Long-term oncologic safety of one-stage direct-to-implant immediate breast reconstruction without the use of acellular dermal matrix

Year 2025, Volume: 16 Issue: 1, 76 - 85, 25.03.2025

Berkay Kılıç , Burak İlhan , Hasan Karanlık

https://doi.org/10.18663/tjcl.1619104

Abstract

Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the oncologic safety of direct-to-implant immediate breast reconstruction without the use of an acellular dermal matrix (ADM) or mesh following nipple-sparing and skin-sparing mastectomy in patients with primary breast cancer.
Materials and Methods: The medical records of 175 patients who underwent one-stage direct-to-implant breast reconstruction following mastectomy at the Istanbul University Oncology Institute between 2014 and 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. The primary objective was to assess the oncologic safety, including locoregional recurrence, distant metastasis, and survival outcomes. The secondary objective was to evaluate reconstruction-related complications.
Results: The median age of the patients was 44 years (range: 25-74), with a median follow-up period of 53 months (range: 19-101). HR+/HER2-, HR+/HER2+, and pure HER2+ subtypes were observed in 101 patients (57.7%), 26 (14.9%), 23 (13.%), respectively. Triple-negative breast cancer was present in 16 patients (9.1%). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was administered to 87 patients (49.7%), with a pathological complete response (pCR) rate of 17.2%. Skin necrosis (9.1%) and capsular contracture (8.6%) were the most common complications, with implant loss occuring in seven patients. Locoregional recurrence and distant metastasis rates were 9.7% and 13.1%, respectively. The five-year locoregional recurrence-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival rates were 95.4% and 90.3%. Additionally, 83.5% of patients reported their satisfaction as "excellent" or "good."
Conclusion: One-stage direct-to-implant immediate breast reconstruction without the use of an acellular dermal matrix or mesh is oncologically safe, with acceptable complication rates, making it a viable alternative to two-stage breast reconstruction or conventional mastectomy.

Keywords

direct-to-implant, contracture, immediate breast reconstruction, mesh

Ethical Statement

This study received approval from the Istanbul University Ethics Committee (Approval Date: 23.12.2024 with number 3075139)

Supporting Institution

There is no person/organization that financially supports the study and the authors have no conflict of interest

Aselüler dermal matriks kullanılmadan gerçekleştirilen direkt implant ile tek aşamalı anında meme rekonstrüksiyonunun uzun dönem onkolojik güvenirliliği

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmada, primer meme kanseri olan hastalarda meme başı koruyucu ve cilt koruyucu mastektomi sonrası hücresiz dermal matris veya mesh kullanılmaksızın gerçekleştirilen doğrudan implant ile yapılan anında meme rekonstrüksiyonunun onkolojik güvenliğini değerlendirmek amaçlandı.
Gereç ve Yöntemler: 2014-2022 yılları arasında İstanbul Üniversitesi Onkoloji Enstitüsü'nde mastektomi sonrası doğrudan implant ile tek aşamalı meme rekonstrüksiyonu yapılan 175 hastanın tıbbi kayıtları geriye dönük incelendi. Birincil hedef, bölgesel nüks, uzak metastaz ve sağkalım analizleri dahil olmak üzere onkolojik güvenliği değerlendirmekti. İkincil hedef ise rekonstrüksiyonla ilişkili komplikasyonları değerlendirmekti.
Bulgular: Hastaların medyan yaş 44 yıl (aralık: 25-74) olup, medyan takip süresi 53 ay (aralık: 19-101) idi. HR+/HER2-, HR+/HER2+ ve saf HER2+ alt tipleri sırasıyla 101 (%57,7), 26 (%14,9) ve 23 (%13,1) hastada gözlemlendi. Üçlü negatif meme kanseri ise 16 (%9,1) hastada mevcuttu. Neoadjuvan kemoterapi 87 (%49,7) hastaya uygulanmış olup, patolojik tam yanıt (pCR) oranı %17,2 idi. Cilt nekrozu (%9,1) ve kapsüler kontraktür (%8,6) en sık görülen komplikasyonlardı ve komplikasyon nedeniyle yedi hastada implant kaybı yaşandı. Lokal-bölgesel nüks ve uzak metastaz oranları sırasıyla %9,7 ve %13,1 olarak kaydedildi. Beş yıllık lokal-bölgesel nükssüz sağkalım ve uzak metastazsız sağkalım oranları sırasıyla %95,4 ve %90,3 olarak bulundu. Ayrıca, hastaların %83,5’i memnuniyetlerini "mükemmel" veya "iyi" olarak bildirildi.
Sonuçlar: Hücresiz dermal matris veya mesh kullanılmadan doğrudan implant ile yapılan tek aşamalı anında meme rekonstrüksiyonu, onkolojik olarak güvenli olup kabul edilebilir komplikasyon oranlarına sahiptir. Ayrıca iki aşamalı meme rekonstrüksiyonu veya konvansiyonel mastektomiye iyi bir alternatif oluşturmaktadır.

Keywords

direkt implant, kontraktür, anında meme rekonstrüksiyonu, meş

References

• World Health Organization. Breast cancer. Published March 13, 2024. Accessed September 13, 2024. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/breast-cancer.
• T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı, Halk Sağlığı Genel Müdürlüğü, Kanser Daire Başkanlığı. 2018 yılı Türkiye kanser istatistikleri. Accessed September 11, 2024. https://hsgm.saglik.gov.tr/tr/kanser-istatistikleri.html.
• Evans DG, Howell SJ, Gandhi A, et al. Breast cancer incidence and early diagnosis in a family history risk and prevention clinic: 33-year experience in 14,311 women. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2021;189(3):677–87. doi: 10.1007/s10549-021-06333-1
• McCarthy CM, Klassen AF, Cano SJ, et al. Patient satisfaction with postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Cancer. 2010;116(24):5584–91. doi: 10.1002/cncr.25552
• Naoum GE, Oladeru OT, Niemierko A, et al. Optimal breast reconstruction type for patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, mastectomy followed by radiation therapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2020;183(1):127–36. doi: 10.1007/s10549-020-05747-7
• Letsiou E, Tsakatikas S, Vakis G, et al. Radiotherapy and Breast Reconstruction: What is the ideal timing? A narrative review. Rev Recent Clin Trials. 2022;17(2):73–85. doi: 10.2174/1574887117666220314161609
• Lee JH, Choi M, Sakong Y. Retrospective analysis between complication and nipple areola complex preservation in direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Gland Surg. 2021;10(1):290-97. doi: 10.21037/gs-20-606
• Bertozzi N, Pesce M, Santi P, Raposio E. One-stage immediate breast reconstruction: A concise review. Biomed Res Int. 2017:2017:6486859. doi: 10.1155/2017/6486859
• Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(2):228–47. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026
• 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):3127. doi: 10.1097/ 00006534-198103000-00007
• Freeman BS. Subcutaneous mastectomy for benign breast lesions with immediate or delayed prosthetic replacement. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1980;65(3):371-2. doi: 10.1097/00006534-198003000-00019
• Weinzierl A, Schmauss D, Brucato D, Harder Y. Implant-based breast reconstruction after mastectomy, from the subpectoral to the prepectoral approach: An evidence-based change of mind? J Clin Med. 2022;11(11):3079. doi: 10.3390/jcm11113079
• Graziano FD, Lu J, Sbitany H. Prepectoral breast reconstruction. Clin Plast Surg. 2023;50(2):235-42. doi: 10.1016/j.cps.2022.09.004
• Colwell AS, Damjanovic B, Zahedi B, Medford-Davis L, Hertl C, Austen WG Jr. Retrospective review of 331 consecutive immediate single-stage implant reconstructions with acellular dermal matrix: indications, complications, trends, and costs. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128(6):1170-8. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e318230c2f6
• Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(16):1233–41. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa022152
• Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast- conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(16):1227-32. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa020989
• Fisher B, Jeong JH, Anderson S, Bryant J, Fisher ER, Wolmark N. Twenty-five-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing radical mastectomy, total Mastectomy, and total mastectomy followed by irradiation. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(8):567–75. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa020128
• Buchanan CL, Dorn PL, Fey J, et al. Locoregional recurrence after mastectomy: Incidence and outcomes. J Am Coll Surg. 2006;203(4):469–74. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2006.06.015
• Taqi K, Pao JS, Chen L, et al. Immediate breast reconstruction in locally advanced breast cancer: is it safe? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2021;190(2):175–82. doi.org/10.1007/s10549-021-06366-6
• Marra A, Viale G, Pileri SA, et al. Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma: A comprehensive review. Cancer Treat Rev. 2020;84:101963. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2020.101963
• 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(6):1135–44. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000001749
• Spear SL, Seruya M, Rao SS, et al. Two-stage prosthetic breast reconstruction using alloderm including outcomes of different timings of radiotherapy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130(1):1–9. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182547a45
• Alperovich M, Choi M, Frey JD, et al. Nipple-sparing mastectomy in patients with prior breast irradiation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134(2):202e–6e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000000321
• Allué Cabañuz M, Arribas del Amo MD, Gil Romea I, Val-Carreres Rivera MP, Sousa Domínguez R, Güemes Sánchez AT. Direct-to-implant breast reconstruction after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: A safe option? Cir Esp (Engl Ed). 2019;97(10):575-81. doi: 10.1016/j.ciresp.2019.07.003
• Lee JH, Choi M, Sakong Y. Retrospective analysis between complication and nipple areola complex preservation in direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Gland Surg. 2021;10(1):290–7. doi: 10.21037/gs-20-606
• Fischer JP, Wes AM, Tuggle CT, Serletti JM, Wu LC. Risk Analysis of early implant loss after I-immediate breast reconstruction: A review of 14,585 patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;217(6):983–90. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2013.07.389
• van Verschuer VMT, Mureau MAM, Heemskerk-Gerritsen BAM, et al. Long-term outcomes of bilateral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction in women at high breast cancer risk. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2018;52(4):245. doi.org/10.1080/2000656X.2018.1476364
• Safran T, Al-Halabi B, Viezel-Mathieu A, Hazan J, Dionisopoulos T. Direct-to-implant prepectoral breast reconstruction: Patient-reported outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021;148(6):882e–90e. doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000008506