Oncoplastic Breast Consortium consensus conference on nipple-sparing mastectomy

Purpose Indications for nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) have broadened to include the risk reducing setting and locally advanced tumors, which resulted in a dramatic increase in the use of NSM. The Oncoplastic Breast Consortium consensus conference on NSM and immediate reconstruction was held to address a variety of questions in clinical practice and research based on published evidence and expert panel opinion. Methods The panel consisted of 44 breast surgeons from 14 countries across four continents with a background in gynecology, general or reconstructive surgery and a practice dedicated to breast cancer, as well as a patient advocate. Panelists presented evidence summaries relating to each topic for debate during the in-person consensus conference. The iterative process in question development, voting, and wording of the recommendations followed the modified Delphi methodology. Results Consensus recommendations were reached in 35, majority recommendations in 24, and no recommendations in the remaining 12 questions. The panel acknowledged the need for standardization of various aspects of NSM and immediate reconstruction. It endorsed several oncological contraindications to the preservation of the skin and nipple. Furthermore, it recommended inclusion of patients in prospective registries and routine assessment of patient-reported outcomes. Considerable heterogeneity in breast reconstruction practice became obvious during the conference. Conclusions In case of conflicting or missing evidence to guide treatment, the consensus conference revealed substantial disagreement in expert panel opinion, which, among others, supports the need for a randomized trial to evaluate the safest and most efficacious reconstruction techniques

Oncoplastic breast consortium recommendations for mastectomy and whole breast reconstruction in the setting of post-mastectomy radiation therapy

Aim: Demand for nipple-and skin-sparing mastectomy (NSM/SSM) with immediate breast reconstruction (BR) has increased at the same time as indications for post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) have broadened. The aim of the Oncoplastic Breast Consortium initiative was to address relevant questions arising with this clinically challenging scenario. Methods: A large global panel of oncologic, oncoplastic and reconstructive breast surgeons, patient advocates and radiation oncologists developed recommendations for clinical practice in an iterative process based on the principles of Delphi methodology. Results: The panel agreed that surgical technique for NSM/SSM should not be formally modified when PMRT is planned with preference for autologous over implant-based BR due to lower risk of long-term complications and support for immediate and delayed-immediate reconstructive approaches. Nevertheless, it was strongly believed that PMRT is not an absolute contraindication for implant-based or other types of BR, but no specific recom-mendations regarding implant positioning, use of mesh or timing were made due to absence of high-quality evidence. The panel endorsed use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice. It was acknowledged that the shape and size of reconstructed breasts can hinder radiotherapy planning and attention to details of PMRT techniques is important in determining aesthetic outcomes after immediate BR. Conclusions: The panel endorsed the need for prospective, ideally randomised phase III studies and for surgical and radiation oncology teams to work together for determination of optimal sequencing and techniques for PMRT for each patient in the context of BRPeer reviewe

Oncoplastic Breast Consortium consensus conference on nipple-sparing mastectomy.

Purpose Indications for nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) have broadened to include the risk reducing setting and locally advanced tumors, which resulted in a dramatic increase in the use of NSM. The Oncoplastic Breast Consortium consensus conference on NSM and immediate reconstruction was held to address a variety of questions in clinical practice and research based on published evidence and expert panel opinion. Methods The panel consisted of 44 breast surgeons from 14 countries across four continents with a background in gynecology, general or reconstructive surgery and a practice dedicated to breast cancer, as well as a patient advocate. Panelists presented evidence summaries relating to each topic for debate during the in-person consensus conference. The iterative process in question development, voting, and wording of the recommendations followed the modified Delphi methodology. Results Consensus recommendations were reached in 35, majority recommendations in 24, and no recommendations in the remaining 12 questions. The panel acknowledged the need for standardization of various aspects of NSM and immediate reconstruction. It endorsed several oncological contraindications to the preservation of the skin and nipple. Furthermore, it recommended inclusion of patients in prospective registries and routine assessment of patient-reported outcomes. Considerable heterogeneity in breast reconstruction practice became obvious during the conference. Conclusions In case of conflicting or missing evidence to guide treatment, the consensus conference revealed substantial disagreement in expert panel opinion, which, among others, supports the need for a randomized trial to evaluate the safest and most efficacious reconstruction techniques

Local Treatment of the Primary Tumor for Patients With Metastatic Cancer (PRIME-TX): A Meta-Analysis

Purpose: Local treatment of the primary tumor for patients with metastases is controversial, and prospective data across many disease sites have conflicting conclusions regarding benefits. Methods and Materials: A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in the past 50 years. Inclusion criteria were multi-institutional RCTs of patients with metastatic disease receiving systemic therapy randomized to addition of local treatment to the primary tumor. Two primary outcome measures, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), were quantitatively assessed using random effects, and meta-analyses were conducted using the inverse variance method for pooling. Secondary endpoints were qualitatively assessed and included toxicity and patient-reported quality of life. Exploratory analyses were performed by treatment type and volume of disease. Results: Eleven studies comprising 4952 patients were included (1558 patients received radiation therapy and 913 patients received surgery as primary tumor treatment). OS and PFS were not significantly improved from treatment of the primary (OS: hazard ratio [HR], 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-1.05; PFS: HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.72-1.07). Assessment of primary local treatment modality demonstrated a significant difference in summary effect size on PFS between trials using surgery (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.99-1.33) compared with radiation therapy (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.56-0.96) as the local treatment modality (P =.005). In low metastatic burden patients, radiation therapy was associated with significantly improved OS (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.85), but surgery was not associated with improved OS compared with no local treatment (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.94-1.34). Conclusions: In RCTs conducted to date enrolling a variety of cancer types with variable metastatic burden, there is no consistent improvement in PFS or OS from the addition of local therapy to the primary tumor in unselected patients with metastatic disease. Carefully selected patients may derive oncologic benefit and should be discussed in tumor boards. Future prospective studies should aim to further optimize patient selection and the optimal systemic and local therapy treatment types