Direct-to-implant breast reconstruction after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a safe option?

Marta Allué Cabañuz,Maria Dolores Arribas del Amo,Ismael Gil Romea,María Pilar Val-Carreres Rivera,Ramón Sousa Domínguez,Antonio Tomás Güemes Sánchez
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cireng.2019.11.019
2019-12-01
Cirugía Española (English Edition)
Abstract:Introduction Immediate reconstruction (IBR) after mastectomy in patients who have received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) remains controversial. The aim of this study is to analyze and compare oncological results as well as complication and reoperation rates in patients undergoing NACT and a control group. Methods Retrospective observational case-control study of patients with breast cancer who underwent bilateral mastectomy and direct-to-implant IBR (BMIBR) from 2000-2016. The group that received NACT was matched 1:5 to patients without NACT (Control group). We evaluated differences between groups using the Chi-squared or Fisher test (qualitative variables), Mann-Whitney U or Student’s t-test (quantitative variables). The survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank test (SPSS 22.0). Results The study included a total of 171 patients with BMIBR: 62 patients (36.3%) after NACT and 109 patients (63.7%) in the control group without NACT. Median follow-up was 52.0 (IQR: 23.0–94.0) months. In both groups, the indication for BMIBR was patient choice (32.7%). There were no statistically significant differences between groups in terms of complication rate (24.2% in the NACT group and 19.3% in the control group [P = .44]), but differences in oncological results were found. Patients in the NACT Group had three times more risk of recurrence at a given time than patients in the control group (3.009 [1.349–6.713]) according to the univariate analysis. Conclusion Direct-to-implant IBR after skin-sparing mastectomy is a viable option for breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?