Breast conserving surgery has become the standard of care and is more commonly performed than mastectomy for early stage breast cancer, with recent studies showing equivalent survival and lower morbidity. Accurate preoperative lesion localization is mandatory to obtain adequate oncological and cosmetic results. Image guidance assures the precision requested for this purpose. This review provides a summary of all techniques currently available, ranging from the classic wire positioning to the newer magnetic seed localization. We describe the procedures and equipment necessary for each method, outlining the advantages and disadvantages, with a focus on the cost-effective preoperative skin tattoo technique performed at our centre. Breast surgeons and radiologists have to consider ongoing technological developments in order to assess the best localization method for each individual patient and clinical setting.

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.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is increasingly being employed in the management of breast cancer patients. Efforts and resources have been devoted over the years to the search for an optimal strategy that can improve outcomes in the neoadjuvant setting. Today, a multidisciplinary approach with the application of evidence-based medicine is considered the gold standard for the improvement of oncological results and patient satisfaction. However, several clinical complications and psychological issues due to various factors can arise during neoadjuvant therapy and undermine outcomes. To ensure that health care needs are adequately addressed, clinicians must consider that women with breast cancer have a high risk of developing “unmet needs” during treatment, and often require a clinical intervention or additional care resources to limit possible complications and psychological issues that can occur during neoadjuvant treatment. This work describes a multidisciplinary model developed at “Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli” (FPG) in Rome in an effort to optimize treatment, ease the application of evidence-based medicine, and improve patient quality of life in the neoadjuvant setting. In developing our model, our main goal was to adequately meet patient needs while preventing high levels of distress.

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is an aggressive type of breast cancer that lacks the expression of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). TNBC accounts for about 15% of breast cancers and has a poorer prognosis as compared with other subtypes of breast cancer. The more rapid onset of this cancer and its aggressiveness have often convinced breast surgeons that mastectomy could provide better oncological results. However, there is no relevant clinical trial that has assessed differences between breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and mastectomy (M) in these patients. This population-based study aimed to investigate the distinct outcomes between conservative treatment and M in a case series of 289 patients with TNBC treated over a 9-year period. This monocentric study retrospectively evaluated patients with TNBC who underwent upfront surgery at Fondazione Policlinico Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, in Rome, between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2021. First, the patients were divided in two groups according to the surgical treatment received: BCS vs. M. Then, the patients were stratified into four risk subclasses based on combined T and N pathological staging (T1N0, T1N+, T2-4N0 and T2-4N+). The primary endpoint of the study was to evaluate locoregional disease-free survival (LR-DFS), distant disease-free survival (DDFS) and overall survival (OS) in the different subclasses. We analyzed 289 patients that underwent either breast-conserving surgery (247/289, 85.5%) or mastectomy (42/289, 14.5%). After a median follow-up of 43.2 months (49.7, 22.2–74.3), 28 patients (9.6%) developed a locoregional recurrence, 27 patients (9.0%) showed systemic recurrence and 19 patients (6.5%) died. No significant differences due to type of surgical treatment were observed in the different risk subclasses in terms of locoregional disease-free survival, distant disease-free survival and overall survival. With the limits of a retrospective, single-center study, our data seem to indicate similar efficacy in terms of locoregional control, distant metastasis and overall survival with the use of upfront breast-conserving surgery as compared with radical surgery in the treatment of TNBC. Therefore, TNBC should not be considered to be a contraindication for breast conservation.

Background: An increase in breast cancer (BC) incidence in young women (YW) as well as disparities in BC outcomes have been reported in Switzerland. We sought to evaluate treatment and outcome differences among YW with BC (YWBC). Methods: YW diagnosed with stage I-III BC between 2000–2014 were identified through nine cancer registries. Concordance with international guidelines was assessed for 12 items covering clinical/surgical management, combined in a quality-of-care score. We compared score and survival outcome between the two linguistic-geographic regions of Switzerland (Swiss-Latin and Swiss-German) and evaluated the impact of quality-of-care on survival. Results: A total of 2477 women were included. The median age was 37.3 years (IQR 34.0–39.4 years), with 50.3% having stage II BC and 70.3% having estrogen receptor positive tumors. The mean quality-of-care score was higher in the Latin region compared to the German region (86.0% vs. 83.2%, p < 0.0005). Similarly, 5- and 10-year overall survival rates were higher in the Latin compared to the German region (92.3% vs. 90.2%, p = 0.0593, and 84.3% vs. 81.5%, p = 0.0025, respectively). There was no difference in survival according to the score. In the univariate analysis, women in the Latin region had a 28% lower mortality risk compared to women in the German region (hazard ratio 0.72; 95% CI 0.59–0.89). In the multivariable analysis, only stage, differentiation, tumor subtype and treatment period remained independently associated with survival. Conclusions: We identified geographic disparities in the treatment and outcome of YWBC in Switzerland. National guidelines for YWBC should be implemented to standardize treatment. Awareness should be raised among YW and clinicians that BC does not discriminate by age.

Nowadays, the overall attention is focused on de-escalating treatments for breast cancer (BC) including surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy. The introduction of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) has led to less invasive surgical approaches for accurately staging the axilla, with axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) progressively confined to a limited group of patients. One of the goal of surgery in de-escalating approaches is to reduce surgical morbidity by restricting or avoiding axillary surgery with no effect on survival. In this context the importance of imaging study for preoperative identification of axillary metastasis, in order to reduce axillary surgery, is gradually improving while the role of intraoperative assessment of sentinel nodes is progressively becoming limited to restricted groups of patients. According to the results of the ACOSOG Z0011 and following the most important guidelines, ALND can be safely omitted in selected patients treated with breast conserving surgery (BCS) with one or two positive SLNB while the adoption of SLNB positive alone in patients undergoing mastectomy is not yet defined. The increased employment of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and the use of SLNB in patients after NAC plays an important role in de-escalation of axillary surgery in this group of patients. However current studies on this topic are still controversial, mainly about clinically positive lymph nodes (cN+) pre NAC patients or how to manage positive SLNB in post NAC patients. Some authors have collected predictive factors of positive non sentinel lymph nodes (NSLNs) in nomograms, considered an useful tool to avoid unnecessary further surgery. Elderly women represent specific group of patients where the axillary approach needs to be properly resized. The management of axilla in BC is in continuous evolution and ongoing studies could make even SLNB useless in the next future.