Purpose As our hospitals conserve and re-allocate resources during the COVID-19 crisis, there is urgent need to determine how best to continue caring for breast cancer patients. During the time window before the COVID-19 critical peak and particularly thereafter, as hospitals are able to resume cancer operations, we anticipate that there will be great need to maximize efficiency to treat breast cancer. The goal of this study is to present a same-day protocol that minimizes resource utilization to enable hospitals to increase inpatient capacity, while providing care for breast cancer patients undergoing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction during the COVID-19 crisis. Methods IRB exempt patient quality improvement initiative was conducted to detail the operationalization of a novel same-day breast reconstruction protocol. Consecutive patients having undergone immediate breast reconstruction were prospectively enrolled between February and March of 2020 at Massachusetts General Hospital during the COVID-19 crisis. Peri-operative results and postoperative complications were summarized. Results Time interval from surgical closure to patient discharge was 5.02 ± 1.29 h. All patients were discharged home, with no re-admissions or emergency department visits. No postoperative complications were observed. Conclusion This report provides an instruction manual to operationalize a same-day breast reconstruction protocol, to meet demands of providing appropriate cancer treatment during times of unprecedented resource limitations. Pre-pectoral implantbased breast reconstruction can be the definitive procedure or be used as a bridge to autologous reconstruction. Importantly, we hope this work will be helpful to our patients and community as we emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Capsular contracture is a common adverse outcome following implant breast reconstruction, often associated with radiation treatment. The authors hypothesize that muscle fibrosis is the main contributor of breast reconstruction contracture after radiation. Retrospective chart review identified patients that underwent DTI reconstruction with pre-or post-operative breast irradiation. Signs of capsular contracture were assessed using clinic notes and independent graders reviewing two-dimensional images and anatomic landmarks. Capsular contracture rate was greater in the subpectoral vs. prepectoral group (n = 28, 51.8% vs. n = 12, 30.0%, p = 0.02). When compared to prepectoral DTI reconstruction in irradiated patients, subpectoral implant placement was nearly 4 times as likely to result in capsular contracture (p < 0.01). Rates of explantation, infection, tissue necrosis, and hematoma were comparable between groups. We also found that when subpectoral patients present with breast contracture, chemoparalysis of the muscle alone can resolve breast asymmetry, corroborating that muscle is a key contributor to breast contracture. As prepectoral breast reconstruction is gaining popularity, there have been questions regarding outcome following radiation treatment. This study suggest that prepectoral breast reconstruction is safe in an irradiated patient population, and in fact compares favorably with regard to breast contracture.

Background: Continued evolution of implant-based breast reconstruction involves immediate placement of the implant above the pectoralis muscle. The shift to prepectoral breast reconstruction is driven by goals of decreasing morbidity such as breast animation deformity, range-of-motion problems, and pain, and is made possible by improvements in mastectomy skin flap viability. To define clinical factors to guide patient selection for direct-to-implant prepectoral implant reconstruction, this study compares safety endpoints and risk factors between prepectoral and subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction cohorts. The authors hypothesized that prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction is a safe alternative to subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Methods: Retrospective chart review identified patients who underwent prepectoral and subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction, performed by a team of five surgical oncologists and two plastic surgeons. Univariate analysis compared patient characteristics between cohorts. A penalized logistic regression model was constructed to identify relationships between postoperative complications and covariate risk factors. Results: A cohort of 114 prepectoral direct-to-implant patients was compared with 142 subpectoral direct-to-implant patients. The results of the penalized regression model demonstrated equivalence in safety metrics between prepectoral direct-to-implant and subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction, including seroma (p = 0.0883), cancer recurrence (p = 0.876), explantation (p = 0.992), capsular contracture (p = 0.158), mastectomy skin flap necrosis (p = 0.769), infection (p = 0.523), hematoma (p = 0.228), and revision (p = 0.122). Conclusions: This study demonstrates that prepectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction is a safe alternative to subpectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction. Given the low morbidity and elimination of animation deformity, prepectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction should be considered when the mastectomy skin flap is robust. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Introduction: Analysis of quality of life (QOL) outcomes is an important aspect of lymphedema treatment since this disease can substantially impact QOL in affected individuals. There are a growing number of studies reporting patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) for patients with lymphedema. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review of outcomes and utilization of PROMs following surgical treatment of lymphedema. Methods: A literature search of four databases was performed up to and including March, 2019. Studies included reported on QOL outcomes after physiologic procedures, defined as either lymphovenous bypass (LVB) or vascularized lymph node transplant (VLNT), to treat upper and/or lower extremity primary or secondary lymphedema. Results: In total, 850 studies were screened—of which, 32 studies were included in this review. Lymphovenous bypass was the surgical intervention in 16 studies, VLNT in 11 studies, and both in 5 studies. Of the 32 total studies, 16 used validated survey tools. The most commonly used PROM was the lymph quality of life measure for limb lymphedema (LYMQOL) (12 studies). In the remaining four studies, the upper limb lymphedema 27 scale (ULL27), the short form 36 questionnaire (SF-36), the lymphedema functioning, disability and health questionnaire (Lymph-ICF), and lymphedema life impact scale (LLIS) were each used once. QOL improvement following surgical treatment was noted in all studies. Conclusions: Physiologic surgical treatment of lymphedema results in improved QOL outcomes in most patients. The use of validated PROM tools is increasing but there is no current consensus on use. Future research to evaluate the psychometric properties of PROMs in lymphedema is needed to guide the development and use of lymphedema-specific tools.

Therapeutic, III.

Background A high frequency of hypogonadism has been reported in male patients with advanced cancer. Objectives To evaluate the association among low testosterone, symptom burden and survival in cancer patients. Methods 119/131 (91%) consecutive male cancer patients had an endocrine evaluation of total/free/bioavailable testosterone (TT, FT, BT, respectively), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP), vitamin B12, thyroid stimulating hormone, 25-hydroxy vitamin D and cortisol levels when presenting with symptoms of fatigue and/or anorexia-cachexia. Symptoms were evaluated by the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale. We examined the correlation with Spearman test and survival with log rank test and Cox-regression analysis. Results The median age was 64; majority were white 85 (71%). Median TT was 209ng/dL (normal ≥200 ng/dL), FT was 4.4 ng/dL (normal ≥9 ng/dL), and BT was 22.0 ng/dL (normal ≥61ng/dL). Low TT, FT, and BT values were all associated with worse fatigue (p≤0.04), poor performance status (p≤0.05), weight loss (p≤0.01), and opioid use (p≤0.005). Low TT and FT were associated with increased anxiety (p≤0.04), decreased feeling of well-being (p≤0.04), and increased dyspnea (p≤0.05); while BT was only associated with anorexia (p=0.05). Decreased TT, FT, and BT values were all significantly associated with elevated CRP, low albumin and hemoglobin. In multivariate analysis, decreased survival was associated with low TT (HR 1.66; p=0.034), declining ECOG performance status (HR 1.55; p=0.004), high CRP (HR 3.28; p<0.001), and decreased albumin (HR 2.52; p<0.001). Conclusion In male cancer patients, low testosterone was associated with systemic inflammation, weight loss, increased symptom burden, and decreased survival.

Introduction There has been a sharp rise in the rate of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy over the last decade, despite the low incidence of new primary cancers predicted for the contralateral breast. This study compares the postoperative complication rates between the diseased breast treated with mastectomy and the contralateral breast that underwent prophylactic mastectomy, followed by immediate bilateral breast implant reconstruction. We hypothesized that there will be no difference in postoperative outcomes between prophylactic and diseased groups, as the surgical approach would be comparable. Methods After IRB approval, a retrospective chart review identified consecutive unilateral breast cancer patients who underwent bilateral mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction between May 2008 and May 2018 at a tertiary academic medical center. A paired sample t-test and a penalized logic regression model were constructed to identify relationships between breast laterality and outcomes. Results A total of 1117 patients with unilateral breast cancer who underwent bilateral mastectomy and immediate breast implant reconstruction were identified. Rates of capsular contracture and infection were significantly greater in the diseased breast, while rates of revision were significantly greater in the contralateral prophylactic breast. There were no statistically significant differences between breasts in rates of explant, skin flap necrosis or hematoma. When adjusted for confounding variables, a higher infection rate was observed in the diseased breast. Conclusion This study detected significant differences in postoperative complication rates between the diseased and prophylactic breasts following bilateral mastectomy and immediate breast implant reconstruction. Postoperative complications occurred more frequently in the diseased breast compared with low rates of complications in the contralateral prophylactic breast. This information is helpful for preoperative decision making, as surgeons and patients carefully weigh the additional risks of contralateral prophylactic procedure.

No abstract