单独乳房切除术或立即乳房重建:趋势,诱发因素,患者报告的结果,以及3759例乳房切除术患者倾向评分匹配和不匹配的肿瘤安全性分析。

IF 2 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Yi-Yuan Lee, Hung-Wen Lai, Antonio Muñoz Guevara, Jorge Torres Maldonado, Hui-Yu Lin, Chin-Jung Feng, Bing-Fang Hwang, Shih-Lung Lin, Hsin-I Huang, Fong-Cing Siao, Shou-Tung Chen, Dar-Ren Chen, Chiu-Ying Chen
{"title":"单独乳房切除术或立即乳房重建:趋势,诱发因素,患者报告的结果,以及3759例乳房切除术患者倾向评分匹配和不匹配的肿瘤安全性分析。","authors":"Yi-Yuan Lee, Hung-Wen Lai, Antonio Muñoz Guevara, Jorge Torres Maldonado, Hui-Yu Lin, Chin-Jung Feng, Bing-Fang Hwang, Shih-Lung Lin, Hsin-I Huang, Fong-Cing Siao, Shou-Tung Chen, Dar-Ren Chen, Chiu-Ying Chen","doi":"10.1007/s00266-025-04762-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In the current study, we surveyed the trend of breast cancer operations in the past two decades and compared mastectomy alone or with immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) with the measurement of the outcome reported by patients and oncologic safety evaluation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective study surveyed the trends in breast cancer surgery methods at a single institution between January 2000 and December 2021. Clinical manifestations, outcomes, patient-reported outcome measures, and oncologic safety evaluations between mastectomy alone or with IBR were analyzed, with and without propensity score matching (PSM).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The trend of breast cancer operations showed that breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and mastectomy with IBR were increasing while mastectomy alone was decreasing. Among the 3759 patients who underwent mastectomies, 1091 (29%) patients had mastectomy with IBR while 2668 (71%) received mastectomy alone. In multivariate analysis, age less than 45 years, breast magnetic resonance imaging before surgery, luminal A subtype, nipple-sparing mastectomy, oncoplastic reconstructive breast surgeon, and high-volume surgeon were important independent factors for mastectomy with IBR. Mastectomy with IBR was associated with better patient-reported cosmetic results than mastectomy alone and comparable to BCS. After PSM and a median follow-up of 106.1 months, there was no difference in Kaplan-Meier survival curve analysis between patients who underwent mastectomy alone or mastectomy with IBR in terms of locoregional recurrence, distant metastasis or overall survival.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Mastectomy with IBR demonstrated better reported cosmetic outcomes and comparable oncologic safety compared to mastectomy alone. Independent factors promoting IBR were identified, which could help increase the breast reconstruction rate.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence iii: </strong>This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.</p>","PeriodicalId":7609,"journal":{"name":"Aesthetic Plastic Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mastectomy Alone or with Immediate Breast Reconstruction: Trend, Precipitating Factors, Patients Reported Outcome, and Oncologic Safety Analysis with and without Propensity Score Matching from 3759 Mastectomy Patients.\",\"authors\":\"Yi-Yuan Lee, Hung-Wen Lai, Antonio Muñoz Guevara, Jorge Torres Maldonado, Hui-Yu Lin, Chin-Jung Feng, Bing-Fang Hwang, Shih-Lung Lin, Hsin-I Huang, Fong-Cing Siao, Shou-Tung Chen, Dar-Ren Chen, Chiu-Ying Chen\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00266-025-04762-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In the current study, we surveyed the trend of breast cancer operations in the past two decades and compared mastectomy alone or with immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) with the measurement of the outcome reported by patients and oncologic safety evaluation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective study surveyed the trends in breast cancer surgery methods at a single institution between January 2000 and December 2021. Clinical manifestations, outcomes, patient-reported outcome measures, and oncologic safety evaluations between mastectomy alone or with IBR were analyzed, with and without propensity score matching (PSM).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The trend of breast cancer operations showed that breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and mastectomy with IBR were increasing while mastectomy alone was decreasing. Among the 3759 patients who underwent mastectomies, 1091 (29%) patients had mastectomy with IBR while 2668 (71%) received mastectomy alone. In multivariate analysis, age less than 45 years, breast magnetic resonance imaging before surgery, luminal A subtype, nipple-sparing mastectomy, oncoplastic reconstructive breast surgeon, and high-volume surgeon were important independent factors for mastectomy with IBR. Mastectomy with IBR was associated with better patient-reported cosmetic results than mastectomy alone and comparable to BCS. After PSM and a median follow-up of 106.1 months, there was no difference in Kaplan-Meier survival curve analysis between patients who underwent mastectomy alone or mastectomy with IBR in terms of locoregional recurrence, distant metastasis or overall survival.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Mastectomy with IBR demonstrated better reported cosmetic outcomes and comparable oncologic safety compared to mastectomy alone. Independent factors promoting IBR were identified, which could help increase the breast reconstruction rate.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence iii: </strong>This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7609,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Aesthetic Plastic Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Aesthetic Plastic Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-025-04762-7\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aesthetic Plastic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-025-04762-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在本研究中,我们调查了过去二十年来乳腺癌手术的趋势,并比较了单独乳房切除术或立即乳房重建(IBR)与患者报告的结果测量和肿瘤安全性评估。方法:一项回顾性研究调查了2000年1月至2021年12月在单一机构的乳腺癌手术方法的趋势。分析了单独乳房切除术或合并IBR的临床表现、结果、患者报告的结果测量和肿瘤安全性评估,并分析了有无倾向评分匹配(PSM)。结果:乳腺癌手术趋势显示保乳手术加乳房切除联合IBR增加,单纯乳房切除减少。在3759例接受乳房切除术的患者中,1091例(29%)患者联合IBR行乳房切除术,2668例(71%)患者单独行乳房切除术。在多因素分析中,年龄小于45岁、术前乳房磁共振成像、腔内A亚型、保留乳头的乳房切除术、肿瘤整形重建乳房外科医生、大容量外科医生是IBR乳房切除术的重要独立因素。乳房切除术合并IBR与患者报告的美容效果比单独乳房切除术好,与BCS相当。在PSM和中位随访106.1个月后,Kaplan-Meier生存曲线分析显示,单独行乳房切除术或乳房切除术合并IBR的患者在局部复发、远处转移或总生存方面没有差异。结论:与单独的乳房切除术相比,乳房切除术合并IBR具有更好的美容效果和可比较的肿瘤安全性。发现促进IBR的独立因素,有助于提高乳房重建率。证据等级iii:本刊要求作者为每篇文章指定证据等级。有关这些循证医学评级的完整描述,请参阅目录或在线作者说明www.springer.com/00266。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Mastectomy Alone or with Immediate Breast Reconstruction: Trend, Precipitating Factors, Patients Reported Outcome, and Oncologic Safety Analysis with and without Propensity Score Matching from 3759 Mastectomy Patients.

Background: In the current study, we surveyed the trend of breast cancer operations in the past two decades and compared mastectomy alone or with immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) with the measurement of the outcome reported by patients and oncologic safety evaluation.

Methods: A retrospective study surveyed the trends in breast cancer surgery methods at a single institution between January 2000 and December 2021. Clinical manifestations, outcomes, patient-reported outcome measures, and oncologic safety evaluations between mastectomy alone or with IBR were analyzed, with and without propensity score matching (PSM).

Results: The trend of breast cancer operations showed that breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and mastectomy with IBR were increasing while mastectomy alone was decreasing. Among the 3759 patients who underwent mastectomies, 1091 (29%) patients had mastectomy with IBR while 2668 (71%) received mastectomy alone. In multivariate analysis, age less than 45 years, breast magnetic resonance imaging before surgery, luminal A subtype, nipple-sparing mastectomy, oncoplastic reconstructive breast surgeon, and high-volume surgeon were important independent factors for mastectomy with IBR. Mastectomy with IBR was associated with better patient-reported cosmetic results than mastectomy alone and comparable to BCS. After PSM and a median follow-up of 106.1 months, there was no difference in Kaplan-Meier survival curve analysis between patients who underwent mastectomy alone or mastectomy with IBR in terms of locoregional recurrence, distant metastasis or overall survival.

Conclusions: Mastectomy with IBR demonstrated better reported cosmetic outcomes and comparable oncologic safety compared to mastectomy alone. Independent factors promoting IBR were identified, which could help increase the breast reconstruction rate.

Level of evidence iii: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
25.00%
发文量
479
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery is a publication of the International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery and the official journal of the European Association of Societies of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (EASAPS), Società Italiana di Chirurgia Plastica Ricostruttiva ed Estetica (SICPRE), Vereinigung der Deutschen Aesthetisch Plastischen Chirurgen (VDAPC), the Romanian Aesthetic Surgery Society (RASS), Asociación Española de Cirugía Estética Plástica (AECEP), La Sociedad Argentina de Cirugía Plástica, Estética y Reparadora (SACPER), the Rhinoplasty Society of Europe (RSE), the Iranian Society of Plastic and Aesthetic Surgeons (ISPAS), the Singapore Association of Plastic Surgeons (SAPS), the Australasian Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (ASAPS), the Egyptian Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons (ESPRS), and the Sociedad Chilena de Cirugía Plástica, Reconstructiva y Estética (SCCP). Aesthetic Plastic Surgery provides a forum for original articles advancing the art of aesthetic plastic surgery. Many describe surgical craftsmanship; others deal with complications in surgical procedures and methods by which to treat or avoid them. Coverage includes "second thoughts" on established techniques, which might be abandoned, modified, or improved. Also included are case histories; improvements in surgical instruments, pharmaceuticals, and operating room equipment; and discussions of problems such as the role of psychosocial factors in the doctor-patient and the patient-public interrelationships. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery is covered in Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, SciSearch, Research Alert, Index Medicus-Medline, and Excerpta Medica/Embase.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信