Oncoplastic surgery (OPS) is becoming the new standard of care for breast-conserving surgery (BCS). It has become increasingly popular in Europe; however, it has not yet been widely accepted in North America. This study aims to describe the experience with OPS at a Canadian tertiary care centre. This study is a retrospective case series consisting of consecutive OPS cases at a single Canadian centre, the Royal Victoria Regional Health Centre in Barrie, Ontario, between 2009 and 2015. A total of 275 women who consecutively underwent OPS were included. The average size of the tumour was 17 mm (standard deviation [SD] 13 mm; range 0–110 mm). The average specimen weight was 155 g (SD 146 g; range 15–1132 g). Invasive ductal carcinoma was the most common diagnosis (237 patients, 86.2%), followed by ductal carcinoma in situ (18 patients, 6.6%) and then invasive lobular carcinoma (15 patients, 5.5%). A positive margin was recorded in 37 (13.5%) patients. Immediate postoperative complications included seroma and edema (32.7%), wound infection (13.1%), hematoma (8.7%) and delayed wound healing (6.5%). A delay to adjuvant therapy due to postoperative complications occurred in 7 of 217 (3.2%) patients. The median follow-up was 18 months. There were local and distant recurrences in 9 (3.3%) and 2 (0.7%) patients, respectively. Overall survival was 99.3%. The findings of this study are comparable to results in the literature on OPS and demonstrate that OPS is an attractive alternative to standard lumpectomy for Canadian general surgeons who treat breast cancer.

Breast reconstruction after mastectomy improves the quality of life for many patients with breast cancer. There is uncertainty regarding eligibility criteria for reconstruction, timing (immediate or delayed—with or without radiotherapy), outcomes of nipple-sparing compared to skin-sparing mastectomy, selection criteria and surgical factors influencing outcomes of nipple-sparing mastectomy, prepectoral versus subpectoral implants, use of acellular dermal matrix, and use of autologous fat grafting. We conducted a systematic review of these topics to be used as the evidence base for an updated clinical practice guideline on breast reconstruction for Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario). The protocol was registered on PROSPERO, CRD42023409083. Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched until August 2024, and 229 primary studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were retrospective non-randomized comparative studies; 5 randomized controlled trials were included. Results suggest nipple-sparing mastectomy is oncologically safe, provided there is no clinical, radiological, or pathological indication of nipple-areolar complex involvement. Surgical factors, including incision location, may affect rates of complications such as necrosis. Both immediate and delayed reconstruction have similar long-term outcomes; however, immediate reconstruction may result in better short to medium-term quality of life. Evidence on whether radiotherapy should modify the timing of initial reconstruction or expander-implant exchange was very limited; studies delayed reconstruction after radiotherapy by at least 3 months and, more commonly, at least 6 months to avoid the period of acute radiation injury. Radiation after immediate reconstruction is a reasonable option. Surgical complications are similar between prepectoral and dual-plane or subpectoral reconstruction; prepectoral placement may give a better quality of life due to lower rates of long-term complications such as pain and animation deformity. Autologous fat grafting was found to be oncologically safe; its use may improve quality of life and aesthetic results.

Several postmastectomy breast reconstruction techniques and procedures have been implemented, although with limited evaluation of benefits and adverse effects. We conducted a systematic review on the plane and timing of reconstruction, and on the use of nipple-sparing mastectomy, acellular dermal matrix, and autologous fat grafting as the evidence base for an updated clinical practice guideline on breast reconstruction for Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario). Both immediate and delayed reconstruction may be considered, with preferred timing depending on factors such as patient preferences, type of mastectomy, skin perfusion, comorbidities, pre-mastectomy breast size, and desired reconstructive breast size. Immediate reconstruction may provide greater psychological or quality of life benefits. In patients who are candidates for skin-sparing mastectomy and without clinical, radiological, and pathological indications of nipple-areolar complex involvement, nipple-sparing mastectomy is recommended provided it is technically feasible and acceptable aesthetic results can be achieved. Surgical factors including incision location are important to reduce necrosis by preserving blood supply and to minimize nerve damage. There is a role for both prepectoral and subpectoral implants; risks and benefits will vary, and decisions should be made during consultation between the patient and surgeons. In patients who are suitable candidates for implant reconstruction and have adequate mastectomy flap thickness and vascularity, prepectoral implants should be considered. Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) has led to an increased use of prepectoral reconstruction. ADM should not be used in case of poor mastectomy flap perfusion/ischemia that would otherwise be considered unsuitable for prepectoral reconstruction. Care should be taken in the selection and handling of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) to minimize risks of infection and seroma. Limited data from small studies suggest that prepectoral reconstruction without ADM may be feasible in some patients. Autologous fat grafting is recommended as a treatment for contour irregularities, rippling following implant-based reconstruction, and to improve tissue quality of the mastectomy flap after radiotherapy.

Oncoplastic partial mastectomy (OPM) is a technique utilized to improve aesthetic and survivorship outcomes in patients with localized breast cancer. This technique leads to breast tissue rearrangement, which can have an impact on target definition for boost radiotherapy (BRT). The aim of this study was to determine if the choice of surgical technique independently affected the decision to deliver a radiation boost. This was a retrospective study of patients treated between January 2017 and December 2018. We selected consecutive patients based on surgical procedure: 50 undergoing standard breast-conserving surgery and 50 having had an OPM. The primary outcome was average treatment effect (ATE) of surgery type on reception of BRT. Secondary outcomes included ATE of surgery type on the time to reception of radiotherapy and incidence of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR). The ratio of boost clinical target volume (CTV) to pathologic tumor size was also compared between the two groups. Treatment effects regression adjustment and inverse-probability weighted analysis was used to estimate ATEs for both primary and secondary outcomes. For the entire cohort, the median age was 64 years (range: 37-88 years). The median tumor size was 1.5 cm (range: 0.1-6.5 cm). The majority of patients were with ≤ stage IIA (78%), invasive ductal subtype (80%), negative lymphovascular space invasion (78%), negative margin (90%), and positive ER/PR (estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor) (69%). Overall, surgical technique was not associated with differences in the proportion of patients receiving BRT (ATE: 6.0% [95% CI: -4.5 to 16.0]). There were no differences in delays to radiation treatment between the two groups (ATE: 32.8 days [95% CI: -22.1 to 87.7]). With a median follow-up time of 419 days (range: 30-793 days), there were only five recurrences, with one case of IBTR in each group. There was no difference in the ratio of CTV volume to tumor size between the two groups (p=0.38). OPM did not affect the decision to offer localized BRT following standard whole breast radiotherapy or significantly affect treatment times or radiation volumes. The decision to offer OPM should include a multi-disciplinary approach.