J Reconstr Microsurg 2017; 33(05): 312-317
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1598201
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

National Breast Reconstruction Utilization in the Setting of Postmastectomy Radiotherapy

Shantanu N. Razdan
1   Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
,
Peter G. Cordeiro
1   Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
,
Claudia R. Albornoz
1   Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
,
Joseph J. Disa
1   Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
,
Hina J. Panchal
1   Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
,
Alice Y. Ho
2   Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
,
Adeyiza O. Momoh
3   Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan
,
Evan Matros
1   Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

19 September 2016

14 December 2016

Publication Date:
24 February 2017 (online)

Abstract

Background Immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) is often deferred, when postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) is anticipated, due to high complication rates. Nonetheless, because of robust data supporting improved health-related quality of life associated with reconstruction, physicians and patients may be more accepting of tradeoffs. The current study explores national trends of IBR utilization rates and methods in the setting of PMRT, using the National Cancer Database (NCDB). The study hypothesis is that prosthetic techniques have become the most common method of IBR in the setting of PMRT.

Methods NCDB was queried from 2004 to 2013 for women, who underwent mastectomy with or without IBR. Patients were grouped according to PMRT status. Multivariate logistic regression was used to calculate odds of IBR in the setting of PMRT. Trend analyses were done for rates and methods of IBR using Poisson regression to determine incidence rate ratios (IRRs).

Results In multivariate analysis, radiated patients were 30% less likely to receive IBR (p < 0.05). The rate increase in IBR was greater in radiated compared with nonradiated patients (IRR: 1.12 vs. 1.09). Rates of reconstruction increased more so in radiated compared with nonradiated patients for both implants (IRR 1.15 vs. 1.11) and autologous techniques (IRR 1.08 vs. 1.06). Autologous reconstructions were more common in those receiving PMRT until 2005 (p < 0.05), with no predominant technique thereafter.

Conclusion Although IBR remains a relative contraindication, rates of IBR are increasing to a greater extent in patients receiving PMRT. Implants have surpassed autologous techniques as the most commonly used method of breast reconstruction in this setting.

 
  • References

  • 1 Albornoz CR, Bach PB, Mehrara BJ , et al. A paradigm shift in U.S. Breast reconstruction: increasing implant rates. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 131 (1) 15-23
  • 2 Albornoz CR, Cordeiro PG, Pusic AL , et al. Diminishing relative contraindications for immediate breast reconstruction: a multicenter study. J Am Coll Surg 2014; 219 (4) 788-795
  • 3 Farhangkhoee H, Matros E, Disa J. Trends and concepts in post-mastectomy breast reconstruction. J Surg Oncol 2016; 113 (8) 891-894
  • 4 Garfein ES. The privilege of advocacy: legislating awareness of breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 128 (3) 803-804
  • 5 Al-Ghazal SK, Sully L, Fallowfield L, Blamey RW. The psychological impact of immediate rather than delayed breast reconstruction. Eur J Surg Oncol 2000; 26 (1) 17-19
  • 6 Chao LF, Patel KM, Chen SC , et al. Monitoring patient-centered outcomes through the progression of breast reconstruction: a multicentered prospective longitudinal evaluation. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2014; 146 (2) 299-308
  • 7 Elder EE, Brandberg Y, Björklund T , et al. Quality of life and patient satisfaction in breast cancer patients after immediate breast reconstruction: a prospective study. Breast 2005; 14 (3) 201-208
  • 8 Teo I, Reece GP, Christie IC , et al. Body image and quality of life of breast cancer patients: influence of timing and stage of breast reconstruction. Psychooncology 2016; 25 (9) 1106-1112
  • 9 Clemens MW, Kronowitz SJ. Current perspectives on radiation therapy in autologous and prosthetic breast reconstruction. Gland Surg 2015; 4 (3) 222-231
  • 10 Kronowitz SJ, Robb GL. Radiation therapy and breast reconstruction: a critical review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 124 (2) 395-408
  • 11 Carlson RW, Allred DC, Anderson BO , et al; NCCN Breast Cancer Clinical Practice Guidelines Panel. Breast cancer. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2009; 7 (2) 122-192
  • 12 Frasier LL, Holden S, Holden T , et al. Temporal Trends in Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy and Breast Reconstruction Associated with Changes in National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines. JAMA Oncol 2016; 2 (1) 95-101
  • 13 Yao K, Liederbach E, Lutfi W , et al. Increased utilization of postmastectomy radiotherapy in the United States from 2003 to 2011 in patients with one to three tumor positive nodes. J Surg Oncol 2015; 112 (8) 809-814
  • 14 Butler PD, Nelson JA, Fischer JP , et al. Racial and age disparities persist in immediate breast reconstruction: an updated analysis of 48,564 patients from the 2005 to 2011 American College of Surgeons National Surgery Quality Improvement Program data sets. Am J Surg 2016; 212 (1) 96-101
  • 15 Kwok AC, Goodwin IA, Ying J, Agarwal JP. National trends and complication rates after bilateral mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction from 2005 to 2012. Am J Surg 2015; 210 (3) 512-516
  • 16 Bilimoria KY, Stewart AK, Winchester DP, Ko CY. The National Cancer Data Base: a powerful initiative to improve cancer care in the United States. Ann Surg Oncol 2008; 15 (3) 683-690
  • 17 Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45 (6) 613-619
  • 18 Kronowitz SJ. Delayed-immediate breast reconstruction: technical and timing considerations. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 125 (2) 463-474
  • 19 Jagsi R, Li Y, Morrow M , et al. Patient-reported Quality of Life and Satisfaction with Cosmetic Outcomes after Breast Conservation and Mastectomy with and without Reconstruction: results of a survey of breast cancer survivors. Ann Surg 2015; 261 (6) 1198-1206
  • 20 Alderman AK, Kuhn LE, Lowery JC, Wilkins EG. Does patient satisfaction with breast reconstruction change over time? Two-year results of the Michigan Breast Reconstruction Outcomes Study. J Am Coll Surg 2007; 204 (1) 7-12
  • 21 Kelley BP, Ahmed R, Kidwell KM, Kozlow JH, Chung KC, Momoh AO. A systematic review of morbidity associated with autologous breast reconstruction before and after exposure to radiotherapy: are current practices ideal?. Ann Surg Oncol 2014; 21 (5) 1732-1738
  • 22 Agarwal S, Kidwell KM, Farberg A, Kozlow JH, Chung KC, Momoh AO. Immediate reconstruction of the radiated breast: recent trends contrary to traditional standards. Ann Surg Oncol 2015; 22 (8) 2551-2559
  • 23 Jagsi R, Abrahamse P, Hawley ST, Graff JJ, Hamilton AS, Katz SJ. Underascertainment of radiotherapy receipt in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry data. Cancer 2012; 118 (2) 333-341
  • 24 Walker GV, Giordano SH, Williams M , et al. Muddy water? Variation in reporting receipt of breast cancer radiation therapy by population-based tumor registries. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2013; 86 (4) 686-693