Future challenges in the surgical treatment of breast cancer – Oncoplastic, prophylactic procedures and reconstructive surgery

Abstract

Medical knowledge is doubling faster and faster. Surgeons are highly specialized and must be trained not only in surgery, but also in imaging and oncology to meet the modern requirements of a breast center. This article describes what has changed in the surgical treatment of breast cancer over the past 20 years since the introduction of certified breast centers in Germany, and what could change in the future. Pre- and post-operative conferences have become a central component of the interdisciplinary exchange of information. Every breast-conserving operation must be precisely planned, marked and carried out in a controlled manner. Basic anatomical knowledge is not sufficient enough to perform a prophylactic mastectomy. Implant-based reconstructions change their shape and strength over time and usually lead to follow-up operations. Tissue engineering offers interesting approaches to replace the disadvantages of conventional implants in order to achieve the durability and quality similar to autologous tissue reconstructions.

Keywords

Breast cancer - oncoplastic - reconstruction - prophylactic - risk-reducing

Publication History

Article published online:
13 September 2024

• References

• 1 Morton DL, Wen DR, Wong JH. et al. Technical details of intraoperative lymphatic mapping for early stage melanoma. Arch Surg 1992; 127 (04) 392-399
• 2 Giuliano AE, Kirgan DM, Guenther JM. et al. Lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymphadenectomy for breast cancer [see comments]. Ann Surg 1994; 220 (03) 391-398
• 3 Giuliano AE, Ballman KV, McCall L. et al. Effect of Axillary Dissection vs No Axillary Dissection on 10-Year Overall Survival Among Women With Invasive Breast Cancer and Sentinel Node Metastasis: The ACOSOG Z0011 (Alliance) Randomized Clinical Trial. Jama 2017; 318 (10) 918-926
• 4 Caudle AS, Yang WT, Krishnamurthy S. et al. Improved Axillary Evaluation Following Neoadjuvant Therapy for Patients With Node-Positive Breast Cancer Using Selective Evaluation of Clipped Nodes: Implementation of Targeted Axillary Dissection. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34 (10) 1072-1078
• 5 Miki Y, Swensen J, Shattuck-Eidens D. et al. A strong candidate for the breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene BRCA1. Science 1994; 266: 66-71
• 6 Snyderman RK, Starzynski TE. Breast reconstruction. Surg Clin North Am 1969; 49 (02) 303-311
• 7 Schneider WJ, Hill HL, Brown RG. Latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flap for breast reconstruction. Br J Plast Surg 1977; 30 (04) 277-281
• 8 Hartrampf CR, Scheflan M, Black PW. Breast reconstruction with a transverse abdominal island flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 1982; 69 (02) 216-225
• 9 Brucker SY, Bamberg M, Jonat W. et al. Certification of breast centres in Germany: proof of concept for a prototypical example of quality assurance in multidisciplinary cancer care. BMC cancer 2009; 9: 228
• 10 Brucker SY, Schumacher C, Sohn C. et al. Benchmarking the quality of breast cancer care in a nationwide voluntary system: the first five-year results (2003–2007) from Germany as a proof of concept. BMC cancer 2008; 8: 358
• 11 Katalinic A, Eisemann N, Kraywinkel K. et al. Breast cancer incidence and mortality before and after implementation of the German mammography screening program. Int J Cancer 2020; 147 (03) 709-718
• 12 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. NEngl J Med 2002; 347 (16) 1227-1232
• 13 Hennigs A, Fuchs V, Sinn HP. et al. Do Patients After Reexcision Due to Involved or Close Margins Have the Same Risk of Local Recurrence as Those After One-Step Breast-Conserving Surgery?. Ann Surg Oncol 2016; 23 (06) 1831-1837
• 14 Nessa A, Shaikh S, Fuller M. et al. Postoperative complications and surgical outcomes of robotic versus conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy in breast cancer: meta-analysis. Br J Surg 2024; 111 (01) znad336
• 15 Hermanns S, Dammeier S, Neugebauer A. et al. Methods, applications, and future perspectives of intraoperative tissue identification. Pathologie (Heidelb) 2023; 44 (Suppl. 03) 183-187
• 16 Guergan S, Boeer B, Fugunt R. et al. Optical Emission Spectroscopy for the Real-Time Identification of Malignant Breast Tissue. Diagnostics (Basel) 2024; 14 (03) 338
• 17 Banys-Paluchowski M, Rubio IT, Karadeniz Cakmak G. et al. Intraoperative Ultrasound-Guided Excision of Non-Palpable and Palpable Breast Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Ultraschall Med 2022; 43 (04) 367-379
• 18 Boeer B, Obermoser J, Marx M. et al. Ultrasound-guided breast-conserving surgery compared to conventional breast-conserving surgery. Ultraschall Med 2024;
• 19 Goker M, Marcinkowski R, Van Bockstal M. et al. 18F-FDG micro-PET/CT for intra-operative margin assessment during breast-conserving surgery. Acta Chir Belg 2020; 120 (05) 366-374
• 20 Darr C, Costa PF, Kahl T. et al. Intraoperative Molecular Positron Emission Tomography Imaging for Intraoperative Assessment of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Eur Urol Open Sci 2023; 54: 28-32
• 21 Christenhusz A, Pouw JJ, Simonis FFJ. et al. Breast MRI in patients after breast conserving surgery with sentinel node procedure using a superparamagnetic tracer. Eur Radiol Exp 2022; 6 (01) 3
• 22 Aribal E, Celik L, Yilmaz C. et al. Effects of iron oxide particles on MRI and mammography in breast cancer patients after a sentinel lymph node biopsy with paramagnetic tracers. Clin Imaging 2021; 75: 22-26
• 23 van Haaren ERM, Spiekerman van Weezelenburg MA, van Bastelaar J. et al. Impact of low dose superparamagnetic iron oxide tracer for sentinel node biopsy in breast conserving treatment on susceptibility artefacts on magnetic resonance imaging and contrast enhanced mammography. Surg Oncol 2024; 53: 102045
• 24 Bove S, Fragomeni SM, Romito A. et al. Techniques for sentinel node biopsy in breast cancer. Minerva Surg 2021; 76 (06) 550-563
• 25 Kedrzycki MS, Leiloglou M, Ashrafian H. et al. Meta-analysis Comparing Fluorescence Imaging with Radioisotope and Blue Dye-Guided Sentinel Node Identification for Breast Cancer Surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 2021; 28 (07) 3738-3748
• 26 Mathelin C, Lodi M. Narrative review of sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer: a technique in constant evolution with still numerous unresolved questions. Chin Clin Oncol 2021; 10 (02) 20
• 27 Grischke EM, Rohm C, Hahn M. et al. ICG Fluorescence Technique for the Detection of Sentinel Lymph Nodes in Breast Cancer: Results of a Prospective Open-label Clinical Trial. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2015; 75 (09) 935-940
• 28 Boeer B, Helms G, Pasternak J. et al. Back to the future: breast surgery with tumescent local anesthesia (TLA)?. Archives of gynecology and obstetrics 2023; 308 (03) 935-940
• 29 Rehnke RD, Groening RM, Van Buskirk ER. et al. Anatomy of the Superficial Fascia System of the Breast: A Comprehensive Theory of Breast Fascial Anatomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2018; 142 (05) 1135-1144
• 30 Griepsma M, de Roy van Zuidewijn DB, Grond AJ. et al. Residual breast tissue after mastectomy: how often and where is it located?. Ann Surg Oncol 2014; 21 (04) 1260-1266
• 31 Kaidar-Person O, Boersma LJ, Poortmans P. et al. Residual Glandular Breast Tissue After Mastectomy: A Systematic Review. Ann Surg Oncol 2020; 27 (07) 2288-2296
• 32 Andersson MN, Sund M, Svensson J. et al. Prophylactic mastectomy – Correlation between skin flap thickness and residual glandular tissue evaluated postoperatively by imaging. Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS 2022; 75 (06) 1813-1819
• 33 Rebbeck TR, Friebel T, Lynch HT. et al. Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy reduces breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: the PROSE Study Group. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22 (06) 1055-1062
• 34 Coroneos CJ, Selber JC, Offodile 2nd AC. et al. US FDA Breast Implant Postapproval Studies: Long-term Outcomes in 99,993 Patients. Ann Surg 2019; 269 (01) 30-36
• 35 Kabir R, Stanton E, Sorenson TJ. et al. Breast Implant Illness as a Clinical Entity: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Aesthetic surgery journal 2024; 44 (09) NP629-NP636
• 36 Rohrich RJ, Bellamy JL, Alleyne B. Assessing Long-Term Outcomes in Breast Implant Illness: The Missing Link? A Systematic Review. Plast Reconstr Surg 2022; 149 (04) 638e-45e
• 37 Elameen AM, AlMarakby MA, Atta TI. et al. The Risk of Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma; A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Aesthetic plastic surgery 2024;
• 38 Yamauchi H, Okawa M, Yokoyama S. et al. High rate of occult cancer found in prophylactic mastectomy specimens despite thorough presurgical assessment with MRI and ultrasound: findings from the Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Registration 2016 in Japan. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2018; 172 (03) 679-687
• 39 Lee JW, Lee YC, Chang TW. Microvascularly augmented transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap for breast reconstruction--reappraisal of its value through clinical outcome assessment and intraoperative blood gas analysis. Microsurgery 2008; 28 (08) 656-662
• 40 Chen C, Nguyen MD, Bar-Meir E. et al. Effects of vasopressor administration on the outcomes of microsurgical breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2010; 65 (01) 28-31
• 41 Acosta R, Enajat M, Rozen WM. et al. Performing two DIEP flaps in a working day: an achievable and reproducible practice. Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS 2010; 63 (04) 648-654
• 42 Baumann DP, Lin HY, Chevray PM. Perforator number predicts fat necrosis in a prospective analysis of breast reconstruction with free TRAM, DIEP, and SIEA flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 125 (05) 1335-1341
• 43 Chen CM, Halvorson EG, Disa JJ. et al. Immediate postoperative complications in DIEP versus free/muscle-sparing TRAM flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007; 120 (06) 1477-1482
• 44 Gill PS, Hunt JP, Guerra AB. et al. A 10-year retrospective review of 758 DIEP flaps for breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 113 (04) 1153-1160
• 45 Nelson JA, Guo Y, Sonnad SS. et al. A Comparison between DIEP and muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps in breast reconstruction: a single surgeon’s recent experience. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 126 (05) 1428-1435
• 46 Parrett BM, Caterson SA, Tobias AM. et al. DIEP flaps in women with abdominal scars: are complication rates affected?. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 121 (05) 1527-1531
• 47 Rao SS, Parikh PM, Goldstein JA. et al. Unilateral failures in bilateral microvascular breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 126 (01) 17-25
• 48 Casey 3rd WJ, Chew RT, Rebecca AM. et al. Advantages of preoperative computed tomography in deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 123 (04) 1148-1155
• 49 Cheng M, Janzekovic J, Finze R. et al. Conceptualizing Scaffold Guided Breast Tissue Regeneration in a Preclinical Large Animal Model. Bioengineering (Basel) 2024; 11 (06) 593
• 50 Cheng M, Janzekovic J, Mohseni M. et al. A Preclinical Animal Model for the Study of Scaffold-Guided Breast Tissue Engineering. Tissue Eng Part C Methods 2021; 27 (06) 366-377
• 51 Ding J, Wei C, Xu Y. et al. 3D printing of Ceffe-infused scaffolds for tailored nipple-like cartilage development. BMC Biotechnol 2024; 24 (01) 25