Shantanu N. Razdan

Quality of life among patients after bilateral prophylactic mastectomy: a systematic review of patient-reported outcomes.

AbstractPurpose Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy (BPM) is effective in reducing the risk of breast cancer in women with a well-defined family history of breast cancer or in women with BRCA 1 or 2 mutations. Evaluating patient-reported outcomes following BPM are thus essential for evaluating success of BPM from patient’s perspective. Our systematic review aimed to: (1) identify studies describing health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients following BPM with or without reconstruction; (2) assess the effect of BPM with or without reconstruction on HRQOL; and (3) identify predictors of HRQOL post-BPM.MethodsWe performed a systematic review of literature using the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane databases were searched. ResultsThe initial search resulted in 1082 studies; 22 of these studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Post-BPM, patients are satisfied with the outcomes and report high psychosocial well-being and positive body image. Sexual well-being and somatosensory function are most negatively affected. Vulnerability, psychological distress and preoperative cancer distress are significant negative predictors of quality of life and body image post-BPM.ConclusionThere is a paucity of high-quality data on outcomes of different HRQOL domains post-BPM. Future studies should strive to use validated and breast-specific PRO instruments for measuring HRQOL. This will facilitate shared decision-making by enabling surgeons to provide evidence-based answers to women contemplating BPM.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of implants versus autologous perforator flaps using the BREAST-Q.

Background: Reimbursement has been recognized as a physician barrier to autologous reconstruction. Autologous reconstructions are more expensive than prosthetic reconstructions, but provide greater health-related quality of life. The authors’ hypothesis is that autologous tissue reconstructions are cost-effective compared with prosthetic techniques when considering health-related quality of life and patient satisfaction. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis from the payer perspective, including patient input, was performed for unilateral and bilateral reconstructions with deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps and implants. The effectiveness measure was derived using the BREAST-Q and interpreted as the cost for obtaining 1 year of perfect breast health-related quality-adjusted life-year. Costs were obtained from the 2010 Nationwide Inpatient Sample. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was generated. A sensitivity analysis for age and stage at diagnosis was performed. Results: BREAST-Q scores from 309 patients with implants and 217 DIEP flap reconstructions were included. The additional cost for obtaining 1 year of perfect breast-related health for a unilateral DIEP flap compared with implant reconstruction was

The Impact of Travel Distance on Breast Reconstruction in the United States.

11,941. For bilateral DIEP flaps compared with implant reconstructions, the cost for an additional breast health-related quality-adjusted life-year was

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Breast Reconstruction Options in the Setting of Postmastectomy Radiotherapy Using the BREAST-Q.

28,017. The sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the cost for an additional breast health-related quality-adjusted life-year for DIEP flaps compared with implants was less for younger patients and earlier stage breast cancer. Conclusions: DIEP flaps are cost-effective compared with implants, especially for unilateral reconstructions. Cost-effectiveness of autologous techniques is maximized in women with longer life expectancy. Patient-reported outcomes findings can be incorporated into cost-effectiveness analyses to demonstrate the relative value of reconstructive procedures.

Safety of the Supraclavicular Artery Island Flap in the Setting of Neck Dissection and Radiation Therapy

Background: Inadequate access to breast reconstruction was a motivating factor underlying passage of the Women’s Health and Cancer Rights Act. It remains unclear whether all patients interested in breast reconstruction undergo this procedure. The aim of this study was to determine whether geographic disparities are present that limit the rate and method of postmastectomy reconstruction. Methods: Travel distance in miles between the patient’s residence and the hospital reporting the case was used as a quantitative measure of geographic disparities. The American College of Surgeons National Cancer Database was queried for mastectomy with or without reconstruction performed from 1998 to 2011. Reconstructive procedures were categorized as implant or autologous techniques. Standard statistical tests including linear regression were performed. Results: Patients who underwent breast reconstruction had to travel farther than those who had mastectomy alone (p < 0.01). A linear correlation was demonstrated between travel distance and reconstruction rates (p < 0.01). The mean distances traveled by patients who underwent reconstruction at community, comprehensive community, or academic programs were 10.3, 19.9, and 26.2 miles, respectively (p < 0.01). Reconstruction rates were significantly greater at academic programs. Patients traveled farther to undergo autologous compared with prosthetic reconstruction. Conclusions: Although greater patient awareness and insurance coverage have contributed to increased breast reconstruction rates in the United States, the presence of geographic barriers suggests an unmet need. Academic programs have the greatest reconstruction rates, but are located farther from patients’ residences. Increasing the number of plastics surgeons, especially in community centers, would be one method of addressing this inequality.

National Breast Reconstruction Utilization in the Setting of Postmastectomy Radiotherapy

Background: A consensus is lacking on a uniform reconstructive algorithm for patients with locally advanced breast cancer who require postmastectomy radiotherapy. Both delayed autologous and immediate prosthetic techniques have inherent advantages and complications. The study hypothesis is that implants are more cost effective than autologous reconstruction in the setting of postmastectomy radiotherapy because of immediate restoration of the breast mound. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis model using the payer perspective was created comparing delayed autologous and immediate prosthetic techniques against the do-nothing option of mastectomy without reconstruction. Costs were obtained from the 2010 Nationwide Inpatient Sample database. Effectiveness was determined using the BREAST-Q patient-reported outcome measure. A breast quality-adjusted life-year value was considered 1 year of perfect breast health-related quality of life. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated for both treatments compared with the do-nothing option. Results: BREAST-Q scores were obtained from patients who underwent immediate prosthetic reconstruction (n = 196), delayed autologous reconstruction (n = 76), and mastectomy alone (n = 71). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for immediate prosthetic and delayed autologous reconstruction compared with mastectomy alone were

Free Jejunal Flap for Pharyngoesophageal Reconstruction in Head and Neck Cancer Patients: An Evaluation of Donor-Site Complications.

57,906 and

The Impact of the Cosurgeon Model on Bilateral Autologous Breast Reconstruction

102,509, respectively. Sensitivity analysis showed that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for both treatment options decreased with increasing life expectancy. Conclusions: For patients with advanced breast cancer who require postmastectomy radiotherapy, immediate prosthetic-based breast reconstruction is a cost-effective approach. Despite high complication rates, implant use can be rationalized based on low cost and health-related quality-of-life benefit derived from early breast mound restoration. If greater life expectancy is anticipated, autologous transfer is cost effective as well and may be a superior option.

The Use of Acellular Dermal Matrices in Two-Stage Expander/Implant Reconstruction

BACKGROUND The supraclavicular artery island flap (SAIF) has recently been repopularized as a versatile and reliable option for reconstruction of oncological head and neck defects. Prior ipsilateral neck dissection or irradiation is considered a relative contraindication to its use. The aim of this study was to describe the safety and utility of the SAIF for head and neck reconstruction in the setting of neck dissection and radiation. METHODS A retrospective chart review was performed of consecutive SAIF reconstructions at two institutions between May 2011 and 2014. In addition to demographic data, comorbidities, indications, surgical characteristics, data about radiation treatment, and neck dissection were specifically recorded. Donor and recipient site complications were noted. Fisher exact test was performed to analyze if neck dissection or radiation were associated with complications. RESULTS A total of 22 patients underwent SAIF reconstruction for an array of head and neck defects. Donor site infection was noted in one patient. Recipient site complications included, wound dehiscence (n = 2), orocutaneous fistula (n = 1), carotid blowout (n = 1), and total flap loss (n = 1). There was no association between prior neck dissection or radiation treatment and flap loss (p = 1.00). CONCLUSION The SAIF is safe for use in patients who have had an ipsilateral neck dissection involving level IV or V lymph nodes and/or radiation treatment to the neck. It can be used alone or in combination with other flaps for closure of a variety of head and neck defects.

Case report of a supraclavicular artery island flap for reconstruction of a nonhealing cervical spine wound.

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.