Current practice and short‐term outcomes of therapeutic mammaplasty in the international TeaM multicentre prospective cohort study. BJS 2018; 105: 1778-1792.
Published: 22nd August 2018
Authors: R. L. O'Connell, E. Baker, A. Trickey, T. Rattay, L. Whisker, R. D. Macmillan et al.
Therapeutic mammaplasty, which combines breast reduction and mastopexy techniques with tumour excision, may extend the boundaries of breast‐conserving surgery and improve outcomes for patients, but current practice is unknown and high‐quality outcome data are lacking. This prospective multicentre cohort study aimed to explore the practice and short‐term outcomes of the technique.
Consecutive patients undergoing therapeutic mammaplasty at participating centres between 1 September 2016 and 30 June 2017 were recruited to the study. Demographic, preoperative, operative, oncological and complication data were collected. The primary outcome was unplanned reoperation for complications within 30 days of surgery. Secondary outcomes included re‐excision rates and time to adjuvant therapy.
Overall, 880 patients underwent 899 therapeutic mammaplasty procedures at 50 centres. The most common indications were avoidance of poor cosmetic outcomes associated with standard breast‐conserving surgery (702 procedures, 78·1 per cent) or avoidance of mastectomy (379, 42·2 per cent). Wise‐pattern skin incisions were the most common (429 of 899, 47·7 per cent), but a range of incisions and nipple–areola pedicles were used. Immediate contralateral symmetrization was performed in one‐third of cases (284 of 880, 32·3 per cent). In total, 205 patients (23·3 per cent) developed a complication, but only 25 (2·8 per cent) required reoperation. Median postoperative lesion size was 24·5 (i.q.r. 16–38) mm. Incomplete excision was seen in 132 procedures (14·7 per cent), but completion mastectomy was required for only 51 lesions (5·7 per cent). Median time to adjuvant therapy was 54 (i.q.r. 42–66) days.
Therapeutic mammaplasty is a safe and effective alternative to mastectomy or standard breast‐conserving surgery. Further work is required to explore the impact of the technique on quality of life, and to establish cost‐effectiveness.Full text
You may also be interested in
Population‐based study of the effect of preoperative breast MRI on the surgical management of ductal carcinoma in situ.
Authors: K. B. I. M. Keymeulen, S. M. E. Geurts, M. B. I. Lobbes, E. M. Heuts, L. E. M. Duijm, L. F. S. Kooreman et al.
Nationwide population‐based study of the impact of immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy on the timing of adjuvant chemotherapy.
Authors: E. Heeg, J. X. Harmeling, B. E. Becherer, P. J. Marang‐van de Mheen, M. T. F. D. Vrancken Peeters, M. A. M. Mureau et al.
International multidisciplinary expert panel consensus on breast reconstruction and radiotherapy. BJS 2019; 106: 1327-1340.
Authors: M. B. Nava, J. R. Benson, W. Audretsch, P. Blondeel, G. Catanuto, M. W. Clemens et al.
Prognostic impact of repeat sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence. BJS 2019; 106: 574-585.
Authors: I. G. M. Poodt, G. Vugts, R. J. Schipper, R. M. H. Roumen, H. J. T. Rutten, A. J. G. Maaskant‐Braat et al.
Notes: No impact
Effect of preoperative injection of superparamagnetic iron oxide particles on rates of sentinel lymph node dissection in women undergoing surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ (SentiNot study). BJS 2019; 106: 720-728.
Authors: A. Karakatsanis, A.‐F. Hersi, L. Pistiolis, R. Olofsson Bagge, P. M. Lykoudis, S. Eriksson et al.
Short‐term cost‐effectiveness of one‐stage implant‐based breast reconstruction with an acellular dermal matrix versus two‐stage expander‐implant reconstruction from a multicentre randomized clinical trial. BJS 2019; 106: 586-595.
Authors: V. L. Negenborn, J. M. Smit, R. E. G. Dikmans, H. A. H. Winters, J. W. R. Twisk, P. Q. Ruhé et al.
Autologous fat transplantation alters gene expression patterns related to inflammation and hypoxia in the irradiated human breast. BJS 2019; 106: 563-573.
Authors: A. Lindegren, I. Schultz, I. Sinha, L. Cheung, A. A. Khan, M. Tekle et al.
Notes: Effects on fibrosis after radiotherapy
Authors: F. Magnoni, G. Massari, G. Santomauro, V. Bagnardi, E. Pagan, G. Peruzzotti et al.
Authors: Y. Grant, R. Al‐Khudairi, E. St John, M. Barschkett, D. Cunningham, R. Al‐Mufti et al.
Notes: Reoperations expensive
Meta‐analysis of sentinel lymph node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with initial biopsy‐proven node‐positive breast cancer. BJS 2018; 105: 1541-1552.
Authors: S. R. Tee, L. A. Devane, D. Evoy, J. Rothwell, J. Geraghty, R. S. Prichard et al.
Notes: In selected patients using dual tracer
Feasibility study of combined dynamic imaging and lymphaticovenous anastomosis surgery for breast cancer‐related lymphoedema. BJS 2019; 106: 100-110.
Authors: A. A. Khan, I. Hernan, J. A. Adamthwaite, K. W. D. Ramsey
Notes: Effective in selected patients
Randomized clinical trial
INTEND II randomized clinical trial of intraoperative duct endoscopy in pathological nipple discharge. BJS 2018; 105: 1583-1590.
Authors: G. Gui, A. Agusti, D. Twelves, S. Tang, M. Kabir, C. Montgomery et al.
Notes: Identifies causative lesion