Background: Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) remains the standard and most popular option for women undergoing breast reconstruction after mastectomy worldwide. Recently, prepectoral IBBR has resurged in popularity, despite limited data comparing prepectoral with subpectoral IBBR. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed and Cochrane Library from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2021, was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines, data were extracted by independent reviewers. Studies that compared prepectoral with subpectoral IBBR for breast cancer were included. Results: Overall, 15 studies with 3,101 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Our results showed that patients receiving prepectoral IBBR experienced fewer capsular contractures (odds ratio [OR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32–0.92; P = 0.02), animation deformity (OR, 0.02; 95% CI, 0.00–0.25; P = 0.002), and prosthesis failure (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.42–0.80; P = 0.001). There was no significant difference between prepectoral and subpectoral IBBR in overall complications (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.64–1.09; P = 0.19), seroma (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.59-2.51; P = 0.60), hematoma (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.49–1.18; P = 0.22), infection (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.63–1.20; P = 0.39), skin flap necrosis (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.45–1.08; P = 0.11), and recurrence (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.52–3.39; P = 0.55). Similarly, no significant difference was found in Breast-Q scores between the prepectoral and subpectoral IBBR groups. Conclusions: The results of our systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that prepectoral, implant-based, breast reconstruction is a safe modality and has similar outcomes with significantly lower rates of capsular contracture, prosthesis failure, and animation deformity compared with subpectoral, implant-based, breast reconstruction.

Complete lymph node removal through conventional axillary dissection (ALND) has been standard treatment for breast cancer patients for almost a century. In the 1990s, however, and in parallel with the advent of the sentinel lymph node (SLN) procedure, ALND came under increasing scrutiny due to its association with significant patient morbidity. Several studies have since provided evidence to suggest omission of ALND, often in favor of axillary radiation, in selected clinically node-negative, SLN-positive patients, thus supporting the current trend in clinical practice. Clinically node-positive patients, by contrast, continue to undergo ALND in many cases, if only for the lack of studies re-assessing the indication for ALND in these patients. Hence, there is a need for a clinical trial to evaluate the optimal treatment for clinically node-positive breast cancer patients in terms of surgery and radiotherapy. The TAXIS trial is designed to fill this gap by examining in particular the value of tailored axillary surgery (TAS), a new technique for selectively removing positive lymph nodes. In this international, multicenter, phase-III, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial (RCT), including 34 study sites from four different countries, we plan to randomize 1500 patients to either receive TAS followed by ALND and regional nodal irradiation excluding the dissected axilla, or receive TAS followed by regional nodal irradiation including the full axilla. All patients undergo adjuvant whole-breast irradiation after breast-conserving surgery and chest-wall irradiation after mastectomy. The main objective of the trial is to test the hypothesis that treatment with TAS and axillary radiotherapy is non-inferior to ALND in terms of disease-free survival of clinically node-positive breast cancer patients in the era of effective systemic therapy and extended regional nodal irradiation. The trial was activated on 31 July 2018 and the first patient was randomized on 7 August 2018. Designed to test the hypothesis that TAS is non-inferior to ALND in terms of curing patients and preventing recurrences, yet is significantly superior in reducing patient morbidity, this trial may establish a new worldwide treatment standard in breast cancer surgery. If found to be non-inferior to standard treatment, TAS may significantly contribute to reduce morbidity in breast cancer patients by avoiding surgical overtreatment. ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03513614. Registered on 1 May 2018. www.kofam.ch , ID: NCT03513614 . Registered on 17 June 2018. EudraCT No.: 2018–000372-14.

To analyze whether breast-conserving therapy (BCT) may be an oncologically safe approach and result in a good cosmesis in patients with centrally located breast cancer (CLBC). Only underpowered, retrospective, single-arm studies have suggested that oncoplastic BCT for CLBC may be oncologically safe and may result in a good cosmesis. The authors retrospectively analyzed the overall and recurrence-free survival in 1485 patients with breast cancer undergoing BCT comparing CLBC with non-CLBC. Moreover, the authors described 4 different oncoplastic techniques for BCT in patients with CLBC and compared the cosmetic results with simple lumpectomy according to a recently elaborated objective cosmetic evaluation system, the Breast Symmetry Index. Kaplan-Meier curves show no significant difference in a 5-year overall, local, or distant recurrence-free survival between patients with CLBC and non-CLBC after BCT (94% vs. 96%; 100% vs. 98%; 92% vs. 90%; median follow-up, 35.3 months). The cosmetic outcome after oncoplastic BCT compared with simple lumpectomy differed significantly (Breast Symmetry Index: 22 +/- 6%d vs. 44 +/- 12%d; P < 0.05). The results demonstrate that BCT for CLBC is oncologically safe and that oncoplastic techniques improve cosmesis.

Introduction: Recent data suggest that margins ≥2 mm after breast-conserving surgery may improve local control in invasive breast cancer (BC). By allowing large resection volumes, oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OBCII; Clough level II/Tübingen 5-6) may achieve better local control than conventional breast conserving surgery (BCS; Tübingen 1-2) or oncoplastic breast conservation with low resection volumes (OBCI; Clough level I/Tübingen 3-4). Methods: Data from consecutive high-risk BC patients treated in 15 centers from the Oncoplastic Breast Consortium (OPBC) network, between January 2010 and December 2013, were retrospectively reviewed. Results: A total of 3,177 women were included, 30% of whom were treated with OBC (OBCI n = 663; OBCII n = 297). The BCS/OBCI group had significantly smaller tumors and smaller resection margins compared with OBCII (pT1: 50% vs. 37%, p = 0.002; proportion with margin <1 mm: 17% vs. 6%, p < 0.001). There were significantly more re-excisions due to R1 (“ink on tumor”) in the BCS/OBCI compared with the OBCII group (11% vs. 7%, p = 0.049). Univariate and multivariable regression analysis adjusted for tumor biology, tumor size, radiotherapy, and systemic treatment demonstrated no differences in local, regional, or distant recurrence-free or overall survival between the two groups. Conclusions: Large resection volumes in oncoplastic surgery increases the distance from cancer cells to the margin of the specimen and reduces reexcision rates significantly. With OBCII larger tumors are resected with similar local, regional and distant recurrence-free as well as overall survival rates as BCS/OBCI.

Background: While “no tumour on ink” is an accepted margin width for R₀ resection in primary surgery, it’s unclear if it’s oncologically safe after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Only limited data demonstrate that surgery within new margins in cases of a pathological complete response (pCR) is safe. We therefore investigated the influence of different margins and pCR on local recurrence and survival rates after NAC. Methods: We retrospectively analysed data of 406 women with invasive breast cancer, treated with NAC and breast-conserving therapy between 1994 and 2014 in two certified Austrian breast health centres. We compared R ≤ 1 mm, R > 1 mm and RX (pCR) for local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: After a median follow-up of 84.3 months, the 5-year LRFS (R ≤ 1 mm: 94.2%, R > 1 mm: 90.6%, RX: 95.0%; p = 0.940), the 5-year DFS (R ≤ 1 mm: 71.9%, R > 1 mm: 74.1%, RX: 87.2%; p = 0.245) and the 5-year OS (R ≤ 1 mm: 85.1%, R > 1 mm: 88.0%, RX: 96.4%; p = 0.236) did not differ significantly between narrow, wide, nor RX resections. Regarding DFS and OS, a negative nodal status reduced the hazard ratio significantly. Conclusion: There is no significant difference in LRFS, DFS and OS comparing close, wide or unknown margins after pCR. We suggest that resection in new margins after NAC is safe according to “no tumour on ink”. Resection of the clipped area in cases of pCR is emphasized.