Abstract P3-14-12: Oncologic outcomes of immediate breast reconstruction after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients: A matched case control study
Authors: JM Ryu, JE Lee, SW Kim, J Yu, M Rayzah, SK Lee, A Mansoor, SY Bae, S Park, H-J Paik, I Kim, SI Bang, BJ Jeon, G-H Mun, J-K Pyon
Journal: Cancer Research (2017)

Abstract Introduction: Although the indication for total mastectomy (TM) with immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) has been expanded, IBR after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) is still controversy. We assumed that TM with IBR after NACT is feasible surgical treatment in breast cancer patients. Methods: A retrospective review of breast cancer patients who underwent TM with IBR after NACT between 2008 and 2015 at a single center was conducted. These cases were matched by 1:5 to patients who underwent mastectomy alone after NACT. Matching variables included age, clinical T and N staging before NACT, response to NACT, and pathologic staging after NACT. Pathological stage was followed by seventh American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) classification. Results: Overall, 31 patients were identified in the TM with IBR group (Study group) and 85 patients (Control group) were matched. In the study group, 13 (41.9%) patients underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) and 18 (58.1%) underwent skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM). Median follow-up duration was 29.2 (7-31) and 38.8 (11-85) months for the study and control group, respectively. Median age was 37.0 (26-57) and 40.0 (24-56) years for the study and control group, respectively. The clinicopathologic characteristics of both groups are summarized in Table1. Disease-free survival (p=0.520), local recurrence-free survival (p=0.610), distant metastasis-free survival (p=0.795), and over survival (p=0.971) did not differ significantly between two groups. Conclusion: TM with IBR after NACT is feasible surgical treatment option in breast cancer patients. Clinicopathologic characteristicsVariablesControl group (n=85)Study group (n=31)p-valueAge, years (matching variables) 0.890≤3515 (17.7)9 (29.0) 36-5061 (71.8)21 (67.7) 51≥9 (10.6)1 (3.2) BMI, m2/kg 0.13025≤62 (72.9)28 (90.3) 26-3018 (21.2)2 (6.5) 30&amp;gt;5 (5.9)1 (3.2) Histology 0.326Ductal carcinoma in situ2 (2.4)3 (9.7) Invasive ductal carcinoma74 (87.1)28 (90.3) Invasive lobular carcinoma2 (2.4)0 (0) Others7 (8.2)0 (0) Multiplicity 0.063yes19 (22.6)12 (40.0) no65 (77.4)18 (60.0) Lymphovascular invasion 0.161yes33 (39.3)17 (54.8) no51 (60.7)14 (45.2) Nuclear grade 0.317Low10 (11.9)1 (3.3) Intermediate27 (32.1)14 (46.7) High47 (56.0)15 (24.2) Pathologic T stage (matching variable) 0.154T17 (8.2)6 (19.4) T229 (34.1)15 (48.4) T331 (36.5)4 (12.9) T418 (21.2)6 (19.4) Pathologic N stage (matching variable) 0.494N036 (42.4)13 (41.9) N123 (27.1)13 (41.9) N216 (18.8)4 (12.9) N310 (11.8)1 (3.2) Estrogen receptor 0.608positive49 (57.7)15 (48.4) negative36 (42.4)16 (51.6) Progesterone receptor 0.291positive40 (47.1)10 (32.3) negative45 (52.9)21 (67.7) HER2 status 0.345amplification29 (34.1)10 (32.3) not amplification56 (65.9)21 (67.7) Clinical T-stage (matching variable) 0.897cT12 (2.4)1 (3.2) cT231 (36.5)12 (38.7) cT346 (54.1)16 (51.6) cT46 (7.1)2 (6.5) Clinical N stage (matching variable) 0.947cN03 (3.5)1 (3.2) cN120 (23.5)10 (32.3) cN236 (42.4)10 (32.3) cN326 (30.6)10 (32.3) Response (matching variable) 1.000Partial response64 (75.3)27 (29.7) Stable disease21 (24.7)4 (12.9) Citation Format: Ryu JM, Lee JE, Kim SW, Yu J, Rayzah M, Lee SK, Mansoor A, Bae SY, Park S, Paik H-J, Kim I, Bang SI, Jeon BJ, Mun G-H, Pyon J-K. Oncologic outcomes of immediate breast reconstruction after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients: A matched case control study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2016 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-14-12.