Download PDF
J Reconstr Microsurg 2023; 39(04): 264-271
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1736319
Original Article

Influence of Triple-Negative versus Luminal A Breast Cancer Subtype on Choice of Autologous versus Implant-Based Delayed-Immediate Breast Reconstruction

Ryan M. Dickey 
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
,
Joshua Amaya 
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
,
Sumeet S. Teotia   *
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
,
Nicholas T. Haddock   *
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Triple-negative (TN) and luminal A breast cancer molecular subtypes have divergent clinical and prognostic characteristics for breast cancer patients. Our study aims to compare the reconstructive choice of these two groups from the time they receive a tissue expander (TE) to the time they complete autologous or implant-based breast reconstruction.

Methods A total of 255 patients who underwent delayed-immediate breast reconstruction with TE placement from 2013 to 2017 diagnosed with either TN (n = 73) or luminal A (n = 182) invasive breast cancer subtype seen by two surgeons at a single institution were identified. Preference of autologous and implant-based reconstruction was analyzed, along with TE complications, race, age, body mass index (BMI), smoking, adjuvant therapy, and comorbidities.

Results There was a significant difference in the choice of implant- or autologous-based reconstruction among these two groups (p < 0.05). A greater proportion of luminal A patients underwent implant-based reconstruction (63.47%) and a greater proportion of TN patients underwent autologous-based reconstruction (53.13%). With regard to TE outcomes, there was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to duration of TE placement by reconstructive type or TE surgical complications. Significantly, more TN patients underwent radiation therapy (p < 0.01) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (p < 0.0001) than luminal A patients. BMI, comorbidities, radiation therapy, and overall TE complications were identified as predictive factors of patients electing for autologous reconstruction over implants.

Conclusion TN breast cancer patients mostly chose autologous-based reconstruction, while luminal A patients chose implant-based reconstruction. Both patient groups carried their TEs for similar duration with similar complication profile. Radiation therapy is likely a major factor in the decision for the type of delayed-immediate reconstruction among this population.

Keywords

breast reconstruction - luminal A - triple negative

* These authors should both be considered last authors




Publication History

Received: 16 March 2021

Accepted: 27 August 2021

Article published online:
19 October 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Kumar P, Aggarwal R. An overview of triple-negative breast cancer. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2016; 293 (02) 247-269
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Hennigs A, Riedel F, Gondos A. et al. Prognosis of breast cancer molecular subtypes in routine clinical care: a large prospective cohort study. BMC Cancer 2016; 16 (01) 734
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Sandberg LJ, Clemens MW, Symmans WF. et al. Molecular profiling using breast cancer subtype to plan for breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 139 (03) 586e-596e
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Wu W, Cheng S, Deng H, Wu J, Mao K, Cao M. Impact of breast cancer subtype defined by immunohistochemistry hormone receptor and HER2 status on the incidence of immediate postmastectomy reconstruction. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016; 95 (03) e2547
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Dawood S, Hu R, Homes MD. et al. Defining breast cancer prognosis based on molecular phenotypes: results from a large cohort study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011; 126 (01) 185-192
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Santillan AA, Kiluk JV, Cox JM. et al. Outcomes of locoregional recurrence after surgical chest wall resection and reconstruction for breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2008; 15 (05) 1322-1329
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009; 42 (02) 377-381
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 8 Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL. et al; REDCap Consortium. The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform 2019; 95: 103208
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 9 Magill LJ, Robertson FP, Jell G, Mosahebi A, Keshtgar M. Determining the outcomes of post-mastectomy radiation therapy delivered to the definitive implant in patients undergoing one- and two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2017; 70 (10) 1329-1335
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 El-Sabawi B, Sosin M, Carey JN, Nahabedian MY, Patel KM. Breast reconstruction and adjuvant therapy: a systematic review of surgical outcomes. J Surg Oncol 2015; 112 (05) 458-464
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Zhao R, Tran BNN, Doval AF. et al. A multicenter analysis examining patients undergoing conversion of implant-based breast reconstruction to abdominally based free tissue transfer. J Reconstr Microsurg 2018; 34 (09) 685-691
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Lee K-T, Mun G-H. Optimal sequencing of postmastectomy radiotherapy and two stages of prosthetic reconstruction: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 2017; 24 (05) 1262-1268
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Cordeiro PG, Albornoz CR, McCormick B. et al. What is the optimum timing of postmastectomy radiotherapy in two-stage prosthetic reconstruction: radiation to the tissue expander or permanent implant?. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015; 135 (06) 1509-1517
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Mirzabeigi MN, Smartt JM, Nelson JA, Fosnot J, Serletti JM, Wu LC. An assessment of the risks and benefits of immediate autologous breast reconstruction in patients undergoing postmastectomy radiation therapy. Ann Plast Surg 2013; 71 (02) 149-155
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Rogers NE, Allen RJ. Radiation effects on breast reconstruction with the deep inferior epigastric perforator flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002; 109 (06) 1919-1924 , discussion 1925–1926
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Craig ES, Lentz R, Srinivasa D. et al. Three-dimensional analysis of how radiation affects deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap volume, projection, and position in breast cancer reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2018; 81 (02) 235-239
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Masoomi H, Paydar KZ, Evans GRD, Tan E, Lane KT, Wirth GA. Does immediate tissue expander placement increase immediate postoperative complications in patients with breast cancer?. Am Surg 2015; 81 (02) 143-149
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Frey JD, Choi M, Salibian AA, Karp NS. Comparison of outcomes with tissue expander, immediate implant, and autologous breast reconstruction in greater than 1000 nipple-sparing mastectomies. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 139 (06) 1300-1310
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Heiman AJ, Gabbireddy SR, Kotamarti VS, Ricci JA. A meta-analysis of autologous microsurgical breast reconstruction and timing of adjuvant radiation therapy. J Reconstr Microsurg 2021; 37 (04) 336-345
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Ho AY, Hu ZI, Mehrara BJ, Wilkins EG. Radiotherapy in the setting of breast reconstruction: types, techniques, and timing. Lancet Oncol 2017; 18 (12) e742-e753
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 O'Connell RL, Di Micco R, Khabra K. et al. Comparison of immediate versus delayed diep flap reconstruction in women who require postmastectomy radiotherapy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2018; 142 (03) 594-605
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Kronowitz SJ, Hunt KK, Kuerer HM. et al. Delayed-immediate breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 113 (06) 1617-1628
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Kamel GN, Nash D, Jacobson J. et al. Patient-reported satisfaction and quality of life in postmastectomy radiated patients: a comparison between delayed and delayed immediate autologous breast reconstruction in a predominantly minority patient population. J Reconstr Microsurg 2019; 35 (06) 445-451
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Huis in 't Veld EA, Long C, Sue GR, Chattopadhyay A, Lee GK. Analysis of aesthetic outcomes and patient satisfaction after delayed-immediate autologous breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2018; 80 (5S, suppl 5): S303-S307
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Albino FP, Patel KM, Smith JR, Nahabedian MY. Delayed versus delayed-immediate autologous breast reconstruction: a blinded evaluation of aesthetic outcomes. Arch Plast Surg 2014; 41 (03) 264-270
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Phillips BT, Mercier-Couture G, Xue AS. et al. Is tissue expansion worth it? Comparative outcomes of skin-preserving versus delayed autologous breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2020; 8 (11) e3217
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Kung TA, Kidwell KM, Speth KA. et al. Radiation-induced skin changes after postmastectomy radiation therapy: a pilot study on indicators for timing of delayed breast reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg 2019; 35 (03) 209-215
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Odom EB, Qureshi AA, Mull AB. et al. The impact of radiation and its timing on donor internal mammary vessel histopathology at the time of autologous microvascular breast reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg 2017; 33 (07) 509-517
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Mull AB, Qureshi AA, Zubovic E. et al. Impact of time interval between radiation and free autologous breast reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg 2017; 33 (02) 130-136
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Teotia SS, Venutolo C, Haddock NT. Outcomes in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy undergoing immediate breast reconstruction: effect of timing, postoperative complications, and delay to radiation therapy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019; 144 (05) 732e-742e
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Berry T, Brooks S, Sydow N. et al. Complication rates of radiation on tissue expander and autologous tissue breast reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol 2010; 17 (Suppl. 03) 202-210
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Baker JL, Mailey B, Tokin CA, Blair SL, Wallace AM. Postmastectomy reconstruction is associated with improved survival in patients with invasive breast cancer: a single-institution study. Am Surg 2013; 79 (10) 977-981
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Wu S-G, Zhang W-W, Sun J-Y, Lin Q, He Z-Y. Comparison of survival outcomes of locally advanced breast cancer patients receiving post-mastectomy radiotherapy with and without immediate breast reconstruction: a population-based analysis. Cancer Manag Res 2018; 10: 1993-2002
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar