3 research outputs found
Therapeutic mammaplasty is a safe and effective alternative to mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction
Background: Therapeutic mammaplasty (TM) may be an alternative to mastectomy, but few well designed studies have evaluated the success of this approach or compared the short-term outcomes of TM with mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). Data from the national iBRA-2 and TeaM studies were combined to compare the safety and short-term outcomes of TM and mastectomy with or without IBR. Methods: The subgroup of patients in the TeaM study who underwent TM to avoid mastectomy were identified, and data on demographics, complications, oncology and adjuvant treatment were compared with those of patients undergoing mastectomy with or without IBR in the iBRA-2 study. The primary outcome was the percentage of successful breast-conserving procedures in the TM group. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications and time to adjuvant therapy. Results: A total of 2916 patients (TM 376; mastectomy 1532; mastectomy and IBR 1008) were included in the analysis. Patients undergoing TM were more likely to be obese and to have undergone bilateral surgery than those having IBR. However, patients undergoing mastectomy with or without IBR were more likely to experience complications than the TM group (TM: 79, 21·0 per cent; mastectomy: 570, 37·2 per cent; mastectomy and IBR: 359, 35·6 per cent; P < 0·001). Breast conservation was possible in 87·0 per cent of patients who had TM, and TM did not delay adjuvant treatment. Conclusion: TM may allow high-risk patients who would not be candidates for IBR to avoid mastectomy safely. Further work is needed to explore the comparative patient-reported and cosmetic outcomes of the different approaches, and to establish long-term oncological safety
Recommended from our members
The chromatin landscape of healthy and injured cell types in the human kidney
There is a need to define regions of gene activation or repression that control human kidney cells in states of health, injury, and repair to understand the molecular pathogenesis of kidney disease and design therapeutic strategies. Comprehensive integration of gene expression with epigenetic features that define regulatory elements remains a significant challenge. We measure dual single nucleus RNA expression and chromatin accessibility, DNA methylation, and H3K27ac, H3K4me1, H3K4me3, and H3K27me3 histone modifications to decipher the chromatin landscape and gene regulation of the kidney in reference and adaptive injury states. We establish a spatially-anchored epigenomic atlas to define the kidney’s active, silent, and regulatory accessible chromatin regions across the genome. Using this atlas, we note distinct control of adaptive injury in different epithelial cell types. A proximal tubule cell transcription factor network of ELF3, KLF6, and KLF10 regulates the transition between health and injury, while in thick ascending limb cells this transition is regulated by NR2F1. Further, combined perturbation of ELF3, KLF6, and KLF10 distinguishes two adaptive proximal tubular cell subtypes, one of which manifested a repair trajectory after knockout. This atlas will serve as a foundation to facilitate targeted cell-specific therapeutics by reprogramming gene regulatory networks. © 2024, The Author(s).Open access journalThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]