No abstract

The standard approach to breast-conserving surgery is wide local excision of the tumor and radiotherapy. However, a significant number of patients require further surgery to obtain oncologically clear margins, and may obtain a poor cosmetic result following adjuvant radiotherapy. Oncoplastic techniques may result in improved cosmesis, but few studies have investigated the oncological advantage of this approach. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare tumor clearance and the need for further margin excision following standard wide local excision (group A, 121 patients), and oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (group B, 37 patients). These techniques included therapeutic mammoplasty, sub-axillary fat pad rotation mammoplasty, thoraco-epigastric flap, and central flap. Compared to standard surgery (group A), oncoplastic techniques (group B) can be employed for significantly larger tumors (17.6 mm versus 23.9 mm, p = 0.002). Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery results in higher mean specimen weights (58.1 g versus 231.1 g, p < 0.0001), higher specimen volumes (112.3 cm(3) versus 484.5 cm(3) , p < 0.0001), and wider clear margins (6.1 mm versus 14.3 mm, p < 0.0001), resulting in lower rates of further surgery (28.9% versus 5.4%, p = 0.002). There was no statistical increase in complication rates following oncoplastic surgery. Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery is more successful than standard wide local excision in treating larger tumors and obtaining wider radial margins, thus reducing the need for further margin excision, which delays adjuvant therapy. There was no increase in postoperative complication rate using an oncoplastic approach.

Background The B-MaP-C study aimed to determine alterations to breast cancer (BC) management during the peak transmission period of the UK COVID-19 pandemic and the potential impact of these treatment decisions. Methods This was a national cohort study of patients with early BC undergoing multidisciplinary team (MDT)-guided treatment recommendations during the pandemic, designated ‘standard’ or ‘COVID-altered’, in the preoperative, operative and post-operative setting. Findings Of 3776 patients (from 64 UK units) in the study, 2246 (59%) had ‘COVID-altered’ management. ‘Bridging’ endocrine therapy was used (n = 951) where theatre capacity was reduced. There was increasing access to COVID-19 low-risk theatres during the study period (59%). In line with national guidance, immediate breast reconstruction was avoided (n = 299). Where adjuvant chemotherapy was omitted (n = 81), the median benefit was only 3% (IQR 2–9%) using ‘NHS Predict’. There was the rapid adoption of new evidence-based hypofractionated radiotherapy (n = 781, from 46 units). Only 14 patients (1%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during their treatment journey. Conclusions The majority of ‘COVID-altered’ management decisions were largely in line with pre-COVID evidence-based guidelines, implying that breast cancer survival outcomes are unlikely to be negatively impacted by the pandemic. However, in this study, the potential impact of delays to BC presentation or diagnosis remains unknown.

Quilting significantly reduced overall seroma volumes after LD breast reconstruction including extended LD, and is recommended in combination with surgical drains.

No abstract