Objective: to analyze the evolution of surgical techniques and strategies, and to determine their influence on the survival of patients with stage III or IV epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Methods: a retrospective data analysis was performed in two French tertiary cancer institutes. The analysis included clinical information, cytoreductive outcome (complete, optimal and suboptimal), definitive pathology, Overall Survival (OS), and Progression-Free Survival (PFS). Three surgical strategies were compared: Primary Cytoreductive Surgery (PCS), Interval Cytoreductive Surgery (ICS) after three cycles of Neo-Adjuvant Chemotherapy (NAC), and Final Cytoreductive Surgery (FCS) after at least six cycles of NAC. We analyzed four distinct time intervals: prior to 2000, between 2000 and 2004, between 2005 and 2009, and after 2009. Results: data from 1474 patients managed for International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stages III (80%) or IV (20%) EOC were analyzed. Throughout the four time intervals, the rate of patients who were treated only medically increased significantly (10.1% vs. 22.6% p < 0.001). NAC treatment increased from 20.1% to 52.2% (p < 0.001). Complete resection rate increased from 37% to 66.2% (p < 0.001). Of our study population, 1260 patients (85.5%) underwent surgery. OS was longer in cases of complete cytoreduction (Hazard Ratio (HR) = 2.123 CI 95% [1.816–2.481] p < 0.001) but the surgical strategy itself did not affect median OS. OS was 44.9 months, 50.3 months, and 42 months for PCS, ICS, and FCS, respectively (p = 0.410). After adjusting for surgical strategies (PCS, ICS, and FCS), all patients with complete cytoreduction presented similar OS with no significant difference. However, PFS was three months shorter when FCS was compared to PCS (p < 0.001). Conclusion: In our 30 years’ experience of EOC management, complete resection rate was the only independent factor that significantly improved OS and PFS, regardless of the surgical strategy.

Introduction: Immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) techniques are rapidly evolving. We compared the results from a single-center implant IBR cohort between subpectoral and prepectoral implants with and without a mesh. Methods: We analyzed all complications and grade 2–3 complications, the implant loss rate, the surgery time, the length of stay (LOS), patient satisfaction, the interval time to adjuvant therapy and cost, with a comparison between subpectoral and prepectoral implant IBR. Results: Subpectoral implant IBR was carried out in 529 mastectomies (62.0%) and prepectoral in 324, with a significant increase in prepectoral placement in recent years. Mesh was used in 176 prepectoral placements (54.3%). Any grade of complication was reported in 147 mastectomies (17.2%), with a significantly higher rate for prepectoral implant IBR (p = 0.036). Regression analysis showed that prepectoral implant was not significantly associated with any grade of complication or with grade 2–3 complications. Prepectoral implant IBR was associated with a significantly shorter operative time and lower LOS. Grade 2–3 complications were significantly associated with lower satisfaction. Higher costs were significantly associated with the subpectoral placement and mesh. A complication rate predictive score identified five groups with a significant increase in grade 2–3 complications. Conclusions: Prepectoral-M-IBR increased over time with no difference in complication rates compared to subpectoral-M-IBR. Prepectoral implant placement can be considered a safe technique.

Introduction: Oncological safety, quality of life and cosmetic outcomes seems to be similar between breast conserving surgery (BCS) and mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). We report our experience of IBR for consecutive mastectomies realized in a recent period of four years in order to determined immediate surgical results according to type of mastectomy and type of reconstruction, as mains objectives. Methods: All mastectomies with IBR during years 2016–2019 were included. A retrospective analysis with prospective data collection was performed. Results: We analyzed 748 IBR: 353 nipple-sparing mastectomies (NSM), 391 skin-sparing mastectomies (SSM) and 4 standard mastectomies, 551 with definitive implant or expanders and 196 with latissimus dorsi-flap (LDF). More NSM were performed during the 2 last years and more LDF were performed for high BMI, high breast cup-size, neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy and local recurrence. We realized 111 robotic NSM and 125 robotic LDF. Longer duration of surgery was significantly associated with the robotic procedures. The overall complications crude rate was 31.4% with 9.9% of re-operations and 5.8% of implant loss. Grade 2–3 complications were significantly associated with smoking. Breast complications occurred in 32.9% of mastectomies with principally skin or nipple-areola-complex suffering or necrosis, hematomas and infections. A predictive score was determined to evaluate risk of complications before surgery. Conclusion: Mastectomy with IBR seems to be a safe technique with an acceptable complication rate which is increased by tobacco use, high breast cup-size and IBR-type.

Inherited mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes increase the risk of development of cancer in organs especially in breast and ovary. Prevention and screening in BRCA mutation carriers are of high importance. Prophylactic surgeries are possible but are still insufficiently performed because they require surgical procedures in healthy patients. Guidelines for the management of BRCA mutations carriers must absolutely be part of the standard practice of all those involved in the management of these patients to increase the impact of the implementation of these preventive measures. There is no screening recommended for ovarian cancer. A risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy should be performed from age 35 to 40 years for BRCA1 mutation carriers and 40 to 45 years for BRCA2 mutation carriers. A screening for breast cancer should be performed annually from 30 years old by breast MRI and mammography. A risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy is recommended with nipple sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction from 30 years and before 40 years. A multidisciplinary care must be implemented for these patients with an important psychological support.