Advertisement

Breast Reconstruction in the Setting of Surgical Prevention for Breast Cancer

Risk and Prevention (ME Wood, Section Editor)
  • 9 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Risk and Prevention

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Breast reconstruction after prophylactic mastectomy is an important component of the surgical prevention of breast cancer. Women who undergo bilateral prophylactic mastectomy view reconstruction as part of their treatment and the choice to pursue a contralateral mastectomy is influenced by the availability of reconstruction.

Recent Findings

There has been increased data available on both medical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes in reconstruction after mastectomy. This review of recent literature includes trends and outcomes with contralateral and bilateral prophylactic mastectomy with reconstruction, discussion of outcomes in implant and autologous tissue-based reconstruction, advancements in pre-pectoral implant placement, and new techniques of simultaneous mastectomy with reconstruction combined with gynecologic risk-reducing surgery.

Summary

Choice of reconstruction after prophylactic mastectomy is based on patient factors, availability of specialist services, and patient preference. Informed discussion with patients, plastic surgery, surgical oncology, and gynecology is necessary to determine the best option for each patient.

Keywords

Prophylactic mastectomy Breast reconstruction Outcomes Patient satisfaction 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Candice M. Leach and Meredith S. Collins declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    American Cancer Society, Inc., Surveillance Research. Breast Cancer facts and figures 2017–2018. 2017. https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/breast-cancer-facts-and-figures/breast-cancer-facts-and-figures-2017-2018.pdf. Accessed December 4, 2017.
  2. 2.
    Tuttle TM, Habermann EB, Grund EH, Morris TJ, Virnig BA. Increasing use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for breast cancer patients: a trend toward more aggressive surgical treatment. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(33):5203–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Desai S, Jena AB. Do celebrity endorsements matter? Observational study of BRCA gene testing and mastectomy rates after Angelina Jolie’s New York Times editorial. BMJ. 2016;355:i6357.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Raphael J, Verma S, Hewitt P, Eisen A. The impact of Angelina Jolie (AJ)‘s story on genetic referral and testing at an academic cancer centre in Canada. J Genet Couns. 2016;25:1309–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Claus EB, Schildkraut JM, Thompson WD, Risch NJ. The genetic attributable risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Cancer. 1996;77:2318–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    National Cancer Institute. Genetics of breast and gynecologic cancers (PDQ®) - Health Professional Version. https://www.cancer.gov/types/breast/hp/breast-ovarian-genetics-pdq#link/_113_toc. Accessed December 4, 2017.
  7. 7.
    Buys SS, Sandbach J, Gammon A, et al. A study of over 35,000 women with breast cancer tested with a 25-gene panel of hereditary cancer genes. Cancer. 2017;123(10):1721–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hunt KK, Euhus DM, Boughey JC, Chagpar AB, Feldman SM, Hansen NM, et al. Society of surgical oncology: breast disease working group statement on prophylactic (risk-reducing) mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(2):375–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rebbeck TR, Freibel T, Lynch HT, et al. Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy reduces breast cancer risk in BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 mutation carriers: the PROSE study group. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(6):1055–2062.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wong SM, Freedman RA, Sagara Y, Aydogan F, Barry WT, Golshan M. Growing use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy despite no improvement in long-term survival for invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg. 2017;265(3):581–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hoskin TL, Heikin TJ, Degnim AC, et al. Use of immediate breast reconstruction and choice for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Surgery. 2016;159(4):1199–209.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Agarwal S, Kidwell KM, Kraft CT, Kozlow JH, Sabel MS, Chung KC, et al. Defining the relationship between patient decisions to undergo breast reconstruction and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135(3):661–70.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ashfaq A, McGhan LJ, Pockaj BA, et al. Impact of breast reconstruction on the decision to undergo contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(9):2934–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Momoh AO, Cohen WA, Kidwell KM. Tradeofffs associated with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in women choosing breast reconstruction. Ann Surg. 2017;266(1):158–64.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Silva AK, Lapin B, Yao KA, Song DH, Sisco M. The effect of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy on perioperative complications in women undergoing immediate breast reconstruction: a NSQIP analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(11):3474–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Buchanan PJ, Abdulghani M, Waljee JF, Kozlow JH, Sabel MS, Newman LA, et al. An analysis of the decision made for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138(1):29–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gopie JP, Hilhorst MT, Kleijne A, Timman R, Menke-Pluymers MBE, Hofer SOP, et al. Women’s motives to opt for either implant or DIEP-flap breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2011;64(8):1062–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Semple J, Metcalfe K, Lynch HT, et al. International rates of breast reconstruction after prophylactic mastectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(12):3817–22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Frost MH, Schaid DJ, Sellers TA, Slezak JM, Arnold PG, Woods JE, et al. Long-term satisfaction and psychological and social function following bilateral prophylactic mastectomy. JAMA. 2000;284(3):319–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McCarthy CM, Hamill JB, Hyungjin MK, et al. Impact of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy and immediate reconstruction on health-related quality of life in women at high risk for breast carcinoma: results of the mastectomy reconstruction outcomes consortium study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(9):2502–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Metcalf KA, Semple JL, Narod SA. Satisfaction with breast reconstruction in women with bilateral prophylactic mastectomy: a descriptive study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;114(2):360–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Manning AT, Wood C, Eaton A, et al. Nipple-sparing mastectomy in patients with BRCA1/2 mutations and variants of uncertain significance. Br J Surg. 2015;103(11):1354–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jakub JW, Peled AW, Gray RJ, Greenup RA, Kiluk JV, Sacchini V, et al. Oncologic safety of prophylactic nipple-sparing mastectomy in a population with BRCA mutations: a multi-institutional study. JAMA Surg. 2018;153(2):123–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Murthy V, Chamberlain RS. Defining a place for nipple sparing mastectomy in modern breast care: an evidence based review. Breast J. 2013;19(6):571–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Spear SL, Willey SC, Feldman ED, Cocilovo C, Sidawy M, al-Attar A, et al. Nipple-sparing mastectomy for prophylactic and therapeutic indications. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128(5):1005–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dent BL, Miller JA, Eden DJ, et al. Tumor-to-nipple distance as a predictor of nipple involvement: expanding the inclusion criteria for nipple-sparing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(1):1e–8e.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Krajewski AC, Boughey JC, Degnim AC. Expanded indications and improved outcomes for nipple-sparing mastectomy over time. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(10):3317–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Metcalfe KA, Cil TD, Semple JL, Li LDX, Bagher S, Zhong T, et al. Long-term psychosocial functioning in women with bilateral prophylactic mastectomy: does preservation of the nipple-areolar complex make a difference? Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(10):3324–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bailey CR, Ogbuagu O, Baltodano PA. Quality-of-life outcomes improve with nipple-sparing mastectomy and breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(2):219–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wei CH, Scott AM, Price AN, Miller HC, Klassen AF, Jhanwar SM, et al. Psychological and sexual well-being following nipple-sparing mastectomy and reconstruction. Breast J. 2016;22(1):10–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Platt J, Zhong T. Patient-centered breast reconstruction based on health-related quality-of-life evidence. Clin Plast Surg. 2018;45(1):137–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Spear SL, Rottman SJ, Seiboth LA, Hanna CM. Breast reconstruction using a staged nipple-sparing mastectomy following mastopexy or reduction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129(3):572–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Colwell AS, Tessler O, Lin AM, Liao E, Winograd J, Cetrulo CL, et al. Breast reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy: predictors of complications, reconstruction outcomes, and 5-year trends. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133(3):496–506.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lam TC, Hsieh F, Boyages J. The effects of postmastectomy adjuvant radiotherapy on immediate two-stage prosthetic breast reconstruction: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;132(3):511–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kronowitz SJ. Delayed-immediate breast reconstruction: technical and timing considerations. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125(2):463–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Billig J, Jagsi R, Qi J, Hamill JB, Kim HM, Pusic AL, et al. Should immediate autologous breast reconstruction be considered in women who require postmastectomy radiation therapy? A prospective analysis of outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139(6):1279–88.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Khansa I, Wang D, Coriddi M, Tiwari P. Timing of Prophylactiv hysterectomy-oophorectomy, mastectomy, and microsurgical breast reconstruction in BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 carriers. Microsurgery. 2014;34(4):271–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Khadim MF, Eastwood P, Price J, Morrison P, Khan K. Multidisciplinary one-stage risk-reducing gynaecological and breast surgery with immediate reconstruction in BRCA-gene carrier women. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2013;39(12):1346–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hunsiner V, Marchac AC, Derder M, et al. A new strategy for prophylactic surgery in BRCA women: combined mastectomy and laparoscopic salpingo-oophorectomy with immediate reconstruction by double DIEP flap. Ann Chir Plast Esthet. 2016;61(3):177–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Spear SL, Pennanen M, Barter J, Burke JB. Prophylactic mastectomy, oophorectomy, hysterectomy, and immediate transverse rectus abdominis muscle flap reconstruction in a BRCA-2 positive patient. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;103(2):548–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Albornoz CR, Bach PB, Mehrara BJ, Disa JJ, Pusic AL, McCarthy CM, et al. A paradigm shift in U.S. breast reconstruction: increasing implant rates. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131(1):15–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Panchal H, Matros E. Current trends in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(5S):7S–13S.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Basta MN, Gerety PA, Serletti JM, Kovach SJ, Fischer JP. A systematic review and head-to-head meta-analysis of outcomes following direct-to-implant versus conventional two-stage implant reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136(60):1135–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Corban J, Shash H, Safran T, Sheppard-Jones N, Fouda–Neel O. A systematic review of complications associated with direct implant vs. tissue expanders following wise pattern skin-sparing mastectomy. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2017;70(9):1191–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Eriksen C, Lindgren EN, Frisell J, et al. A prospective randomized study comparing two different expander approaches in implant-based breast reconstruction: one stage versus two stages. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130(2):254–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Susarla S, Ganske I, Helliwell L, et al. Comparison of clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction in immediate single-stage versus two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015;135(1):1e–8e.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Boughey JC, Hoskin TL, Harmann LC, et al. Impact of reconstruction and reoperation on long-term patient-reported satisfaction after contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(2):401–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gruber RP, Kahn RA, Lash H, Maser MR, Apfelberg DB, Laub DR. Breast reconstruction following mastectomy: a comparison of submuscular and subcutaneous techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1981;67(3):312–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Reitsamer R, Peintinger F. Prepectoral implant placement and complete coverage with porcine acellular dermal matrix: a new technique for direct-to-implant breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2015;68(2):162–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Woo A, Harless C, Jacobson SR. Revisiting an old place: single-surgeon experience on post-mastectomy subcutaneous implant-based breast reconstruction. Breast J. 2017;23(5):545–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Tasoulis MK, Iqbal FM, Cawthorn S, MacNeill F, Vidya R. Subcutaneous implant breast reconstruction: time to consider? Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43(9):1636–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Plastic SurgeryThe University of Vermont Medical CenterColchesterUSA

Personalised recommendations