Impact of Prepectoral vs. Subpectoral Tissue Expander Placement on Post-mastectomy Radiation Therapy Delivery: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Libby R Copeland-Halperin, Yulia Lyatskaya, Jennifer R Bellon, Tanujit Dey, Matthew J Carty, Thanh Barbie, Jessica Erdmann-Sager
Author Information
  1. Libby R Copeland-Halperin: From Northwell Health, 1001 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y.
  2. Yulia Lyatskaya: Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass.
  3. Jennifer R Bellon: Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Mass.
  4. Tanujit Dey: Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass.
  5. Matthew J Carty: Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass.
  6. Thanh Barbie: Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass.
  7. Jessica Erdmann-Sager: Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass.

Abstract

Background: Implant-based reconstruction is the most common method of postmastectomy reconstruction. Many patients require postmastectomy radiation (PMRT). Tissue expanders (TEs), typically inserted as a first stage, have historically been placed subpectorally. More recently, prepectoral reconstruction has gained popularity, but its impact on PMRT is unknown. Prior studies focus on complication rates and aesthetic outcomes. This study examines whether there is a difference in radiation dosimetry among patients undergoing prepectoral versus subpectoral TE reconstruction.
Methods: Electronic medical records and radiation plans of 50 patients (25 prepectoral, 25 subpectoral) who underwent mastectomy with immediate TE reconstruction at our institution or affiliate site were reviewed. Pectoralis major muscle and chest wall structures were contoured and mean percentage volumes of these structures receiving less than 95%, 100%, and more than 105% target radiation dose were calculated, as were heart and ipsilateral lung doses. Welch two sample test, Fisher exact test, and Pearson chi-squared tests were performed.
Results: The groups had comparable patient and tumor characteristics and underwent similar ablative and reconstructive procedures and radiation dosimetry. Subpectoral patients had larger mean areas receiving less than 95% target dose ("cold spots"); prepectoral patients had larger mean areas receiving greater than 105% ("hot spots") and 100% target doses. There were no differences in chest wall, heart, and lung doses.
Conclusions: Our results demonstrate an increased mean percentage area of pectoralis cold spots with subpectoral reconstruction and increased area of hot spots and 100% dose delivery to the pectoralis in prepectoral patients. Larger studies should analyze long-term effects of prepectoral reconstruction on radiation dosing and recurrence rates.

References

  1. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017 Nov;140(5S Advances in Breast Reconstruction):51S-59S [PMID: 29064922]
  2. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017 Dec;140(6S Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction):43S-48S [PMID: 29166347]
  3. Clin Plast Surg. 2018 Jan;45(1):13-24 [PMID: 29080655]
  4. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2021 May 06;29:33-39 [PMID: 34113723]
  5. Ann Chir Plast Esthet. 2017 Dec;62(6):630-636 [PMID: 28760638]
  6. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2018 May - Jun;8(3):153-156 [PMID: 29233522]
  7. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 Jan;143(1):10-20 [PMID: 30589770]
  8. Korean J Radiol. 2009 Sep-Oct;10(5):496-507 [PMID: 19721835]
  9. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016 Jun 1;95(2):617-31 [PMID: 27131078]
  10. JAMA Oncol. 2016 Jan;2(1):95-101 [PMID: 26539936]
  11. N Engl J Med. 2013 Mar 14;368(11):987-98 [PMID: 23484825]
  12. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018 Oct;25(10):2899-2908 [PMID: 29978367]
  13. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015 Oct 1;93(2):266-7 [PMID: 26383675]
  14. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017 Dec;140(6S Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction):7S-13S [PMID: 29166342]
  15. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2016 Nov - Dec;6(6):e219-e234 [PMID: 27659727]
  16. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013 Mar 1;85(3):630-5 [PMID: 22878127]
  17. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2020 Apr 23;8(4):e2744 [PMID: 32440414]
  18. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Sep 1;66(1):305-10 [PMID: 16904530]
  19. Gland Surg. 2019 Feb;8(1):67-74 [PMID: 30842930]
  20. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2018 May;19(3):243-250 [PMID: 29696752]
  21. J Egypt Natl Canc Inst. 2016 Dec;28(4):211-218 [PMID: 27595191]
  22. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Oct 1;84(2):e153-9 [PMID: 22560544]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0reconstructionpatientsradiationprepectoralmeansubpectoralreceiving100%targetdosedosespostmastectomyPMRTTissuestudiesratesdosimetryTE25underwentchestwallstructurespercentageless95%105%heartlungtestSubpectorallargerareasspots"increasedareapectoralisspotsBackground:Implant-basedcommonmethodManyrequireexpandersTEstypicallyinsertedfirststagehistoricallyplacedsubpectorallyrecentlygainedpopularityimpactunknownPriorfocuscomplicationaestheticoutcomesstudyexamineswhetherdifferenceamongundergoingversusMethods:Electronicmedicalrecordsplans50mastectomyimmediateinstitutionaffiliatesitereviewedPectoralismajormusclecontouredvolumescalculatedipsilateralWelchtwosampleFisherexactPearsonchi-squaredtestsperformedResults:groupscomparablepatienttumorcharacteristicssimilarablativereconstructiveprocedures"coldgreater"hotdifferencesConclusions:resultsdemonstratecoldhotdeliveryLargeranalyzelong-termeffectsdosingrecurrenceImpactPrepectoralvsExpanderPlacementPost-mastectomyRadiationTherapyDelivery:RetrospectiveCohortStudy

Similar Articles

Cited By