Background: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction (IPBR) using traditional submuscular (SM) positioning of implants versus prepectoral (PP) positioning of micropolyurethane-foam-coated implants (microthane) without further coverage. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of breast cancer patients treated by nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) and IPBR in our institution during the two-year period from January 2018 to December 2019. Patients were divided into two groups based on the plane of implant placement: SM versus PP. Results: 177 patients who received IPBR after NSM were included in the study; implants were positioned in a SM plane in 95 patients and in a PP plane in 82 patients. The two cohorts were similar for mean age (44 years and 47 years in the SM and PP groups, respectively) and follow-up (20 months and 16 months, respectively). The mean operative time was 70 min shorter in the PP group. No significant differences were observed in length of hospital stay or overall major complication rates. Statistically significant advantages were observed in the PP group in terms of aesthetic results, chronic pain, shoulder dysfunction, and skin sensibility (p < 0.05), as well as a trend of better outcomes for sports activity and sexual/relationship life. Cost analysis revealed that PP-IPBR was also economically advantageous over SM-IPBR. Conclusions: Our preliminary experience seems to confirm that PP positioning of a polyurethane-coated implant is a safe, reliable and effective method to perform IPBR after NSM.

Background: Conservative mastectomy with immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction (IPBR) is an oncologically accepted technique that offers improved esthetic results and patient quality of life. Traditionally, implants have been placed in a submuscular (SM) plane beneath the pectoralis major muscle (PMM). Recently, prepectoral (PP) placement of the prosthesis has been increasingly used in order to avoid morbidities related to manipulation of the PMM. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of SM vs. PP IPBR after conservative mastectomy in patients with histologically proven breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Methods: In this retrospective observational study, we analyzed two cohorts of patients that underwent mastectomy with IPBR after NAC in our institution from January 2018 to December 2021. Conservative mastectomy was performed in 146 of the 400 patients that underwent NAC during the study period. Patients were divided into two groups based on the positioning of implants: 56 SM versus 90 PP. Results: The two cohorts were similar for age (mean age 42 and 44 years in the SM and PP group respectively) and follow-up (33 and 20 months, respectively). Mean operative time was 56 min shorter in the PP group (300 and 244 min in the SM and PP group). No significant differences were observed in overall major complication rates. Implant loss was observed in 1.78% of patients (1/56) in the SM group and 1.11% of patients (1/90) in PP group. No differences were observed between the two groups in local or regional recurrence. Conclusions: Our preliminary experience, which represents one of the largest series of patients undergoing PP-IPBR after NAC at a single institution documented in the literature, seems to confirm that PP-IPBR after NAC is a safe, reliable and effective alternative to traditional SM-IPBR with excellent esthetic and oncological outcomes; it is easy to perform, reduces operative time and minimizes complications related to manipulation of PPM. However, this promising results need to be confirmed in prospective trials with longer follow-up.

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is characterized by the absence of hormone receptor and HER2 expression, and therefore a lack of therapeutic targets. Anthracyclines and taxane-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy have historically been the cornerstone of treatment of early TNBC. However, genomic and transcriptomic analyses have suggested that TNBCs include various subtypes, characterized by peculiar genomic drivers and potential therapeutic targets. Therefore, several efforts have been made to expand the therapeutic landscape of early TNBC, leading to the introduction of platinum and immunomodulatory agents into the neoadjuvant setting. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the currently available evidence regarding platinum agents and immune-checkpoint-inhibitors for the neoadjuvant treatment of TNBC, as well as the novel target therapies that are currently being evaluated in this setting. Taking into account the economic issues and the side effects of the expanding therapeutic options, we focus on the potential efficacy biomarkers of the emerging therapies, in order to select the best therapeutic strategy for each specific patient.

Oncoplastic surgery level II techniques (OPSII) are used in patients with operable breast cancer. There is no evidence regarding their safety and efficacy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). The aim of this study was to compare the oncological and aesthetic outcomes of this technique compared with those observed in mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction (MIBR), in post-NAC patients undergoing surgery between January 2016 and March 2021. Local disease-free survival (L-DFS), regional disease-free survival (R-DFS), distant disease-free survival (D-DFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared; the aesthetic results and quality of life (QoL) were evaluated using BREAST-Q. A total of 297 patients were included, 87 of whom underwent OPSII and 210 of whom underwent MIBR. After a median follow-up of 39.5 months, local recurrence had occurred in 3 patients in the OPSII group (3.4%), and in 13 patients in the MIBR group (6.1%) (p = 0.408). The three-year L-DFS rates were 95.1% for OPSII and 96.2% for MIBR (p = 0.286). The three-year R-DFS rates were 100% and 96.4%, respectively (p = 0.559). The three-year D-DFS rate were 90.7% and 89.7% (p = 0.849). The three-year OS rates were 95.7% and 95% (p = 0.394). BREAST-Q highlighted significant advantages in physical well-being for OPSII. No difference was shown for satisfaction with breasts (p = 0.656) or psychosocial well-being (p = 0.444). OPSII is safe and effective after NAC. It allows oncological and aesthetic outcomes with a high QoL, and is a safe alternative for locally advanced tumors which are partial responders to NAC.

Oncoplastic level II breast-conserving surgery (OPS2) allows for wider excisions than standard breast-conserving surgery, but the literature on this technique in the treatment of DCIS is scarce. This study compares OPS2 to conservative mastectomy (CM) in patients undergoing surgery for large DCIS. The clinical, radiological, surgical, and post-operative data of 147 patients who underwent either CM or OPS2 for large DCIS between 2007 and 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. The surgical, oncological, and patient-reported outcomes (PRO) were analyzed and compared between the two groups. The surgical outcomes were similar, in terms of margin involvement (p = 0.211), complication rate (p = 0.827), and re-excision rate (p = 1). The rate of additional surgery for cosmetic optimization was significantly lower in the OPS2 group: only 1 (1.8%) patient required surgical adjustments versus 24 (26.4%) patients in the CM group (p < 0.001). The mean hospital stay was lower in the OPS2 group (p < 0.001). The oncological outcomes did not differ between the two groups (p = 0.662). The PRO analysis showed better outcomes in the OPS2 group, which achieved statistical significance in the sexual well-being module (p = 0.015). Skin sensitivity loss was also significantly lower in the OPS2 group (p < 0.001). When feasible, OPS2 should be considered in the treatment of large DCIS, as it is safe and shows high levels of patient satisfaction.

Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) following neoadjuvant treatment (NACT) has been questioned by many studies that reported heterogeneous identification (IR) and false negative rates (FNR). As a result, some patients receive axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) regardless of response to NACT, leading to a potential overtreatment. To better assess reliability and clinical significance of SLNB status on ycN0 patients, we retrospectively analyzed oncological outcomes of 399 patients treated between January 2016 and December 2019 that were either cN0-ycN0 (219 patients) or cN1/2-ycN0 (180 patients). The Endpoints of our study were to assess, furthermore than IR: oncological outcomes as Overall Survival (OS); Distant Disease Free Survival (DDFS); and Regional Disease Free Survival (RDFS) according to SLNB status. SLN identification rate was 96.8% (98.2% in patients cN0-ycN0 and 95.2% in patients cN+-ycN0). A median number of three lymph nodes were identified and removed. Among cN0-ycN0 patients, 149 (68%) were confirmed ypN0(sn), whereas regarding cN1/2-ycN0 cases 86 (47.8%) confirmed an effective downstaging to ypN0. Three year OS, DDFS and RDFS were significantly related to SLNB positivity. Our data seemed to confirm SLNB feasibility following NACT in ycN0 patients, furthermore reinforcing its predictive role in a short observation timing.