The standard care for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is systemic therapies with imbrication of focal treatment for symptoms. Recently, thanks to implementation of radiological and metabolic exams and development of new target therapies, oligometastatic and oligoprogressive settings are even more common—paving the way to a paradigm change of focal treatments role. In fact, according to immunophenotype, radiotherapy can be considered with radical intent in these settings of patients. The aim of this literature review is to analyze available clinical data on prognosis of bone metastases from breast cancer and benefits of available treatments for developing a practical guide for clinicians.

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.

Background: Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly used for process management in daily life. In the medical field AI is becoming part of computerized systems to manage information and encourage the generation of evidence. Here we present the development of the application of AI to IT systems present in the hospital, for the creation of a DataMart for the management of clinical and research processes in the field of breast cancer. Materials and methods: A multidisciplinary team of radiation oncologists, epidemiologists, medical oncologists, breast surgeons, data scientists, and data management experts worked together to identify relevant data and sources located inside the hospital system. Combinations of open-source data science packages and industry solutions were used to design the target framework. To validate the DataMart directly on real-life cases, the working team defined tumoral pathology and clinical purposes of proof of concepts (PoCs). Results: Data were classified into “Not organized, not ‘ontologized’ data”, “Organized, not ‘ontologized’ data”, and “Organized and ‘ontologized’ data”. Archives of real-world data (RWD) identified were platform based on ontology, hospital data warehouse, PDF documents, and electronic reports. Data extraction was performed by direct connection with structured data or text-mining technology. Two PoCs were performed, by which waiting time interval for radiotherapy and performance index of breast unit were tested and resulted available. Conclusions: GENERATOR Breast DataMart was created for supporting breast cancer pathways of care. An AI-based process automatically extracts data from different sources and uses them for generating trend studies and clinical evidence. Further studies and more proof of concepts are needed to exploit all the potentials of this system.

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.

Background: Pain and functional impairment of the ipsilateral shoulder girdle in patients who underwent surgery and radiotherapy for breast cancer (BC) is a late complication reported in the literature. We analyze a correlation with dosimetric parameters and propose an algorithm for sparing strategies. Methods: A total of 111 patients treated for BC were included in this observational analysis during follow-up protocol visits. Exclusion criteria were the presence of moderate or severe arthrosis history and/or rheumatologic diseases. All the patients had complete physical and multidimensional examinations during joint (physiatrist and radiotherapy oncology) follow-up visits. A scapula–humeral articulation (SHA) standardized contouring was performed retrospectively on Eclipse® treatment plans. A possible correlation between patients’ characteristics, radiotherapy, and dosimetry analysis and functional impairment was investigated at statistical analysis. Results of analysis were summarized into a proposal of algorithm for sparing SHA. Results: A total of 111 patients were selected during follow-up visits. Mean age of patients was 60 years (range 41–85 years). A total of 103 patients (93%) underwent conservative surgery, with 110 patients (99%) undergoing axilla surgery as well. Fifty-two patients (46.8%) presented a reduction of range of motion (ROM) abduction on the treated side at the observational analysis. Mean ROM abduction reduction was 13°06’ (range 0°–100°). Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH) score results were excellent in 79 patients (71.2%), discrete in 15 patients (13.5%), good in 15 patients (13.5%), and sufficient in 2 patients (1.8%). Median EQD₂ D_max at SHA was 18 Gy (range 0.22–51.9 Gy) and median EQD₂ mean dose at SHA was 2 Gy (range 0.04–24.32 Gy). Univariate analysis showed a linear correlation between DASH score and ROM of abduction of treated side (ρ=−0.7), ROM of abduction and ROM of flexion in ipsilateral arm (ρ=0.8), or ROM of abduction and ROM of flexion in contralateral arm (ρ=0.8). A statistically significant difference in ROM abduction between the 2 arms was found at χ² test ( P<0.05 at χ² confidence interval = 95%). Cox linear regression analysis showed ROM abduction on treated arm as a predictive factor of DASH score ( P<0.0001). Age ( P<0.05), DASH score ( P=0.006), and ROM abduction on treated arm ( P=0.005) were found as independent predictive factors of mean dose at multivariate analysis. A mean dose higher than 7 Gy and ROM abduction reduction more than 30° were related to DASH score level reduction. Conclusions: This hypothesis-generating study introduces an algorithm to be validated for management of sparing SHA and improving quality of survivorship. ROM evaluation after surgery, early physiotherapy, standard contouring, and planning adaptation represent possible indications to preserve shoulder impairment. Further prospective studies are needed to discriminate impairment of surgery and radiotherapy in order to personalized therapeutic plan programs.

Background: Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) following conservative mastectomy is the most common approach for women undergoing breast cancer surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the oncological outcomes of conservative mastectomy combined with prepectoral IBBR to the subpectoral technique. Methods: The clinical and demographic data of consecutive breast cancer patients who underwent conservative mastectomy with either prepectoral or subpectoral IBBR between January 2018 and December 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. The primary outcome was the impact of conservative mastectomy with prepectoral IBBR on local recurrence-free survival (LRFS). Secondary outcomes included distant disease-free survival (DDFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: A total of 842 women (with a median age of 46 years and a range of 20–79 years) were included in the study. Of these, 648 patients (77.0%) underwent prepectoral IBBR, while 194 (23.0%) received subpectoral IBBR. The median follow-up was 32 months (3–74). Locoregional relapse occurred in 19 patients (2.9%) in the prepectoral group and 14 (7.2%) in the subpectoral group. Distant metastases were observed in 21 (3.2%) patients in the prepectoral group and 11 (5.7%) in the subpectoral group. Deaths were reported in eight patients (1.2%) in the prepectoral group and five (2.6%) in the subpectoral group. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of the LRFS, DDFS, and OS (p = 0.676; p = 0.994; p = 0.940, respectively). Conclusions: Our study indicates that conservative mastectomy combined with prepectoral IBBR produces similar results to those of the subpectoral approach, with no significant differences in LRFS, DDFS, and OS.