Surgical Outcome Measures (SOMs) in a Cohort of Patients at High Risk of Breast Cancer Treated by Bilateral Risk Reducing Mastectomy (BRRM) and Breast Reconstruction
Association of Breast Surgery ePoster Library. Duxbury P. 05/15/17; 166246; P122
Paula Duxbury
REGULAR CONTENT
Login now to access Regular content available to all registered users.
Abstract
Rate & Comment (0)
Background: BRRM is one method of breast cancer risk reduction in women identified as being at high lifetime risk due to gene mutations (eg BRCA) or strong family history. Little has been published on surgical outcomes in this group of patients. We examined SOMs in 349 patients undergoing BRRM.
Methods: all women attending the Manchester Family History clinic have been prospectively entered onto a database. Those undergoing BRRM were identified and case notes interrogated to obtain SOMs data.
Results: 349 patients were identified of whom 312 (89%) had no cancer diagnosis (benign group, BG) and 37 (11%) were diagnosed with breast cancer (cancer group, CG). Mean age was similar (BG 40y, CG 42y). More women underwent immediate reconstruction in the BG (94%) than the CG (76%). Implant reconstruction was the commonest technique in BG and CG (81% v 70% respectively), followed by autologous (8% v 11% respectively) and LD flap (6% and 19% respectively). A majority of patients in both groups needed 3 operations to complete their reconstruction process (99% and 75% in BG and CG respectively). 25% of CG patients needed >3 operations. 44% and 49% of BG and CG patients respectively had >1 unplanned surgical procedures. Emergency procedures were necessary in 10% and 6% of BG and CG patients respectively. Cumulative inpatient length of stay was similar across both groups correcting for reconstruction type.
Conclusion: BRRM, even in a specialised unit with a small cohort of surgeons, is a significant undertaking for patients and the health service. This should be relayed to patients as part of informed consent.
Methods: all women attending the Manchester Family History clinic have been prospectively entered onto a database. Those undergoing BRRM were identified and case notes interrogated to obtain SOMs data.
Results: 349 patients were identified of whom 312 (89%) had no cancer diagnosis (benign group, BG) and 37 (11%) were diagnosed with breast cancer (cancer group, CG). Mean age was similar (BG 40y, CG 42y). More women underwent immediate reconstruction in the BG (94%) than the CG (76%). Implant reconstruction was the commonest technique in BG and CG (81% v 70% respectively), followed by autologous (8% v 11% respectively) and LD flap (6% and 19% respectively). A majority of patients in both groups needed 3 operations to complete their reconstruction process (99% and 75% in BG and CG respectively). 25% of CG patients needed >3 operations. 44% and 49% of BG and CG patients respectively had >1 unplanned surgical procedures. Emergency procedures were necessary in 10% and 6% of BG and CG patients respectively. Cumulative inpatient length of stay was similar across both groups correcting for reconstruction type.
Conclusion: BRRM, even in a specialised unit with a small cohort of surgeons, is a significant undertaking for patients and the health service. This should be relayed to patients as part of informed consent.
Background: BRRM is one method of breast cancer risk reduction in women identified as being at high lifetime risk due to gene mutations (eg BRCA) or strong family history. Little has been published on surgical outcomes in this group of patients. We examined SOMs in 349 patients undergoing BRRM.
Methods: all women attending the Manchester Family History clinic have been prospectively entered onto a database. Those undergoing BRRM were identified and case notes interrogated to obtain SOMs data.
Results: 349 patients were identified of whom 312 (89%) had no cancer diagnosis (benign group, BG) and 37 (11%) were diagnosed with breast cancer (cancer group, CG). Mean age was similar (BG 40y, CG 42y). More women underwent immediate reconstruction in the BG (94%) than the CG (76%). Implant reconstruction was the commonest technique in BG and CG (81% v 70% respectively), followed by autologous (8% v 11% respectively) and LD flap (6% and 19% respectively). A majority of patients in both groups needed 3 operations to complete their reconstruction process (99% and 75% in BG and CG respectively). 25% of CG patients needed >3 operations. 44% and 49% of BG and CG patients respectively had >1 unplanned surgical procedures. Emergency procedures were necessary in 10% and 6% of BG and CG patients respectively. Cumulative inpatient length of stay was similar across both groups correcting for reconstruction type.
Conclusion: BRRM, even in a specialised unit with a small cohort of surgeons, is a significant undertaking for patients and the health service. This should be relayed to patients as part of informed consent.
Methods: all women attending the Manchester Family History clinic have been prospectively entered onto a database. Those undergoing BRRM were identified and case notes interrogated to obtain SOMs data.
Results: 349 patients were identified of whom 312 (89%) had no cancer diagnosis (benign group, BG) and 37 (11%) were diagnosed with breast cancer (cancer group, CG). Mean age was similar (BG 40y, CG 42y). More women underwent immediate reconstruction in the BG (94%) than the CG (76%). Implant reconstruction was the commonest technique in BG and CG (81% v 70% respectively), followed by autologous (8% v 11% respectively) and LD flap (6% and 19% respectively). A majority of patients in both groups needed 3 operations to complete their reconstruction process (99% and 75% in BG and CG respectively). 25% of CG patients needed >3 operations. 44% and 49% of BG and CG patients respectively had >1 unplanned surgical procedures. Emergency procedures were necessary in 10% and 6% of BG and CG patients respectively. Cumulative inpatient length of stay was similar across both groups correcting for reconstruction type.
Conclusion: BRRM, even in a specialised unit with a small cohort of surgeons, is a significant undertaking for patients and the health service. This should be relayed to patients as part of informed consent.
Code of conduct/disclaimer available in General Terms & Conditions
{{ help_message }}
{{filter}}