Shared strategies and correct information are essential to guide physicians in the management of such an uncommon disease as Breast Implant–Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (BIA-ALCL). A systematic review of the literature was performed to collect the most relevant evidence on BIA-ALCL reported cases. A panel of multidisciplinary experts discussed the scientific evidence on BIA-ALCL, and updated consensus recommendations were developed through the Delphi process. The lastest reported Italian incidence of BIA-ALCL is 3.5 per 100.000 implanted patients (95% CI, 1.36 to 5.78), and the disease counts over 1216 cases worldwide as of June 2022. The most common presentation symptom is a late onset seroma followed by a palpable breast mass. In the event of a suspicious case, ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration should be the first step in evaluation, followed by cytologic and immunohistochemical examination. In patients with confirmed diagnosis of BIA-ALCL confined to the capsule, the en-bloc capsulectomy should be performed, followed by immediate autologous reconstruction, while delayed reconstruction applies for disseminate disease or radically unresectable tumor. Nevertheless, a multidisciplinary team approach is essential for the correct management of this pathology.

Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) and Breast Implant-Associated Squamous Cell Carcinoma (BIA-SCC) are emerging neoplastic complications related to breast implants. While BIA-ALCL is often linked to macrotextured implants, current evidence does not suggest an implant-type association for BIA-SCC. Chronic inflammation and genetics have been hypothesized as key pathogenetic players, although for both conditions, the exact mechanisms and specific risks related to breast implants are yet to be established. While the genetic alterations in BIA-SCC are still unknown, JAK-STAT pathway activation has been outlined as a dominant signature of BIA-ALCL. Recent genetic investigation has uncovered various molecular players, including MEK-ERK, PI3K/AKT, CDK4-6, and PDL1. The clinical presentation of BIA-ALCL and BIA-SCC overlaps, including most commonly late seroma and breast swelling, warranting ultrasound and cytological examinations, which are the first recommended steps as part of the diagnostic work-up. While the role of mammography is still limited, MRI and CT-PET are recommended according to the clinical presentation and for disease staging. To date, the mainstay of treatment for BIA-ALCL and BIA-SCC is implant removal with en-bloc capsulectomy. Chemotherapy and radiation therapy have also been used for advanced-stage BIA-ALCL and BIA-SCC. In-depth characterization of the tumor genetics is key for the development of novel therapeutic strategies, especially for advanced stage BIA-ALCL and BIA-SCC, which show a more aggressive course and poor prognosis.

Background: Computed tomographic angiography (CTA) is the preferred diagnostic tool in preoperative deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap assessment, though some surgeons prefer approaching perforator selection with intraoperative findings alone.Methods: This prospective observational study conducted between 2015 and 2020 assessed our intraoperative decision‐making “free‐style” technique for DIEP flap harvest. Any patient with indication for immediate or delayed breast reconstruction using abdominally based flaps and who received preoperative CTA was enrolled. Only unilateral cases performed by the same surgeon were considered. Allergy to iodine‐based contrast media, renal impairment and claustrophobia were other exclusion criteria. Primary endpoint consisted in comparing operative times and complication rates between free‐style technique and CTA‐guided approach. Secondary endpoints included evaluation of agreement rate between intraoperative findings and CTA, and identification of variables affecting operative time and complication rate. Demographics, surgical information, agreement versus non‐agreement and complications were collected.Results: Starting from 206 patients, 100 were enrolled. Fifty were assigned to Group A, receiving DIEP flap with free‐style technique. The other 50 were assigned to Group B, receiving DIEP flap with CTA‐guided perforators selection. Study groups' demographics were homogenous. Operative time was statistically lower (p = .036) in free‐style group (252.4 ± 44.77 min vs. 265.6 ± 31.67 min). Complication rates were higher in CTA‐guided group (10% vs. 2%) though this was not significant (p = .092). Overall agreement rate in dominant perforator selection between intraoperatively and CTA‐based assessment was 81%. Multiple regression analysis showed no variable increased complication rate, though CTA‐guided approach, BMI > 30 and harvesting more than one perforator were respectively associated with B‐coefficient of 17.391 (2.430–32.351, 95% CI) [p = .023], 3.50 (0.640–6.379, 95% CI) [p = .017] and 18.887 (6.232–31.542, 95% CI) [p = .004], predicting increased operative time.Conclusions: The free‐style technique proved to be a useful tool for guiding DIEP flap harvest with good sensibility in detecting the dominant perforator suggested by CTA without statistically increasing surgery duration and complications.

Background: The Fat-Augmented Latissimus Dorsi (FALD) flap is an autologous flap that combines Latissimus Dorsi (LD) flap with immediate autologous fat transfer (AFT) in order to improve breast reconstruction (BR) volume. In recent years, our team has described the ergonomic FALD flap, an evolution of this technique which helps to achieve a complete BR in a single surgical step. In this long-term study, we analyze morphological variations of the breast after ergonomic FALD flap reconstruction compared to the traditional transverse FALD flap technique. Methods: Between December 2020 and September 2022 we prospectively enroll patients undergoing BR using FALD flap into 2 groups: Group A included ergonomic FALD flap, while Group B included traditional FALD flap. The primary endpoint of the study was to compare the two groups in terms of breast projection (BP), breast width (BW) and breast height (BH), while the second endpoint concerned the analysis of the aesthetic outcomes. Results: 32 FALD flaps (23 patients) were performed for the Group-A and 31 FALD flaps (25 patients) for Group-B. There were no significant differences regarding demographic variables. After propensity score weighting analysis, Group-A showed a statistically significant better breast projection (p<0.0001) compared to Group-B. (6.05 vs 5.60). Final aesthetic analyses showed to be superior in Group-A concerning breast shape (p=0.001) and global score evaluation (p=0.004). Conclusion: The ergonomic FALD flap offers better long-term aesthetic outcomes for autologous BR with higher breast projection compared to the traditional transverse FALD flap.