Skip to main content
Download PDF

Comparison of breast cancer patients who underwent partial mastectomy (PM) with mini latissimus dorsi flap (MLDF) and subcutaneous mastectomy with implant (M + I) regarding quality of life (QOL), cosmetic outcome and survival rates

World Journal of Surgical Oncology volume 18, Article number: 87 (2020) Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

The latissimus dorsi muscle has long been used in breast cancer (BC) patients for reconstruction. This study aimed to compare early stage BC patients who had partial mastectomy (PM) with mini latissimus dorsi flap (MLDF) and subcutaneous mastectomy with implant (MI) with respect to quality of life (QoL), cosmetic outcome (CO), and survival rates.

Patients and methods

The data of patients who underwent PM + MLDF (Group 1) and M + I (Group 2) between January 2010 and January 2018 were evaluated. Both groups were compared in terms of demographics, clinical and pathological characteristics, surgical morbidity, survival, quality of life, and cosmetic results. The EORTC-QLQ C30 and EORTC-QLO BR23 questionnaires and the Japanese Breast Cancer Society (JBCS) Cosmetic Evaluation Scale were used to assess the quality of life and the cosmetic outcome, respectively.

Results

A total of 317 patients were included in the study, 242 (76.3%) of them in group 1 and 75 (23.6%) of them in group 2. Median follow-up time was 56 (14–116) months. There were no differences identified between the groups in terms of tumor histology, hormonal receptors and HER-2 positivity, surgical morbidity, and 5-year overall and disease-free survival. Group 2 patients were significantly younger than group 1 (p = 0.003). The multifocality/multicentricity rate was higher in group 2 (p ≤ 0.001), whereas tumor size (p = 0.009), body mass index (BMI, p = 0.006), histological grade (p ≤ 0.001), lymph node positivity (p = 0.002), axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) rate (p = 0.005), and presence of lympho-vascular invasion (LVI, p = 0.013) were significantly higher in group 1. When the quality of life was assessed by using the EORTC QLQ C30 and BR23 questionnaires, it was seen that the body image perception (p < 0.001) and nausea/vomiting score (p = 0.024) were significantly better in PM + MLDF group whereas physical function score was significantly better in M + I group (p = 0.012). When both groups were examined in terms of cosmesis with JBCS Cosmetic Evaluation Scale, good cosmetic evaluation score was significantly higher in patients in MLDF group (p = 0.01).

Discussion

The results of this study indicate that in comparison to M + I procedure, the PM + MLDF procedure provides significantly superior results in terms of body image and cosmetic result with similar morbidity and oncologic outcomes. In selected patients with small breasts and a high tumor/breast ratio, PM + MLDF may be an alternative to subcutaneous mastectomy and implant.

Introduction

Breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer and cause for cancer-related death among women worldwide [1, 2]. Surgical treatment of BC has evolved from radical mastectomy to breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in the last four decades. On the other hand, new effective chemotherapeutic drugs have prolonged the life expectancy of patients and reduced locoregional recurrence rates [3]. Along with these improvements, cosmetic outcomes and oncoplastic breast surgery (OBS) have gained more importance [4]. The primary aim of OBS is to obtain excellent cosmetic results together with acceptable surgical outcomes [5, 6]. To be able to ensure a good cosmetic result, intra-glandular or autogenous muscle flaps have been used to replace volume loss following wide excision [6, 7]. Small volume losses where the breast tumor is small can be successfully repaired using intra-glandular flaps (volume replacement). However, for large volume losses especially in patients with small breast and large tumor, autogenous muscle flaps may be used to fill the tumor cavity (volume displacement).

The first literature report of the use of latissimus dorsi muscle skin flap was the closure of a mastectomy defect by Iginio Tansini in 1906 [8]. In the 1980’s, the latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flaps became the preferred autogenous reconstruction method for breast reconstruction after mastectomies, and it started to be used also in partial mastectomies after 1990’s [9,10,11,12]. Volume replacement with MLDF provides a cosmetically successful breast reconstruction especially in patients with large tumor/breast volume ratio, who otherwise would be referred to mastectomy [13,14,15,16].

The possibility to fill the tumor cavity by using autologous flaps in selected patients increases the breast conservation ratio and enables this intervention to be a serious alternative to subcutaneous mastectomy and implant procedures [13,14,15,16,17,18]. Subcutaneous mastectomy with latissimus dorsi muscle flap usually requires implant and adds additional cost. It also has many other morbidities if we compare with PM + MLDF such as skin flap and nipple-areola necrosis, increase in duration of surgery, hospitalization, and recovery period to start systemic treatment. Saving nipple-areola complex together with most of the breast tissue has also positive psychologic effect on patients’ mood. Subcutaneous mastectomy and implant usually causes asymmetries and requires additional cosmetic approaches in contralateral breast for better and symmetric cosmetic outcomes. Most of patients with subcutaneous mastectomy and implants always feel a foreign body instead of their own tissue for the rest of their lives. Breast conserving surgery with PM + MLDF also saves body image with autolog graft and keeps oncological principles. However, no studies in the literature compared these two procedures. This study aimed to compare the patients with PM + MLDF with the patients with M + I in terms of surgical morbidity, quality of life (QoL), cosmetic appearance, and recurrence and survival rates and to give a message to breast surgeons that the breast may be preserved in patients who do not have a chance for volume displacement to fill the tumor cavity and require mastectomy and implant.

Patients and methods

This is a retrospective review of early BC patients (cStage I, IIA) operated at our institution between January, 2010 and January, 2018. The patients were divided into two groups according to the surgical procedure performed: group 1, PM + MLDF; group 2, M + I. Demographic, clinical, and pathological characteristics of patients; surgical morbidities; locoregional recurrence; and survival data were compared. The patients were evaluated in tumor board preoperatively, and it was decided that PM + MLDF may be an alternative to M + I for selected patients. All PM + MLDF and subcutaneous mastectomies were done by a single surgeon (VO) who have more than 30 years of experience in breast surgery. Plastic surgeon was involved in surgery to insert implant after subcutaneous mastectomy, and all reconstruction with implant procedures were performed by the same plastic surgeon (BCO). The breast and tumor volumes were calculated by using a software provided by Varian Inc.® and a specific volume formula (V = 4/3 πr3), respectively.

Both two procedures were explained to patients, and their choices were recorded. They signed informed consent form. Ethical committee approval was obtained.

Contraindications for PM + MLDF were diffuse microcalcifications and extensive multicentric cancer requiring mastectomy, patients’ desire, locally advanced BC, or inflammatory BC. Last two contraindications were also valid for M + I. There was no bilateral BC in the two groups.

The EORTC QLQ-C30 [19] and EORTC QLQ-BR23 [20] questionnaires and JBCS Cosmetic Evaluation Scale [21] were used to asses QoL and cosmetic outcome, respectively. The quality of life questionnaire was conducted by an independent expert nurse. The QLQ-C30 included 30 questions. These questions were comprised of functional scale questions (physical function, role function, emotional function, cognitive function, and social function), three symptom scale questions (fatigue, nausea, vomiting, and pain) and six individual evaluation questions (dyspnea, insomnia, loss of appetite, constipation, diarrhea, and financial difficulties). The QLQ-BR23 questionnaire included 23 questions. These questions contained sub-sets including the functional scale (body image, sexual function, sexual pleasure, and expectations for the future) symptom scale, side effects due to systemic treatment, complaints regarding breast, complaints regarding the arm, and loss of hair. The quality of life score was calculated using values between 0–100 according to the calculation guidelines published in accordance with the QLQ-C30-23 [22]. The higher scores reflected a better function and quality of life.

The cosmetic evaluation was conducted by a plastic surgeon who was not part of the surgical team. All the cosmetic evaluations and quality of life evaluation were completed at least 1 year after the surgery.

Peri-operative histopathologic evaluation

The surgical margins and sentinel lymph node(s) were evaluated intra-operatively by an experienced breast pathologist (FA). Re-excision was performed in the presence of a positive surgical margin. Negative surgical margin width was accepted as ≥ 2 mm and no tumor on ink before and after SSO and ASTRO consensus guideline [23, 24]. Subareolar margin was evaluated after subcutaneous mastectomy, and nipple-areola complex was excised if there was margin positivity. Blue dye, radioisotope, or both of them were used to find sentinel lymph node(s), and axillary clearance was performed in the presence of > 2 positive lymph node(s) after ACOSOG Z011 trial [25].

Surgical technique

These two different surgical techniques were one-step procedures. PM + MLDF was given as an alternative to patients who were candidates for M + I due to diffuse multicentric disease and/or microcalcifications, high tumor/breast ratios (large tumor and small size breast), and patients’ desire to save their breasts, if it is possible. The surgical technique of PM + MLDF was explained in our previous study [15]. A position is given; tumor and sentinel lymph node (SLN) are excised from circumareolar and axillary incision and sent to intra-operative pathologic evaluation (Fig. 1 and 2a). After surgical margins and SLN evaluation, specimen is weighted. Superior part of the muscle is identified and divided at its insertion to the humerus, and dissection is continued deep to reach the scapula (Fig. 2b). A tunnel is created between tumor cavity and the axilla; neuro-vascular pedicle of the muscle is preserved; and mini latissimus dorsi flap is prepared and ready to fill the cavity (Fig. 3). The flap is inserted in the tumor cavity and fixed to the edge of pectoralis major muscle (Fig. 4a). Jackson Prett drain is inserted and incisions are closed (Fig. 4b). Anterior and semi-lateral view of the same patient one year after surgery is shown in Fig. 5.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Position of a BC patient for PM and MLDF, a pillow is inserted behind the left scapula, and left fore-arm fixed the bar. Tumor is localized lower outer quadrant of the breast

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

a The tumor is excised from circumareolar incision and b superior part of the muscle is identified and divided at its insertion to the humerus, and dissection is continued deep to reach the scapula b

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

a A tunnel is created between tumor cavity and the axilla, b the arrow shows neurovascular pedicle of the muscle, and c mini latissimus dorsi flap is prepared and ready to fill the cavity c

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

a The flap is inserted in the tumor cavity, fixed to the edge of pectoralis major muscle, and b Jackson Prett inserted and incisions are closed

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

a Anterior and b lateral view of the same patient 1 year after the surgery

Full size image

Since it gives an opportunity to evaluate the axilla, subcutaneous mastectomy was mostly performed via lateral radial incision. Implant was inserted between pectoral muscles, and acellular dermal matrix was utilized in 17 (22.6%) patients. Nipple-areola complex reconstruction was performed after all treatments were completed.

Radiation therapy

All patients in PM + MLDF group received whole breast and boost radiation therapy. Radiation to regional lymphatics was given to 23 (36%) patients in M + I group.

Follow-up

The patients in this study were regularly followed by a specialized breast surgeon. Wound infection and dehiscence, flap necrosis, hematoma, and seroma were considered as signs of morbidity (complications in the early period). The drainage tubes were removed when the amount of seroma was less than 25 cc per day. The adjuvant treatment decision was made during the tumor board.

Statistical analysis

SPSS version 22 (IBM Corporation) was used for statistical analysis. The variables were investigated visual (histograms, probability plots) and analytical methods (Kolmogorov-Simirnov/Shapiro-Wilk’s test) to determine whether or not they are normally disturbed. Descriptive analyses were presented using medians and interquartile range for non-normally disturbed and ordinal variables. Non-parametric data were evaluated using the Mann-Whitney U tests. The categorical variables were analyzed using the Chi-square test. The effects of surgical procedures on survival was investigated by using the log rank test. The Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were calculated. A p value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

A total of 317 patients were included in the study with 242 (76.3%) of them in group 1 (PM + MLDF) and 75 (23.6%) in group 2 (M + I). Median follow-up time was 56 (14-116) months. The patient and tumor characteristics in two groups are shown in Table 1. There were no differences identified between the groups in terms of tumor histology, ER and PR positivity, and poor molecular subtype rates, but the number of patients with luminal A molecular subtype were significantly higher in M + I group (p = 0.013). The mean breast volumes were 537.22 ± 235.52 ml in group 1 and 613.75 ± 253.83 ml in group 2, respectively (p = 0.253). If there was only one tumor in the breast, the median excised tumor volumes with 10 mm safe margin in two groups were 41.6 ml in group 1 and 33.4 ml in Group 2 (p = 0.09), respectively. The tumor/breast ratio was higher in group 1 (0.077) than group 2 (0.054), respectively. The multifocal/multicentric cancer rates were very high in both groups, and there was significant difference between the two groups (25.9% vs 50%, p = 0.000). The patients in group 2 were significantly younger than group 1 patients. Body mass index (BMI, p = 0.006), advanced histological grade (p ≤ 0.001), lymph node positivity (p = 0.002), ALND rate (p = 0.005), and presence of lympho-vascular invasion (p = 0.013) were significantly higher in group 1 (Table 1).

Table 1 Comparison of patient and tumor characteristics in two groups
Full size table

Surgical morbidity

The major and minor complication (increased seroma, hematoma, wound infection or dehiscence, ecchymosis, etc.) rates were 17% in PM + MLDF group and 23% in M + I group (p > 0.05), respectively. Secondary surgical procedures were needed in 39 (16%) patients in group 1. These were re-excision for positive surgical margins in 34 patients (14%) and re-operation due to hematoma in five patients (2.06%). Latissimus muscle flap fibrosis or necrosis developed in seven patients (2.89%) during follow-up, and it did not require re-operation. Eight (16.6%) patients in group 2 required secondary surgery; these were nipple-areola complex excision in 5 patients (6.66%) due to margin positivity or necrosis. In M + I group, prosthesis was removed in 3 patients (4%) due to infection or skin flap necrosis.

Local recurrence was seen in 3 patients in group 1 and 2 patients in group 2, respectively (p = 0.377). The 5-year-systemic recurrence and overall survival rates were similar between the two groups (p > 0.05, Table 1, Fig. 6).

Fig. 6
figure 6

Kaplan-Meier survival plots of overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS)

Full size image

Quality of life

When the quality of life was assessed by using the EORTC QLQ C30 and BR23 questionnaires, it was seen that the body image perception (p ≤ 0.001) and nausea/vomiting score (p = 0.024) were significantly better in PM + MLDF group whereas physical function score was significantly better in M + I group (p = 0.012, Table 2). Despite of significantly higher ALND and radiation therapy rate in group 1, there were no differences regarding arm symptoms between groups. Other parameters were similar between two groups (Table 2).

Table 2 Comparison of two groups by using the EORTC QLQ C30 and BR23 questionnaires
Full size table

Cosmetic evaluation

When both groups were examined in terms of cosmesis with JBCS Cosmetic Evaluation Scale, there were no difference regarding bad or perfect-scaled patients in both groups whereas good cosmetic evaluation score was significantly higher in patients in group 1 (p = 0.001, Table 3).

Table 3 Comparison of groups by using Japanese Breast Cancer Society Cosmetic Evaluation Scale (JBCS)
Full size table

Discussion

Breast conserving surgery (BCS) is the standard of choice for early-stage invasive breast cancer, with two thirds of women in developed countries pursuing this route [26]. With constant improvement in multimodality treatment options, there are substantial increases in overall and disease-free survival rates. The acceptable 10-year local recurrence rate after BCS is around 5% [26,27,28]. As a result of improved life expectancy and decreased local recurrence, the expectation for a better cosmetic outcome is becoming more important. Oncoplastic breast surgery (OBS) by using volume replacement or displacement has gained popularity in the last two decades [4]. Subcutaneous mastectomy with latissimus dorsi muscle flap usually requires implant and adds additional cost. It also has many other morbidities if we compare with PM + MLDF such as skin flap and nipple-areola necrosis, increase in duration of surgery, hospitalization, and recovery period to start systemic treatment. Saving nipple-areola complex together with most of the breast tissue has also positive psychologic effect on patients’ mood. The preferred method to reconstruct the breast after total mastectomy is implant placement. But, subcutaneous mastectomy and implant usually cause asymmetries and requires additional cosmetic approaches in contralateral breast for better and symmetric cosmetic outcomes. Most of patients with subcutaneous mastectomy and implants feel a foreign body instead of their own tissue for the rest of their lives. MLDF reconstruction increased BCS in selected patients by preventing more patients from mastectomy [18]. Breast-conserving surgery with PM + MLDF also saves body image with autolog graft and keeps oncological principles. In our breast center, the rate of BCS increased from 68 to 82% by using MLDF to fill the cavity in the last 10 years [18].

A high tumor/breast ratio (relatively large tumor and/or small size breast) decreases BCS rate in patients with early stage breast cancer. Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) to reduce tumor size, mastectomy with implant or simple mastectomy are the commonly selected options in these patients [29, 30]. However, NAC has a limited effect on primary tumor and axilla especially in patients with luminal A molecular subtype [31]. Simple mastectomy causes loss of body image with psychological side effects [32]. The patients who underwent PM + MLDF in our series had a larger tumor diameter and smaller breast size as compared to the other group. Multicentric/and multifocal cancer rate was also 25.9% in this group. Since filling tumor cavity with peripheral glandular displacement is very difficult, autologous volume replacement with MLDF or subcutaneous mastectomy with implant is the surgical treatment of choice. We preferred partial mastectomy and MLDF due to its cost-effectivity and less morbidities than mastectomy and implant.

It has been reported that the ratio of multifocal/multicentric BC ranges from 4 to 50% in different series [33,34,35,36,37]. Addition of MRI to the work up increases multifocal/multicentric tumor rate [38]. Meta-analysis of data from nineteen studies showed that MRI detected additional disease in 16% of women leading to conversion from wide local excision to mastectomy in 11.3% of cases [33, 39]. Multicentric breast cancer has traditionally been among the indications for mastectomy; however, BCS can also be safely performed in these patients on a condition that tumors are completely excised with negative surgical margins with acceptable cosmetic outcomes [40]. In our study, 99 patients (31.2%) had multifocal/multicentric breast cancer in total, and 62 (25.9%) patients with multifocal/multicentric BC in group 1 had a chance to save the breast by using PM + MLDF surgical technique.

With the advances in BC treatment, the 10-year local recurrence rate following BCS is reduced from 10–15% down to 5% [41,42,43]. Factors such as surgical margin positivity, high histological grade, presence of lympho-vascular invasion, axillary nodal involvement, multifocality, and poor molecular sub-types have been associated with increased local recurrence after BCS [41,42,43]. In our study, patients in PM + MLDF group had tumors with higher histologic grade, higher positivity rate for LVI, and luminal A molecular subtype rate was lower. In spite of these statistically higher rate of poor prognostic factors in PM + MLDF group, no differences were seen between the groups in terms of 5-year local recurrence (2% and 3%) and overall survival rates (97% in both groups).

Prosthetic-based breast reconstruction was associated with increased major breast complications up to 49% [44,45,46,47,48,49]. It is expensive and results in delays for adjuvant systemic treatment. In a study evaluating surgical and patient-reported outcomes and quality of life in patients with autologous breast reconstruction after failed implant-based reconstruction, there was a statistically significant increase in overall outcomes (p < 0.001), satisfaction with appearance of breasts (p < 0.001), psychosocial well-being (p < 0.001), and physical well-being of the chest (p = 0.003) [45]. Complication rate for MLDF is reported much lower and generally include seroma formation, hematoma, flap necrosis, loss of flap, and wound infection [12, 47]. In our study, our complication rate was 17% in group 1 and 23% in group 2. There was no significant difference between the groups. The most frequently observed complications in group 1 and 2 were seroma, wound infection, and nipple-areola complex and/or flap necrosis, respectively. Secondary surgery rates in both groups were also similar.

The EORTC QLQ-C30 is an assessment technique that is widely used to measure the quality of life of patients who undergo surgery due to BC [19, 20]. In a study by Costa et al., the average value for the Global Health Status, which is an important parameter in the EORTC QLQ-C30, was reported as 62 [49], whereas this was identified as 50 in another study conducted by Pacaric et al. [50]. Most of the studies generally report high rates of sadness due to the loss of hair as a result of adjuvant chemotherapy [51]. In our study, the Global Health Status rates were 83.3 in both groups. These high rates in our study can be attributed to the time gap between the surgery and filling out the questionnaire. In the previous studies, the questionnaires were filled shortly after the surgery; however in our study, questionnaire was filled after all modalities of the treatment were completed. Nevertheless, we were able to achieve high quality of life rates with each surgical technique.

Different results have been reported in the literature based on the comparisons of EORTC QOL C30 and BR23 results of patients who received PM or mastectomy [19, 20, 50, 51]. Slowik et al. reported no significant difference influencing the overall quality of life as per the type of surgery performed in neither of the parameters of the questionnaire [52]. In our study, the body image parameter of patients who received PM + MLDF was found significantly higher than that of the patients who received M + I. We attribute the perception of a better body image in PM + MLDF group to the autogenous quality of the reconstruction performed, and we think that this is a very important factor. This result makes PM and autogenous reconstruction as the preferred option and should be leaned on when deciding surgical options. Another important aspect of this study was arm symptoms. Despite of significantly increased rate of ALND and the latissimus dorsi muscle used for reconstruction in Group 1, arm symptoms were similar in two groups (p = 0.511).

Cosmetic evaluation is crucial and must be done in every study comparing two different breast surgery techniques. The Japanese Breast Cancer Society Cosmetic Evaluation Scale has been used widely for this purpose [21]. Our study is the first study in the literature that uses this scale to compare cosmetic outcome between PM + MLDF and M + I. When we look at the results, patients underwent PM + MLDF demonstrated significantly good outcome in comparison to M + I.

Latissimus dorsi musculo-cutaneous or partial muscle flap has been used for reconstruction in patients with BC for decades [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18]. It is also an important opportunity to use this muscle for patients with local recurrence after BCS. The most important limitation of PM + MLDF procedure is to eliminate this opportunity in these patients if they have local recurrence. In our cohort, there were only 3 local recurrences in the 5-year follow-up. However, other alternative reconstruction techniques (abdominal flaps etc.) may be used in patients with local recurrence after PM + MLDF. The limitation of our study is its retrospective design.

Conclusion

The patients in our study who underwent PM + MLDF reconstruction had a significantly superior cosmetic outcome and a better QoL as compared to the patients who had M + I reconstruction. The two techniques do not show any differences with respect to complications, morbidity or survival rates. The PM + MLDF technique may save breasts in many patients and cost and morbidities of prosthetic implant reconstruction should be taken into consideration especially in low-middle income countries.

Availability of data and materials

All patients were registered in our breast center archive for 30 years and clinical, pathological, surgical, and survival characteristics of patients were retrieved from this breast cancer specific archive. If it requires, we will be happy to share our data with journal editorial board or reviewers.

References

  1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21492.

  2. Ozmen V, Ozmen T, Dogru V. Breast cancer in Turkey: analysis of 20.000 patients with breast cancer. Eur J Breast Health. 2019. https://doi.org/10.5152/ejbh.2019.4890.

  3. Wong Y, Raghavendra AAS, Hatzis BC, et al. Long-term survival of de novo stage IV human epidermal growth receptor 2 (Her2) positive breast cancers treated with Her2-targeted therapy. Oncologist. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0213.

  4. Bertozzi N, Pesce M, Santi PL, Raposio E. Oncoplastic breast surgery: comprehensive review. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2017;21(11):2572–85.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Willins EG, Alderman AK. Breast reconstruction practices in North America: current trends and future priorities. Semin Plast Surg. 2004. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2004-829049.

  6. Asgeirsson KS, Rasheed T, McCulley SJ, Macmillan RD. Oncological and cosmetic outcomes of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2005.05.010.

  7. Almasad JK, Salah B. Breast reconstruction by local flaps after conserving surgery for breast cancer: an added asset to oncoplastic techniques. Breast J. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4741.2008.00595.x.

  8. Ribuffo D, Cigna E, Gerald GL, et al. Iginio Tansini revisited. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2015;19(13):2477–81.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Agaoglu G, Erol OO. Delayed breast reconstruction with latissimus dorsi flap. Aesthet Plast Surg. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-009-9338-8.

  10. Noguchi M, Taniya T, Miyazaki I, Saito Y. Immediate transposition of a latissimus dorsi muscle for correcting a postquadrantectomy breast deformity in Japanese patients. Int Surg. 1990;75(3):166–70.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Raja MAK, Straker VF, Rainsbury RM. Extending the role of breast conserving surgery by immediate volume replacement. Br J Surg. 1997. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2168.1997.02477.x.

  12. Dixon JM, Venizelos B, Chan P. Latissimus dorsi mini-flap: a technique for extending breast conservation. Breast. 2002. https://doi.org/10.1054/brst.2001.0312.

  13. Myung Y, Choi B, Kwon H, et al. Quantitative analysis of shoulder function and strength after breast reconstruction. Medicine. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000010979.

  14. Mele S, Wright D, Paramanathan N, et al. The long-term impact of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery using latissimus dorsi mini-flaps on mammographic surveillance and the detection of local recurrence journal of plastic. Reconstruct Aesthetic Surgery. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2017.06.030.

  15. Alço G, Igdem S, Okkan S, et al. Replacement of the tumor bed following oncoplastic breast conserving surgery with immediate latissimus dorsi mini-flap. Mol Clin Oncol. 2016. https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2016.984.

  16. Jonczyk MM, Jean J, Graham R, Chatterjee A. Surgical trends in breast cancer: a rise in novel operative treatment options over a 12-year analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-5018-1.

  17. Berthet G, Faure C, Dammacco MA, et al. Tolerance of latissimus dorsi in immediate breast reconstruction without implant to radiotherapy. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2017.08.010.

  18. Ozmen V, Sarsenov D, Ozmen T, et al. Mini latissimus dorsi flap MLDF increases breast conserving surgery BCS rate in patients with early stage breast cancer. Cancer Res. 2018;(4 Supplement). https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.SABCS15-P2-12-17.

  19. Sprangers MA, Groenvold M, Arraras JI, et al. The European organization for research and treatment of cancer breast cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaire module: first results from a three-country field study. J Clin Oncol. 1996. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1996.14.10.2756.

  20. Demirci S, Eser E, Ozsaran Z, et al. Validation of the Turkish versions of EORTC QLQ-C30 and BR23 modules in breast cancer patients. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2011;12(5):1283–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kijima Y, Yoshinaka H, Funasako Y, et al. Immediate breast reconstruction using autologous free dermal fat grafts provides better cosmetic results for patients with upper inner cancerous lesions. Surg Today. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-010-4307-z.

  22. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, et al. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85:365–76.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Moran MS, Schnitt SJ, Giuliano AE, et al. Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stages I and II invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-3481-4.

  24. Monaghan A, Chapinal N, Hughes L, Baliski C. Impact of SSO-ASTRO margin guidelines on reoperation rates following breast-conserving surgery. Am J Surg. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2019.01.007.

  25. Giuliano AE, Hunt KK, Ballman KV, et al. Axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection in women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2011.90.

  26. Gentilini O, Botteri E, Rotmensz N, et al. Conservative surgery in patients with multifocal/multicentric breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-008-9959-7.

  27. Ataseven B, Lederer B, Blohmer JU, et al. Impact of multifocal or multicentric disease on surgery and locoregional, distant and overall survival of 6,134 breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-4122-7.

  28. Walstra CJEF, Schipper RJ, Poodt IGM, et al. Repeat breast-conserving therapy for ipsilateral breast cancer recurrence: a systematic review. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2019.02.008.

  29. Kasangian AA, Gherardi G, Biagioli E, et al. The prognostic role of tumor size in early breast cancer in the era of molecular biology. PLoS One. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189127.

  30. Moo TA, Sanford R, Dang C, Morrow M. Overview of breast cancer therapy. PET Clin. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpet.2018.02.006.

  31. Gentile LF, Plitas G, Zabor EC, Stempel M, Morrow M, Barrio AV. Tumor biology predicts pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients presenting with locally advanced breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-017-6085-y.

  32. Kim MK, Kim T, Moon HG, et al. Effect of cosmetic outcome on quality of life after breast cancer surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2014.12.002.

  33. Cabioglu N, Ozmen V, Kaya H, et al. Increased lymph node positivity in multifocal and multicentric breast cancer. J Am Coll Surg. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2008.09.001.

  34. Fowble B, Yeh IT, Schultz DJ, et al. The role of mastectomy in patients with stage I-II breast cancer presenting with gross multifocal or multicentric disease or diffuse microcalcifications. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1993. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(93)90381-5.

  35. Eeles R, Knee G, Jhavar S, et al. Multicentric breast cancer: clonality and prognostic studies. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-010-1230-3.

  36. Yerushalmi R, Kennecke H, Woods R, Olivotto IA, Speers C, Gelmon KA. Does multicentric/multifocal breast cancer differ from unifocal breast cancer? An analysis of survival and contralateral breast cancer incidence. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-008-0265-1.

  37. Vera-Badillo FE, Napoleone M, Ocana A, et al. Effect of multifocality and multicentricity on outcome in early stage breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-014-3018-3.

  38. Ong E. Preoperative imaging for breast conservation surgery-do we need more than conventional imaging for local disease assessment? Gland Surg. 2018. https://doi.org/10.21037/gs.2018.08.05.

  39. Houssami N, Ciatto S, Macaskill P, et al. Accuracy and surgical impact of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer staging: systematic review and meta-analysis in detection of multifocal and multicentric cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.15.2108.

  40. Milulescu A, Di Marino L, Peradze N, Toesca A. Management of multifocal-multicentric breast cancer: current perspective. Chirurgia (Bucur). 2017. https://doi.org/10.21614/chirurgia.112.1.12.

  41. Murugappan K, Saboo A, Kuo L, Ung O. Paradigm shift in the local treatment of breast cancer: mastectomy to breast conservation surgery. Gland Surg. 2018. https://doi.org/10.21037/gs.2018.09.01.

  42. Winters ZE, Horsnell J, Elvers KT, et al. Systematic review of the impact of breast-conserving surgery on cancer outcomes of multiple ipsilateral breast cancers. BJS Open. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs5.53.

  43. Agarwal G, Nanda G, Lal P, et al. Outcomes of triple-negative breast cancers (TNBC) compared with non-TNBC: does the survival vary for all stages? World J Surg. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-016-3422-4.

  44. Oliver JD, Tenenbaum MM, Myckatyn TM. Autologous breast reconstruction after failed implant-based reconstruction: evaluation of surgical and patient-reported outcomes and quality of life. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000006111.

  45. Cohen O, Lam G, Choi M, Karp N, Ceradini D. Does the timing of chemotherapy affect post-mastectomy breast reconstruction complications? Clin Breast Cancer. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2017.02.003.

  46. North WD, Kubajak CS, St Martin B, Rinker B. Dermal autograft using donor breast as alternative to acellular dermal matrices in tissue expander breast reconstruction: a comparative review. Ann Plast Surg. 2017;78(6S Suppl 5):282–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000001041.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Valente SA, Liu Y, Upadhyaya S, Tu C, Pratt DA. The effect of wound complications following mastectomy with immediate reconstruction on breast cancer recurrence. Am J Surg. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2018.10.028.

  48. van Huizum MA, Hage JJ, Rutgers EJ, Hoornweg MJ. Immediate breast reconstruction with a myocutaneous latissimus dorsi flap and implant following skin-sparing salvage mastectomy after irradiation as part of breast-conserving therapy. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2016.01.018.

  49. Costa WA, Eleutério J Jr, Giraldo PC, Gonçalves AK. Quality of life in breast cancer survivors. Rev Assoc Med Bras. 1992;2017. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9282.63.07.583.

  50. Pačarić S, Kristek J, Mirat J, et al. The quality of life of Croatian women after mastectomy: a cross-sectional single-center study. BMC Public Health. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5929-0.

  51. Tan ML, Idris DB, Teo LW, et al. Validation of EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 questionnaires in the measurement of quality of life of breast cancer patients in Singapore. Asia Pac J Oncol Nurs. 2014. https://doi.org/10.4103/2347-5625.135817.

  52. Słowik AJ, Jabłoński MJ, Michałowska-Kaczmarczyk AM, Jach R. Evaluation of quality of life in women with breast cancer, with particular emphasis on sexual satisfaction, future perspectives and body image, depending on the method of surgery. Psychiatr Pol. 2017. https://doi.org/10.12740/PP/OnlineFirst/63787.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We do not need an acknowledgement section to write someone.

Funding

The authors declare that no funding sources were used for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Vahit Ozmen

  2. Istanbul, Turkey

    Vahit Ozmen

  3. Department of General Surgery, School of Medicine, Demiroglu Bilim University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Serkan Ilgun

  4. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, School of Medicine, Altinbas University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Burcu Celet Ozden

  5. Department of General Surgery, School of Medicine, Biruni University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Alper Ozturk

  6. Department of Pathology, Gayrettepe Florence Nightingale Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey

    Fatma Aktepe

  7. Department of Radiology, Istanbul Florence Nightingale Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey

    Filiz Agacayak

  8. Department of Radiology, Gayrettepe Florence Nightingale Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey

    Filiz Elbuken

  9. Department of Radiation Oncology, Gayrettepe Florence Nightingale Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey

    Gul Alco

  10. Department of Medical Oncology, Gayrettepe Florence Nightingale Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey

    Cetin Ordu

  11. Department of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation, Istanbul Florence Nightingale Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey

    Zeynep Erdogan Iyigun

  12. Department of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Istanbul Florence Nightingale Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey

    Hocaoglu Emre

  13. Department of Medical Oncology, Bahcesehir Memorial Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey

    Kezban Pilancı

  14. Department of General Surgery, Sisli Memorial Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey

    Gursel Soybir

  15. Department of Surgery, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, USA

    Tolga Ozmen

Authors
  1. Vahit Ozmen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Serkan Ilgun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Burcu Celet Ozden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alper Ozturk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Fatma Aktepe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Filiz Agacayak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Filiz Elbuken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Gul Alco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Cetin Ordu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Zeynep Erdogan Iyigun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Hocaoglu Emre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Kezban Pilancı
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Gursel Soybir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Tolga Ozmen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Study conception and design: V.Ozmen, T. Ozmen, B.C Ozden, E. Hocaoglu. Acquisition of data: F. Agacayak, F. Elbuken, S. ilgün, V. Ozmen. Analysis and interpretation of data: V. Ozmen, S.ilgün, Ç. Ordu, K. Pilanci, Z.Erdogan. Drafting of manuscript: V. Ozmen, T. Ozmen, S. ilgün. Critical revision: V. Ozmen, G. Soybir, F. Aktepe, G. Alco, A. Ozturk. The authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vahit Ozmen.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Our study is approved by the Istanbul Bilim University Ethic Committee for Clinical Research with approval number of 26.03.2014/18-114.

Consent for publication

All patients in this study signed a detailed consent form to use their information for clinical trials and to accept surgical procedures and their morbidities before their operations according to national law.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ozmen, V., Ilgun, S., Celet Ozden, B. et al. Comparison of breast cancer patients who underwent partial mastectomy (PM) with mini latissimus dorsi flap (MLDF) and subcutaneous mastectomy with implant (M + I) regarding quality of life (QOL), cosmetic outcome and survival rates. World J Surg Onc 18, 87 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-020-01858-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-020-01858-z

Keywords

World Journal of Surgical Oncology

ISSN: 1477-7819

Contact us