, 2009 Cancer Update
Transcript of , 2009 Cancer Update
![Page 1: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
BC Surgical Oncology Breast Cancer Update
ox, MD, FRCSC, 2009
![Page 2: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Breast Reconstruction
![Page 3: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Disclosures
Paid consultant to Allergan and Lifecell
![Page 4: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Learning Objectives
Review basics of Breast Reconstruction
Review current concepts in Breast Reconstruction
Review new trends and technologies in breast recon
Controversies:Reconstruction and recurrence ContraindicationsTRAM vs. DIEPSkin Sparing MastectomyNAC Sparing Mastectomy
![Page 5: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Breast Reconstruction
Currently, approximately 2500 new cases of breast cancer per year in BC
? Number of mastectomies
Reconstruction rates in literature range from 3%-40%
In US, 5 year average rate (1999-2003) for breast reconstruction following mastectomy was 23.6%-probably lower in BC
![Page 6: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
BC Cancer Agency Guidelines
8. Potential contraindications to breast reconstruction
Severe lung disease
Advanced diabetes
Recent heart attack
Heavy smokers
Metastatic disease
Those whose emotions, motivation or personal circumstances make it difficult for them to cope with additional surgery and healing
![Page 7: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Definitions
Autologous Reconstruction- breast mound is formed from patients own tissue only:
TRAM- Transverse Rectus Abdominus flapDIEP- Deep Inferior Epigastric Artery FlapSIEA- Superficial Inferior Epigastric Artery FlapLatissimusDorsiSGAP, IGAP, TUG
![Page 8: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Non Autologous Reconstruction- Breast mound formed from an implant in either one or two stages
SalineSiliconeForm stable silicone
![Page 9: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Immediate Reconstruction- Reconstruction started at same time as mastectomy
Delayed Reconstruction- Reconstruction started at some time after mastectomy
Skin Sparing Mastectomy (SSM)- only nipple areolarcomplex removed
Nipple Sparing Mastectomy- all of breast skin envelope left including nipple areolar complex
Specific guidelines exist for this exist (tumor size, location)Excellent option for prophylactic mastectomies
![Page 10: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Flap- Tissue moved on the body that has its own blood supply
Free Flap- Flap that requires a microvascularanastamosis
![Page 11: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Anatomy
![Page 12: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
![Page 13: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Delayed Left PedicledIpsilateral TRAM
![Page 14: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Bilateral Immediate TRAM
![Page 15: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Reduction Pattern Mastectomy and Immediate Non autologous recon
![Page 16: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Immediate Style 150260g gel
100cc NS at time of surgery (260-290cc total)
120cc added POD 17
![Page 17: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
2 year follow up
Required capsulectomy on R (radiated) side
![Page 18: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Timing Issues
Immediate ReconstructionAdvantages – can maintain breast skin and possibly NAC
Less surgery for patient
? Better for patients psychologically
Disadvantages- unpredictability of mastectomy flap survival
Final pathology may change treatment plan- reconstruction may impact adjuvant therapy or vice versa.
Patients less satisfied with result
![Page 19: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Delayed Reconstruction
DisadvantagesIncreased surgery for patientLoss of advantage of Skin sparing techniquesMay have significant soft tissue deficits
AdvantagesStable soft tissue envelopeFinal pathology and all adjuvant therapies knownPatient has “lived with” mastectomy defect
![Page 20: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Impact of Reconstruction on Outcomes
Mortenson et al ( Arch of Surgery September 2004): Immediate reconstruction resulted in increased wound complications, but no delay in delivery of adjuvant chemotherapy
Gouy et al ( Annals of Surgical Oncology, February 2005):48 immediate reconstruction, 181 no reconstruction, 32 delayed reconstruction. No delay in chemotherapy, no delay in radiotherapy, no differences in survival.
![Page 21: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Bezuhly et al (Cancer October 2009): review of the NCI SEER registry. Showed improved breast cancer specific survival amongst all reconstructive patients compared to mastectomy alone. Greatest survival benefit in implant reconstruction patients under 50, followed by autologous reconstruction under 50.
Conclusion: Immediate breast reconstruction is associated with a decreased breast cancer specific mortality, particularly among younger women.
![Page 22: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Surveillance
In the past, concerns have been raised regarding the possibility of a reconstruction “hiding” recurrence and delaying treatment to affect outcome
This has resulted in patients occasionally being told they should wait 5 years before having reconstruction
![Page 23: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Mccarthy et al have demonstrated that for non autologous reconstruction, there is no difference in recurrence rates compared to non reconstructed matched patients
Howard et al have demonstrated the same finding for autologous TRAM patients
In both groups, recurrence was always detected as skin changes
There was no difference in outcome in either group compared to non reconstructed patients with recurrence
The possibility of recurrence on chest wall exists, but is not common. Langstein et al demonstrated that this group did not have a difference in outcome, nor any delay in detection
![Page 24: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
No evidence that breast reconstruction has negative impact on recurrence rates, survival or surveillance.
![Page 25: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Current Techniques for Breast Reconstruction
FlapsTRAM- pedicled or freePerforator flapsPedicled Lat dorsi and implant
Impant BasedTwo stage Tissue expander to ImplantSingle stage deviceDermal Matrix single stage
![Page 26: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
TRAM Flap
Gold standard for many years
Uses abdominal tissue based on perforators from Superior epigastric artery in RA muscle
Requires sacrifice of central 2/3 (muscle sparing) or all of ipsilateral RA muscle
Flap tunneled into mastectomy defect through IMF
![Page 27: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
TRAM
3 -4 hours for unilateral
5 hours for bilateral
3-4 day hospitalization
6-12 week recovery
Very low (<1/500) flap loss rate
![Page 28: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
DIEP
Deep Inferior Epigastric Artery Perforator Flap
Designed on a single perforator (ideally) based on the DIEA and vein
Perforator and DIE system harvested with no muscle, with goal of maintaining functional abdominal wall
Requires microsurgical anastamosis into IMA or Thoracodorsal vessels
![Page 29: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
DIEP
5-7 hours unilateral
10-14 hours bilateral
5-7 day hospitalization
Shorter recovery
Higher (1-4%) total flap loss rate
![Page 30: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
TRAM vs. DIEP
Why choose one over the other?Argument for a DIEP is that it has much lower donor site morbidity (bulge, hernia, weakness).However, takes much longer, higher flap necrosis rate, comparable fat necrosis rates.Most literature compares free TRAM to DIEP. None for pedicled TRAM to DIEP.Man et al (PRS Sept. 2009) did a meta analysis and critical review of Free TRAM to DIEP. 37 studies identified: Found DIEP flap reduced abdominal wall morbidity by half, but had a two fold risk of fat necrosis and flap loss compared to TRAM.
![Page 31: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
TRAM vs. DIEP
Ascherman et al ( PRS Jan 2008) reviewed 117 patients with pedicled TRAMS:
.85% hernia rate1.7% abdominal bulge rate2.6% abdominal tightness that resolvedNo mesh infections or removal
![Page 32: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
TRAM vs. DIEP
Often surgeon dependent
My personal choice:
Young patients with high abdominal wall demands- DIEP
Bilateral Reconstructions- usually DIEP
Older unilateral patients with low demands- pedicled TRAM
![Page 33: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Implant Reconstruction
2 stageTE placed at time of mastectomy, usually submuscular to pectoralis major and serratus fascia laterally, occasionally deep to Rectus fascia as wellExpansion done in office starting 2-3 weeks after surgerySecond stage 2-3 months after final expansion
![Page 34: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Implant Reconstruction
Single StageDevice which is a combined tissue expander/ implant used. Fill tube and port removed after final expansion volume achieved
Dermal Matrix used to cover implant in lower pole
![Page 35: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Implant Reconstruction
First stage (mastectomy and TE placement) – 2.5 hours, overnight stay
Second stage- 1 hour daycare procedure
![Page 36: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Implants
Saline- silicone elastomer shell filled with saline intra operatively
DisadvantagesPalpabilityVisibility, rippling
AdvantagesNot siliconeRuptures readily detected
![Page 37: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Silicone
Use discontinued in 1994 in NA as a result of FDA moratorium
Concerns regarding:
Failure rates and local tissue complications such as silicone granulomas, capsular contracture, implant extrusion
Auto immune diseases and systemic illness related to silicone
![Page 38: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Currently Available Silicone Implants
Re introduced in Canada in 2006 after multiple large cohort studies found no link between silicone and systemic illness
Current implants have a much thicker outer shell which virtually eliminates gel bleed. Failure rate reduced to approximately 1% per year
Gel is crosslinked and cohesive, so even with shell failure, gel does not escape
![Page 39: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Advantages of silicone implantsBetter feel, less rippling, less palpability
DisadvantagesDetection of shell failurePatient concerns regarding silicone
![Page 40: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Other changes to implants include textured surfaces, which may reduce capsular contracture rates, as well as shaped implants, which allow more options in terms of breast shape.
![Page 41: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
New Techniques
![Page 42: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
DIEP FLAP
![Page 43: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
![Page 44: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Transverse dissection through abdomen.
TRAM on right and DIEP on left.
![Page 45: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Flap being elevated
![Page 46: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Perforators are dissected out.
No muscle is sacrificed and innervation is preserved.
Lateral rowLateral rowMedial rowMedial row
![Page 47: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Intercostal nerves travel Intercostal nerves travel over the vesselsover the vessels
Lateral edge of rectusLateral edge of rectus
![Page 48: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Flap usually elevated on 1 -2 perforators.
Remainder of the perforators are cut and clipped at the level of the fascia.
![Page 49: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
![Page 50: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
DIEPanastomosed to IMA
![Page 51: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
DIEPanastomosed to IMA
Vein dissected until single vein seen.
Leaves a long pedicle that may twist . Surgicell to reduce the twist.
![Page 52: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Final insetting with closure of SSM and abdomen
![Page 53: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Dermal Matrices
Acellular dermal matrices (usually from cadaver or porcine dermis) can be used to replace the lower muscular sling in TE/Implant reconstruction.
May result in less pain, decreased capsular contracture, lower revision rates, and better implant coverage and aesthetic result
Expensive!! However, avoid second operating, avoid use of tissue expander ( $1400.00 disposable device) and lower revision rates.
![Page 54: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
Breast Reconstruction
Immediate vs Delayed Reconstruction
Newman LA, Kuerer HM, Hunt KK, et al. Newman LA, Kuerer HM, Hunt KK, et al. Ann Surg OncolAnn Surg Oncol. 1998;5:620. 1998;5:620--626.626.American Society of Plastic Surgeons, 2004. Available at http://American Society of Plastic Surgeons, 2004. Available at http://www.plasticsurgery.org/.www.plasticsurgery.org/.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1975-1989 1990-2000 2003
Year
Perc
enta
ge o
f Rec
onst
ruct
ions Delayed Reconstruction
Immediate Reconstruction
![Page 55: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
Implant/Expander Coverage and Support
![Page 56: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
Lower Pole Expander Coverage and Support
Intraoperative Steps
While removing staples sequentially, suture AlloDerm®
to pectoralis major muscle
Courtesy of Scott L. Spear MD, Georgetown University School of MCourtesy of Scott L. Spear MD, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC. edicine, Washington, DC.
![Page 57: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
Lower Pole Expander Coverage and Support
Intraoperative Step
Drain placement
Courtesy of Ron Israeli, MD, FACS, Great Neck, NY.Courtesy of Ron Israeli, MD, FACS, Great Neck, NY.
![Page 58: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
Right NAC sparing, left SSM
![Page 59: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
Because of the possibility of single stage reconstruction, and the potential decreased revision rates, there may be a good economic model for using dermal matrix products, in addition to better patient outcomes.
![Page 60: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
Fat Grafting
Autologous fat grafting has been used in the past for improvement of contour abnormalities
Recently, has been reported with good results for:Lumpectomy defectsImprovement of radiated tissueTotal reconstruction
![Page 61: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
Fat Grafting
In addition to adding autologous volume, fat in lipoaspirate has been shown to contain mesenchymal stem cells
Thought that these can have a positive influence on surrounding tissues
Has demonstrated promising effects on radiated tissue, both prior to reconstruction to improve tissue and after reconstruction
Concern has been raised about surveillance in fat grafted breasts
![Page 62: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
There have been several studies that have looked at imaging of breasts after fat grafting.
All have demonstrated that radiologists can distinguish fat grafts (including calcification) from other areas of concern
Core biopsy recommended if any uncertainty exists
![Page 63: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
Pre-OP Photos
![Page 64: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
Post-OP Photos- 1 week
![Page 65: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
Post op Photos- 6 months
![Page 66: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
Controversies
Radiation
NAC Sparing Mastectomy
![Page 67: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
Radiation
Effects of radiation on tissue-fibrosis and scarring which changes quality of skin, muscleColour changesTelangiectasiaDecreased vascualrity
![Page 68: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
Radiation
Effects of Radiation on breast reconstructionPossible fat necrosis in flapsContracture of skin envelopeIncreased capsular contracture around implantsThinning of coverage over implants
![Page 69: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
Radiation
As a result of the side effects of radiation, some have proposed only offering delayed reconstruction to patients who need radiation
Many authors have suggested only autologous reconstruction for these patients
![Page 70: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
Radiation
There is increasing evidence that well perfused flaps will tolerate post op radiation well, and therefore patients can have immediate reconstruction
In our centre, we still offer immediate non autologous reconstruction to appropriate patients who will need adjuvant therapy, knowing that they may need to convert to some type of autologous coverage.
Several studies have shown that a radiation dose is not affected by either the tissue expander itself or the metal plate within it.
![Page 71: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
Radiation- Tissue expander implant
![Page 72: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/72.jpg)
Radiated extended Latissimusdorsi
![Page 73: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/73.jpg)
Radiated Delayed TE Reconstruction
![Page 74: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/74.jpg)
Post Radiation and Tattoo
![Page 75: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/75.jpg)
Radiation- Summary
Is not a contraindication to reconstruction
Can impact result of reconstruction in setting of immediate reconstruction (not an issue in autologous delayed reconstruction)
Requires ongoing communication between radoncand surgeon
![Page 76: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/76.jpg)
Nipple Sparing Mastectomy
Preservation of NAC allows maintenance of all skin envelope (no flattening of breast) and improved aesthetics.
Concern about leaving breast tissue or tumour behind, especially with centrally located tumours.
No Consensus, but recommendations in literature include:Tumour<3cm diameter and not multicentric
Tumour>2cm from NAC
Clinically negative lymph nodes
Frozen section and/or permanent section of sub nipple core of tissue
![Page 77: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/77.jpg)
NAC Sparing Mastectomy
Paepke et al ( Ann Surg August, 2009) reported on 109 NAC sparing mastectomies in 96 patients, including 33 breasts with malignancy within areolarmarging. All done with frozen section control, resulting in 12% conversion to SSM. Mean follow up of 34 months with no recurrence within NAC.
2 distant mets, 1 chest wall recurrence and 1 axillary recurrence
Gerber et al ( Ann Surg. March, 2009) reported on 246 patients with 101 month follow up:
48 SSM, 60 NSM, 130 MRM and autologous reconstruction. There were no significant differences between groups in local recurrence rates or distant metastasis rates.
![Page 78: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/78.jpg)
Training in Skin and NAC Sparing Mastectomy
Significantly increased incidence of MFN with SSM
Learning curve
Small incisions
Most Canadian trained plastic surgery graduates are well trained in breast reconstruction.
How much exposure to advanced mastectomy techniques is there in General surgery progams?
Are there enough GS trained to meet demand?
?? What constitutes adequate training, adequate volumes per year with these techniques?
![Page 79: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/79.jpg)
Barriers to Reconstruction
Resources- Plastic Surgeon, OR time,
Information/ Knowledge- patient or physician
Communication
Timing- referral too late- delay from end of chemo to surgery would potentially have negative effect on outcome
![Page 80: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/80.jpg)
Contraindications to Reconstruction
Obese: (BMI >30) CONCLUSION: Obese patients, in contrast to normal weight and overweight patients, have a statistically significantly higher risk for developing overall (one or more) and multiple flap complications, overall donor-site complications, TRAM flap delayed wound healing, and minor flap necrosis. (Spear et al, PRS, March 2007 in pedicled TRAM flaps)
Smoking:CONCLUSIONS: Logistic regression identified active smoking as a statistically significant risk factor for developing multiple flap complications and TRAM infection, while former smoking was a risk factor for multiple flap complications and TRAM delayed wound healing. Thus, active and former smoking should similarly be considered contraindications for pedicled TRAM flap breast reconstruction, unless the patient has stopped smoking for more than 4 weeks before surgery. (Spear et al, PRS,December, 2005)
![Page 81: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/81.jpg)
Locally Advanced
Is it reasonable?
- Clarity of definition
![Page 82: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/82.jpg)
Results
30 patients met all the criteriaStage:
IIIA: 15(50%)IIIB: 13 (26%)IIIC: 2 (6.7%)
Median age 47 years (33-64)Median follow-up time 3.51 years (1-9.4)
Reconstructive technique 22 (73%) unilateral TRAM flaps2 (6.7%) bilateral TRAM flaps5 (16.7%) unilateral latissimus dorsi (LD) flaps1 (3.3%) LD + TRAM flap
![Page 83: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/83.jpg)
Local recurrence and distant relapse
Study No. Patients
Median Follow-up (months)
Local recurrence (%)
Distant relapse (%)
Ho 30 42.1 10 23.3
Newman3 50 58.4 10 32
Slavin15 161 64 11 --
Foster4 252 48 (mean) 3 11
Styblo16 21 26 5 29
Godfrey17 21 25.2 14 19
![Page 84: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/84.jpg)
Contraindications to Reconstruction in UBC Program
BMI >35
Active Smokers
NOT Locally advanced: Protocol is changed:If flap reconstruction, have all therapy as neoadjuvant (avoids radiating flap)If non autolgous, neoadjuvant chemo, surgery, then radiate Tissue expander
? Resource utilization for Locally advanced patients
![Page 85: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/85.jpg)
Immediate Becker 50 150 g
![Page 86: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/86.jpg)
Immediate Style 150
![Page 87: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/87.jpg)
59 yo L cystosarcoma phylloides
Mastectomy with LD for coverage
Delayed Style 150 reconstruction
![Page 88: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/88.jpg)
11 months - delayed reconstruction with SH 14.5 cm device
150cc placed in OR
1 fill and second stage done 2 months later
![Page 89: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/89.jpg)
![Page 90: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/90.jpg)
Delayed, Radiated Ped TRAM
![Page 91: , 2009 Cancer Update](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042120/6257efcd07de7968bf664134/html5/thumbnails/91.jpg)
Thank You