Steven J. Kronowitz

Radiation therapy and breast reconstruction: A critical review of the literature

Background: The optimal timing and technique of breast reconstruction in patients who may require postmastectomy radiation therapy are controversial. To help surgeons make the best decisions, the authors reviewed the recent literature on this topic. Methods: The authors searched the MEDLINE database for studies of radiation therapy and breast reconstruction with most patients treated after 1985 and mean follow-up of more than 1 year. Forty-nine articles were reviewed. Results: Even with the latest prosthetic materials and modern radiation delivery techniques, the complication rate for implant-based breast reconstruction in patients undergoing postmastectomy radiation therapy is greater than 40 percent, and the extrusion rate is 15 percent. Modified sequencing of two-stage implant reconstruction, such that the expander is exchanged for the permanent implant before postmastectomy radiation therapy, results in higher rates of capsular contracture and is not generally feasible after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Current evidence suggests that postmastectomy radiation therapy also adversely affects autologous tissue reconstruction. Even with modern radiation delivery techniques, immediate implant-based or autologous tissue breast reconstruction can distort the chest wall and limit the ability to treat the targeted tissues without excessive exposure of the heart and lungs. In patients for whom postmastectomy radiation therapy appears likely but may not be required, “delayed-immediate reconstruction,” in which tissue expanders are placed at mastectomy, avoids the difficulties associated with radiation delivery after immediate reconstruction and preserves the opportunity for the aesthetic benefits of skin-sparing mastectomy. Conclusions: In patients who will receive or have already received postmastectomy radiation therapy, the optimal approach is delayed autologous tissue reconstruction after postmastectomy radiation therapy. If postmastectomy radiation therapy appears likely but may not be required, delayed-immediate reconstruction may be considered.

Delayed-immediate breast reconstruction.

In patients with early-stage breast cancer who are scheduled to undergo mastectomy and desire breast reconstruction, the optimal timing of reconstruction depends on whether postmastectomy radiation therapy will be needed. Immediate reconstruction offers the best aesthetic outcomes if postmastectomy radiation therapy is not needed, but if postmastectomy radiation therapy is required, delayed reconstruction is preferable to avoid potential aesthetic and radiation-delivery problems. Unfortunately, the need for postmastectomy radiation therapy cannot be reliably determined until review of the permanent tissue sections. The authors recently implemented a two-stage approach, delayed-immediate breast reconstruction, to optimize reconstruction in patients at risk for requiring postmastectomy radiation therapy when the need for postmastectomy radiation therapy is not known at the time of mastectomy. Stage 1 consists of skin-sparing mastectomy with insertion of a completely filled textured saline tissue expander. After review of permanent sections, patients who did not require post-mastectomy radiation therapy underwent immediate reconstruction (stage 2) and patients who required postmastectomy radiation therapy completed postmastectomy radiation therapy and then underwent standard delayed reconstruction. In this study, the feasibility and outcomes of this approach were reviewed. Fourteen patients were treated with delayed-immediate reconstruction between May of 2002 and June of 2003. Twelve patients had unilateral reconstruction and two patients had bilateral reconstruction, for a total of 16 treated breasts. All patients completed stage 1. Tissue expanders were inserted subpectorally in 15 breasts and subcutaneously in one breast. The mean intraoperative expander fill volume was 475 cc (range, 250 to 750 cc). Three patients required postmastectomy radiation therapy and underwent delayed reconstruction. Eleven patients did not require postmastectomy radiation therapy. Nine patients had 11 breast reconstructions (stage 2), six with free transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (TRAM) flaps, one with a superior gluteal artery perforator flap, and four with a latissimus dorsi flap plus an implant. The median interval between stages was 13 days (range, 11 to 22 days). Two patients who did not require postmastectomy radiation therapy have not yet had stage 2 reconstruction, one because she wished to delay reconstruction and the other because she required additional tissue expansion before permanent implant placement. Six complications occurred. The stage 1 complications involved two cases of mastectomy skin necrosis in patients who required post-mastectomy radiation therapy; one patient required removal of the subcutaneously placed expander before postmastectomy radiation therapy and the other patient had a subpectorally placed expander that only required local wound care. The stage 2 complications were a recipient-site seroma in a patient with a latissimus dorsi flap, a recipient-site hematoma in the patient with the superior gluteal artery perforator flap, and two arterial thromboses in patients with TRAM flaps. Both TRAM flaps were salvaged. Delayed-immediate reconstruction is technically feasible and safe in patients with early-stage breast cancer who may require postmastectomy radiation therapy. With this approach, patients who do not require postmastectomy radiation therapy can achieve aesthetic outcomes essentially the same as those with immediate reconstruction, and patients who require postmastectomy radiation therapy can avoid the aesthetic and radiation-delivery problems that can occur after an immediate breast reconstruction.

Pelvic, abdominal, and chest wall reconstruction with AlloDerm in patients at increased risk for mesh-related complications

Background: The use of polypropylene mesh in the reconstruction of trunk defects increases complication rates when the mesh is placed directly over viscera or the operative site has been irradiated or contaminated with bacteria. An alternative is AlloDerm (decellularized human cadaveric dermis), which becomes vascularized and remodeled into autologous tissue after implantation. When used for fascial reconstruction, AlloDerm forms a strong repair, causes minimal abdominal adhesions, and resists infection. Methods: We did a retrospective study of cancer patients at increased risk for mesh-related complications who underwent trunk reconstruction with AlloDerm over a 1-year period. Risk factors included unavoidable placement of mesh directly over the bowel or lung, perioperative irradiation, and/or bacterial contamination of the defect. The indications, defect characteristics, reconstructive techniques, complications, and surgical outcomes were evaluated. Results: Thirteen patients were included in the study. Indications for reconstruction were oncologic resection, resection of enterocutaneous fistula, and/or ventral hernia repair. Seven patients had bacterial contamination at the operative site and seven patients received perioperative radiation. The mean musculofascial defect size was 435 cm2. AlloDerm was placed directly over the bowel or lung in all patients. Nine patients required flap reconstruction, including 14 pedicled and two free flaps. The mean follow-up was 6.4 months. Complications occurred in six patients, however, there were no clinically evident mesh infections, hernias, or bulges. Conclusions: AlloDerm successfully can be used in reconstructions for large, complex pelvic, chest, and abdominal wall defects even when placed directly over viscera and when the operative field is irradiated and/or contaminated with bacteria.

Breast reconstruction with postmastectomy radiation therapy: Current issues

Two recent trials have demonstrated superior locoregional control, disease-free survival, and overall survival in node-positive breast cancer patients with the addition of postmastectomy radiation therapy to mastectomy and chemotherapy. Based on these results, there has been an increased use of postmastectomy in patients with early-stage breast cancer. The inability to determine which patients will require postmastectomy radiation therapy has increased the complexity of planning for immediate breast reconstruction. There are two potential problems with performing an immediate breast reconstruction in a patient who will require postmastectomy radiation therapy. One problem is that postmastectomy radiation therapy can adversely affect the aesthetic outcome of an immediate breast reconstruction. Several studies have evaluated the outcomes of breast reconstructions that were performed before radiation therapy and have revealed a high incidence of complications and poor aesthetic outcomes. Furthermore, these studies have found that often an additional flap is required to restore breast shape and symmetry. The other potential problem is that an immediate breast reconstruction can interfere with the delivery of postmastectomy radiation therapy. During planning for immediate breast reconstruction, it is imperative to carefully review the stage of disease and the likelihood the patient will require postmastectomy radiation therapy. Unfortunately, the ability to detect and predict the presence or extent of axillary lymph node involvement is limited, and the need for postmastectomy radiation therapy is usually not known until after mastectomy. In all cases of decision making regarding possible postoperative radiation therapy and whether or not to perform immediate breast reconstruction, the situation should be discussed at a multidisciplinary conference or addressed among the various medical, surgical, and radiation teams, with active participation by the patient. Immediate breast reconstruction probably should be avoided in patients known to require postmastectomy radiation therapy and delayed until it is certain the therapy will be needed in patients who may require the therapy.

Determining the optimal approach to breast reconstruction after partial mastectomy.

Background: Unfortunately, patients who desire repair of contour deformities after partial mastectomy usually present after radiation therapy, which may increase the risk of complications and result in a poor aesthetic outcome. The authors reviewed their experience with repair of partial mastectomy defects to determine the optimal approach to breast reconstruction after partial mastectomy. Methods: Sixty-nine patients who underwent repair of a partial mastectomy defect and received radiation therapy were included in this analysis. The reconstructive techniques were categorized as local tissue rearrangement (LTR), breast reduction, or use of a latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flap or thoracoepigastric skin flap (hereafter referred to as “flap”). Results: Fifty patients underwent immediate reconstruction before radiation therapy, and 19 underwent delayed reconstruction after radiation therapy. The reconstructive techniques in patients with immediate reconstruction were local tissue rearrangement in 28 percent, breast reduction in 66 percent, and flaps in 6 percent. In patients with delayed reconstruction, 32 percent had local tissue rearrangement, 42 percent had breast reduction, and 26 percent had flaps. The complication rates for immediate and delayed reconstruction were 26 percent and 42 percent, respectively. Overall, and in the setting of immediate reconstruction, the flap technique was associated with a higher complication rate than local tissue rearrangement and breast reduction. However, in the setting of delayed reconstruction, the flap technique was associated with a lower complication rate than the other two techniques. Fifty-seven percent of the immediate reconstructions performed with the local tissue rearrangement or breast reduction technique, but only 33 percent of the immediate reconstructions performed with the flap technique, were associated with an excellent or good aesthetic outcome. Conclusion: Immediate repair of partial mastectomy defects with local tissues results in a lower risk of complications and better aesthetic outcomes than immediate repair of partial mastectomy defects with a latissimus dorsi flap.

Practical guidelines for repair of partial mastectomy defects using the breast reduction technique in patients undergoing breast conservation therapy.

Background: The authors previously compared the local tissue rearrangement, breast reduction, and latissimus dorsi flap reconstruction techniques for repairing partial mastectomy defects and showed the benefits of breast reduction. Methods: In this study, the authors focused solely on factors influencing outcome in 41 patients who underwent repair of a partial mastectomy defect using breast reduction. Results: Tumor location had a significant effect on the design of the parenchymal pedicle (p = 0.05). Most repairs were performed with an inferior pedicle. Fifty percent of the lower outer and central quadrant tumors required an amputative design with a free nipple graft. The complication rates for immediate and delayed repair were 24 and 50 percent, respectively. The superior pedicle was associated with the highest complication rates. Tumors in the upper outer quadrant of the breast were associated with the highest complication rate (35 percent). Ninety percent of patients with planned repairs had a viable nipple-areola complex (p = 0.05) and did not require a free nipple graft. More favorable cosmetic outcomes were achieved using an inferior pedicle; less favorable cosmetic outcomes were achieved for tumors in the upper inner quadrant of the breast. Larger defects did not result in less favorable cosmetic outcomes than smaller defects. Only 7 percent of patients had a positive tumor margin. Five percent of patients developed local breast cancer recurrence after a mean follow-up of 36 months. Conclusion: The authors provide practical guidelines for repairing a partial mastectomy defect using breast reduction that should minimize the occurrence of complications and optimize the cosmetic outcome.

Delayed-immediate breast reconstruction: technical and timing considerations.

Background: In 2002, the author implemented a new two-stage approach, “delayed-immediate breast reconstruction,” for patients who desire breast reconstruction and who are at an increased risk for conditions necessitating postmastectomy radiotherapy. There is increasing acceptance of this approach in clinical practice. This report highlights important technical and timing considerations in delayed-immediate reconstruction that help ensure the best outcomes with low rates of expander loss. Methods: Stage 1 of delayed-immediate reconstruction consists of skin-sparing mastectomy with insertion of a saline-filled tissue expander to serve as an adjustable scaffold to preserve the three-dimensional shape of the breast skin envelope. Patients who do not require postmastectomy radiation therapy undergo stage 2 (definitive breast reconstruction) within 2 weeks after stage 1 to avoid delays in the start of adjuvant chemotherapy and to preserve the ptotic shape of the preserved breast skin envelope. In patients who do require radiation, the tissue expander is deflated before the therapy to create a flat chest wall surface to permit modern three-beam radiation delivery. Beginning 2 weeks after completion of radiation therapy, the expander is reinflated to the predeflation volume. Three months after the therapy, a “skin-preserving” delayed reconstruction is performed, with removal of the expander and transfer of an autologous tissue flap. Conclusions: Delayed-immediate reconstruction allows patients who do not require postmastectomy radiation therapy to receive the benefits of skin-sparing mastectomy with aesthetic outcomes similar to those of immediate reconstruction. Patients who do require radiation receive a skin-preserving delayed reconstruction, while avoiding the problems that can be associated with radiation delivery after an immediate breast reconstruction.

The effect of ethnicity on immediate reconstruction rates after mastectomy for breast cancer

Multiple factors may influence whether patients undergo immediate breast reconstruction along with mastectomy for breast cancer. The authors investigated whether ethnicity was an independent predictor of immediate breast reconstruction.

Advances and surgical decision-making for breast reconstruction

In patients who undergo breast reconstruction after mastectomy, choosing the appropriate timing and the best method of reconstruction are essential to optimize outcomes and to minimize the potential for postoperative complications. At The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, the clinicopathologic factors that are used in the surgical decision‐making for breast reconstruction after mastectomy include the breast cancer stage, status of axillary sentinel lymph node, smoking status, body habitus, preexisting scars, prior radiation therapy, and planned or previous chemotherapy. Immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy is preferable for patients who have a low risk of requiring postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) (Stage I breast cancer). Delayed reconstruction may be preferable in patients who are deemed preoperatively to require PMRT (Stage III breast cancer) to avoid difficulties associated with radiation delivery after an immediate breast reconstruction. In patients who are deemed preoperatively to be at an increased risk of requiring PMRT (Stage II breast cancer), delayed‐immediate breast reconstruction may provide an additional option. The approach to breast reconstruction will need to be adapted to maintain an appropriate balance between minimizing the risk of recurrence and providing the best possible aesthetic outcomes as the indications for PMRT and other treatment modalities continue to change. Cancer 2006.

A management algorithm and practical oncoplastic surgical techniques for repairing partial mastectomy defects.

Background: In patients undergoing a partial mastectomy, choosing the best method with which to repair the defect is essential to optimizing outcomes and minimizing the potential for postoperative complications. Methods: The authors present a management algorithm for repairing partial mastectomy defects based on clinically relevant parameters to allow clinicians to better select the most appropriate indications for the various reparative oncoplastic procedures. The clinicopathologic factors considered in surgical decision-making for reconstruction after partial mastectomy include timing of reconstruction in relation to radiation therapy, status of the tumor margin, extent of breast skin resection, breast size, and whether the cosmetic outcome would be better after a total mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction, thereby avoiding the need for radiation therapy. Results: Most patients with medium or large breasts will likely benefit from immediate repair, whereas some with small breasts may not. Immediate repair of partial mastectomy defects is preferred with the use of local breast tissue (local tissue rearrangement or breast reduction techniques) because of the simplicity of these approaches and because techniques using local tissue maintain the color and texture of the breast. Waiting to repair a large deformity until after whole-breast radiation therapy usually necessitates a complex transfer of a large volume of autologous tissue, which many patients who undergo breast conservation therapy are not willing to pursue. Use of lower abdominal flaps to repair partial breast defects is generally discouraged. Conclusion: Although the authors’ management algorithm and practical oncoplastic techniques should prove useful, it is up to the multidisciplinary breast team and the patient to determine the best approach.