000			04103nam a22004337a 4500
008			240807s20232023 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
022			_a2218-6778
024			_aPMC11093065 [pmc]
024			_atbcr-04-5 [pii]
040			_aOvid MEDLINE(R)
099			_a38751478
245			_aA retrospective cohort study comparing reconstructive techniques and outcomes in post-mastectomy triple negative breast cancer patients.
251			_aTranslational Breast Cancer Research : A Journal Focusing on Translational Research in Breast Cancer. 4:5, 2023.
252			_aTransl Breast Cancer Res. 4:5, 2023.
253			_aTranslational breast cancer research : a journal focusing on translational research in breast cancer
260			_c2023
260			_p2023
265			_sepublish
265			_tPubMed-not-MEDLINE
266			_d2024-08-07
266			_z2024/05/16 03:35
520			_aBackground: Up to 42% of all breast cancer patients undergo post-mastectomy reconstruction, however reconstructive techniques have not been widely studied in patients with triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). Reconstructive complications may delay adjuvant treatments; in TNBC, which inherently carries an increased risk of locoregional recurrence, this can greatly affect oncological outcomes. Therefore, we evaluate factors influencing choice of reconstructive techniques following mastectomy in TNBC patients and assess operative and oncologic safety outcomes.
520			_aConclusions: Factors such as age, BMI, and breast cancer history impacted choice of reconstructive technique among TNBC women. No differences in complications, recurrence, or mortality occur in these high-risk patients regardless of reconstructive technique, highlighting that neither ABR nor IBR is superior in regard to surgical and oncologic safety in post-mastectomy TNBC patients. Copyright 2023 Translational Breast Cancer Research. All rights reserved.
520			_aMethods: A single institution retrospective chart review identified TNBC patients who underwent post-mastectomy reconstruction between 2010 to 2020. Clinical characteristics collected included demographics, cancer history, reconstructive techniques [autologous-based reconstruction (ABR) vs. implant-based reconstruction (IBR)] and surgical and oncologic outcomes such as complications, recurrence, and mortality. Factors impacting whether patients underwent ABR versus IBR were assessed, as well as differences in outcomes between the two procedures. Statistical significance was defined as P<0.05.
520			_aResults: During the 10-year period, 52.9% (n=127) of all post-mastectomy TNBC patients (n=240) underwent breast reconstruction, most frequently immediately after mastectomy (97.0%). Most patients underwent IBR compared to ABR (82.4% vs. 14.5%). Patients undergoing ABR were older than IBR patients (54.3 vs. 46.4 years; P=0.040) and had a higher body mass index (BMI; 30.0 vs. 26.1 kg/m2; P=0.007). Patients more often pursued ABR if they had a prior breast cancer history (36.8% vs. 16.7%; P=0.041) or experienced TNBC recurrence (26.3% vs. 9.3%; P=0.034), while primary TNBC patients more often opted for IBR. Reconstructive type did not impact complications (ABR 31.6% vs. IBR 16.8%, P=0.131), recurrence (ABR 15.8% vs. IBR 13.0%, P=0.719), or mortality (ABR 0.0% vs. IBR 6.5%, P=0.593) rates.
546			_aEnglish
650			_zAutomated
651			_aMedStar Washington Hospital Center
656			_aMedStar General Surgery Residency
656			_aMedStar Georgetown University Hospital/MedStar Washington Hospital Center
656			_aSurgery/Plastic Surgery
657			_aJournal Article
700			_aDeldar, Romina _bMGUH _cMedStar General Surgery Residency _dMD
700			_aFan, Kenneth L _bMWHC
700			_aMasanam, Monika _bMGUH _cMedStar General Surgery Residency _dMD
790			_aSayyed AA, Towfighi P, Deldar R, Aminpour N, Sogunro O, Maini M, Masanam M, Son JD, Fan KL, Song DH
856			_uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tbcr-22-42 _zhttps://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tbcr-22-42
942			_cART _dArticle
999			_c14505 _d14505