We have located links that may give you full text access.
EVALUATION STUDIES
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Failure rate and cosmesis of immediate tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction after postmastectomy irradiation.
Clinical Breast Cancer 2012 December
BACKGROUND: This study reports the rate of breast reconstruction failure and cosmetic outcomes after postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) with temporary tissue expanders (TEs) or implants in place.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety-four patients underwent mastectomy (93 unilateral, 1 bilateral; 95 cases total) and immediate TE reconstruction followed by PMRT. Ninety TEs and 5 permanent implants were irradiated. All patients received a dose of 5400 cGy given in 180-cGy fractions to the reconstructed breast. Twenty-one patients (22%) received tangents alone and 74 patients (78%) were treated with tangents and a supraclavicular field using a monoisocentric technique. Bolus was used in 91 patients (96%). Eighty-eight patients (93%) received chemotherapy and 78 patients (82%) received endocrine therapy.
RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 24.1 months, 19 patients (20%) experienced failure of reconstruction. The 1-, 2-, and 3-year actuarial rate of reconstruction failure was 9.7%, 19.3%, and 25.5%, respectively. Infection was the most common cause of failure. Of the 19 failures, 8 patients underwent salvage procedures with flap reconstruction. Univariate analysis was performed examining age, chemotherapy use, hormone therapy use, use of a supraclavicular field, smoking status, diabetes, hypertension, and menopausal status. No risk factors were found to be associated with reconstruction failure. In patients who did not experience reconstruction failure, good/excellent cosmesis was observed in 75% of patients.
CONCLUSION: In the current series of women with a high risk of locoregional recurrence, PMRT with a TE/implant in place provides good cosmesis in the majority of women, with an acceptable risk of expander or implant loss.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety-four patients underwent mastectomy (93 unilateral, 1 bilateral; 95 cases total) and immediate TE reconstruction followed by PMRT. Ninety TEs and 5 permanent implants were irradiated. All patients received a dose of 5400 cGy given in 180-cGy fractions to the reconstructed breast. Twenty-one patients (22%) received tangents alone and 74 patients (78%) were treated with tangents and a supraclavicular field using a monoisocentric technique. Bolus was used in 91 patients (96%). Eighty-eight patients (93%) received chemotherapy and 78 patients (82%) received endocrine therapy.
RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 24.1 months, 19 patients (20%) experienced failure of reconstruction. The 1-, 2-, and 3-year actuarial rate of reconstruction failure was 9.7%, 19.3%, and 25.5%, respectively. Infection was the most common cause of failure. Of the 19 failures, 8 patients underwent salvage procedures with flap reconstruction. Univariate analysis was performed examining age, chemotherapy use, hormone therapy use, use of a supraclavicular field, smoking status, diabetes, hypertension, and menopausal status. No risk factors were found to be associated with reconstruction failure. In patients who did not experience reconstruction failure, good/excellent cosmesis was observed in 75% of patients.
CONCLUSION: In the current series of women with a high risk of locoregional recurrence, PMRT with a TE/implant in place provides good cosmesis in the majority of women, with an acceptable risk of expander or implant loss.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app