Implant outcomes following breast conservation therapy in patients with history of augmentation mammoplasty

Abigail Krull , Sarah Mclaughlin , Santo Maimone , James Jakub , Brian Rinker , Laura Vallow , Lauren Cornell
{"title":"Implant outcomes following breast conservation therapy in patients with history of augmentation mammoplasty","authors":"Abigail Krull ,&nbsp;Sarah Mclaughlin ,&nbsp;Santo Maimone ,&nbsp;James Jakub ,&nbsp;Brian Rinker ,&nbsp;Laura Vallow ,&nbsp;Lauren Cornell","doi":"10.1016/j.soi.2024.100107","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>In women who are eligible, breast conservation therapy (BCT) is often the preferred local treatment for early-stage BC. Concern for implant contracture in patients undergoing BCT including radiation therapy (RT) with prior augmentation mammoplasty has been expressed in several prior studies. The exact incidence of patient dissatisfaction remains unknown.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A single institution retrospective review was performed for patients with prior augmentation mammoplasty who received BCT for BC between 2010 and 2020. 77 patients met inclusion criteria. Of these, 34 were consented and completed study survey which included validated BREAST-Q modules. Data was reviewed with primarily descriptive analyses. P-values were calculated from Fisher’s exact test and Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>34 patients completed study survey, with 55.9 % of patients (n=19) having silicone implants and 44.1 % (n=15) having saline. Most implants (91.1 %, n=31) were retropectoral. Median total dose of RT was 4005 cGy and median age of implants at BC diagnosis was 16 years (range 2, 40). 41 % (n=14) of patients reported dissatisfaction with breast appearance, with median BREAST-Q RASCH score for satisfaction with breasts 48 (range 20–82). No differences in breast satisfaction were seen in patients with silicone implants compared to saline (p= 0.171) although there were improved reported physical well-being chest scores in patients with saline implants (median 100 vs 89; p = 0.039).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>A large proportion of women are dissatisfied with implant appearance following BCT with RT. Future larger studies are needed to explore contributing factors for dissatisfaction including implant type, location, RT dosing and fractionation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":101191,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Oncology Insight","volume":"1 4","pages":"Article 100107"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Oncology Insight","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950247024001166","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

In women who are eligible, breast conservation therapy (BCT) is often the preferred local treatment for early-stage BC. Concern for implant contracture in patients undergoing BCT including radiation therapy (RT) with prior augmentation mammoplasty has been expressed in several prior studies. The exact incidence of patient dissatisfaction remains unknown.

Methods

A single institution retrospective review was performed for patients with prior augmentation mammoplasty who received BCT for BC between 2010 and 2020. 77 patients met inclusion criteria. Of these, 34 were consented and completed study survey which included validated BREAST-Q modules. Data was reviewed with primarily descriptive analyses. P-values were calculated from Fisher’s exact test and Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test.

Results

34 patients completed study survey, with 55.9 % of patients (n=19) having silicone implants and 44.1 % (n=15) having saline. Most implants (91.1 %, n=31) were retropectoral. Median total dose of RT was 4005 cGy and median age of implants at BC diagnosis was 16 years (range 2, 40). 41 % (n=14) of patients reported dissatisfaction with breast appearance, with median BREAST-Q RASCH score for satisfaction with breasts 48 (range 20–82). No differences in breast satisfaction were seen in patients with silicone implants compared to saline (p= 0.171) although there were improved reported physical well-being chest scores in patients with saline implants (median 100 vs 89; p = 0.039).

Conclusions

A large proportion of women are dissatisfied with implant appearance following BCT with RT. Future larger studies are needed to explore contributing factors for dissatisfaction including implant type, location, RT dosing and fractionation.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
有隆胸手术史的患者接受保乳治疗后的植入效果
背景在符合条件的女性中,保乳疗法(BCT)通常是治疗早期乳腺癌的首选局部疗法。在之前的一些研究中,接受包括放射治疗(RT)在内的保乳治疗(BCT)的患者对植入物挛缩表示担忧。方法对 2010 年至 2020 年期间接受 BCT 治疗的曾接受过隆乳术的患者进行了单机构回顾性研究。77名患者符合纳入标准。其中 34 名患者同意并完成了研究调查,其中包括经过验证的 BREAST-Q 模块。数据审查主要采用描述性分析。结果34名患者完成了研究调查,其中55.9%的患者(19人)植入了硅胶假体,44.1%的患者(15人)植入了生理盐水假体。大多数植入物(91.1%,n=31)位于胸骨后。RT总剂量中位数为4005 cGy,BC诊断时植入物的中位年龄为16岁(2-40岁不等)。41%(14 人)的患者对乳房外观不满意,BREAST-Q RASCH 评分中位数为 48 分(20-82 分不等)。硅胶假体患者的乳房满意度与生理盐水假体患者相比没有差异(p= 0.171),但生理盐水假体患者的胸部健康评分有所提高(中位数 100 vs 89;p= 0.039)。今后需要进行更大规模的研究,以探讨导致不满意的因素,包括植入物类型、位置、RT 剂量和分次。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Robotic right posterior sectionectomy for biliary cystadenoma. Description of standardized approach in anatomical liver resection Prognostic factors for patients with T2/T3 gallbladder cancer: Does extent of resection matter? Hepatic and peri-hepatic cytoreductive surgery in low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasms Optimal surveillance for detecting sarcoma lung metastasis – A systematic review Impact of clinicopathologic factors on the number of lymph nodes examined in patients with melanoma
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1