for locoregional recurrence were determined using the Cox proportional hazards regression model.
RESULTS: The overall PMLRR rate was 16.4%. ILR developed in 42 of 522 patients (8.0%). Within this subgroup, 25 (59.5%) remained disease free after treatment while 17 (40.5%) suffered disease progression. Univariate analyses identified race, age, size, stage, margin involvement, lymph node involvement, grade, lymphovascular invasion and ER status as probable prognostic factors for ILR. Cox regression resulted in only stage III disease and margin involvement as independent prognostic factors. The hazard of ILR was 2.5 times higher when the margins were involved compared to when they were clear (aHRR 2.5; 95% CI 1.3 to 5.0). Similarly, compared with stage I those with Stage II (aHRR 2.1; 95%CI 0.6 to 6.8) and stage III (aHRR 4.6; 95%CI 1.4 to 15.9) had worse prognosis for ILR.
CONCLUSION: Margin involvement and stage III disease were identified to be independent prognostic factors for ILR. Close follow-up of high risk patients and prompt treatment of locoregional recurrence were recommended.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was designed to assess surgeons' and patients' perceptions toward breast reconstruction. Questionnaires were distributed to general and breast surgeons in East Coast Malaysian hospitals and Hospital Kuala Lumpur and to postmastectomy patients with and without breast reconstruction at the Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia and Hospital Raja Perempuan Zainab II. The response rates were 82.5% for the surgeons (n = 33), 95.4% for the patients with reconstruction (n = 63), and 95.5% for the patients without reconstruction (n = 278).
RESULTS: The median surgeon age and experience was 42 and 6 years, respectively. Each surgeon saw an average of 20 new breast cancer cases annually. Most surgeons (86.7%) discussed reconstruction options with their patients but had only referred an average of 4 patients for reconstruction during a 3-year period. Surgeons' concerns regarding the qualitative outcome increased the likelihood of a breast reconstruction discussion (β = 4.833; P = .044). The women who underwent breast reconstruction were younger (mean age, 42 vs. 50 years), were more often working (69.4% vs. 42.2%), and more often had previous awareness of the option (90.3% vs. 44.3%). The most common reasons for undergoing breast reconstruction were "to feel more balanced" (92.1%) and "surgeon's strong recommendation" (92.1%). Previous knowledge of breast reconstruction increased the likelihood of reconstruction (odds ratio, 5.805; P = .026). Although 70% of surgeons thought that patients would not be interested in reconstruction, only 37.9% of patients with previous awareness reported having no interest.
CONCLUSION: The low reconstruction rate (20.6%) can be attributed to the low referral rate. Patients' likelihood to undergo reconstruction with their surgeon's recommendation and with previous awareness were reflective of the surgeons' strong influence on their patients. Thus, clarification of surgeons' hypothetical criticisms could conceivably increase the reconstructive surgery rate.