4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Quality-of-Life and Surgical Outcomes for Breast Cancer Patients Treated with Therapeutic Reduction Mammoplasty Versus Mastectomy with Immediate Reconstruction

Journal

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 27, Issue 11, Pages 4502-4512

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-020-08574-8

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Therapeutic reduction mammoplasty (TRM) is a safe and effective surgical technique that has oncologic outcomes comparable with those achieved by mastectomy. This study aimed to compare surgical and patient-reported outcomes between breast cancer patients treated with TRM and those who had mastectomy with immediate reconstruction (MIR). Methods A 4-year, single-institution, retrospective cohort study analyzed breast cancer patients undergoing TRM and MIR. Patient characteristics and perioperative data were collected from electronic records. Patient-reported outcome data were collected via BREAST-Q questionnaires preoperatively, then 3 months and 12 months postoperatively. A subgroup analysis was performed on locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) patients for TRM and MIR. Results The study included 249 breast reconstructions, of which 77 (31%) were TRM and 172 (69%) were MIR. The mean follow-up time was 2.4 +/- 1.2 years. Compared with MIR, TRM had significantly lower major complication rates (9% vs 21%; p = 0.02) and fewer revisionary surgeries (5% vs 37%; p < 0.0001). At 1 year postoperatively, TRM had a significantly greater change in satisfaction with breasts, (+ 27.7 vs + 4.6; p < 0.01) and sexual well-being (+ 20.0 vs - 5.5; p = 0.02) than MIR. Conclusion For select breast cancer patients, TRM continues to be a safe and effective alternative to mastectomy. The current study demonstrated that TRM patients had fewer major complications and revisionary surgeries, as well as better patient-reported outcomes than MIR.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available