Menu
Recruiting NCT04356235

Examining and Comparing the Temporal Changes and Results of Cosmetic, Quality of Life and Patient Satisfaction Achieved With Immediate and Delayed-immediate Implant-based Breast Reconstruction Procedures and Contralateral Symmetrization Techniques

Observational Mastectomy; Lymphedema Breast Cancer Quality of Life

For patients and families

In plain language

An automatic summary of structured registry data. It is an orientation aid, not a substitute for the official protocol or a physician assessment.

What is being studied
The protocol lists: A: expander-silicone implant exchange and contralateral symmetrization with mastopexy and if needed with volume reduction, B: expander-silicone implant exchange with contralateral symmetrization with mastopexy and Ultrapro sling, C: expander-silicone implant exchange and contralateral symmetrization with mastopexy and silicone implant augmentation, D: expander-silicone implant exchange and contralateral symmetrization with mastopexy and Utrapro sling and silicone implant augmentation.
Who it may be relevant to
Registry conditions: Mastectomy; Lymphedema, Breast Cancer, Quality of Life. Basic parameters: 18 years — 65 years · Female.
What needs checking
Age, condition and sex are only basic indicators. Prior treatment, laboratory values and other mandatory requirements appear in the eligibility criteria below.
Where it takes place
Hungary
Next step
Save the trial, show it to the treating physician, and confirm current recruitment with the study center. Costs, documents and travel →
Official title

Examining and Comparing Patient Satisfaction and Long-term Cosmetic Results Achieved With Implant-based Breast Reconstruction Surgery With Submuscular Silicone Implant After Skin Sparing / Areola Sparing / Nipple Sparing Mastectomy and Contralateral Symmetrization (With Mastopexy and/or Silicone Implant and/or Ultrapro Mesh) With Unilateral Simple Mastectomies and With Bilateral Skin-sparing Mastectomies and Implant-based Immediate Breast Reconstructions. Response-adaptive Prospective Randomized, Comparative Clinical Trial

Overview

This is a response-adaptive (RAR) prospective randomized study with a long-term follow-up and the aim of this clinical study is to measure with qualitative and quantitative indicators the changes in cosmetic results, quality of life and patient satisfaction after breast reconstructive surgery with silicone implant (following SSM, ASM or NSM mastectomy) and symmetrization (mastopexy and/or silicone implant and/or Ultrapro mesh sling technique) over time. According to the hypothesis of the study, the results of implant-based breast reconstruction and symmetrization following advanced postmastectomy techniques significantly decrease over time and later results limited patient satisfaction rate. This is mainly due to the fact that over time, the natural breast differs from the reconstructed breast with silicone implant. Because of the different biological properties (gravity results ptosis on breast with mastopexy, significant volume increasement of the breast with mastopexy due to endocrine therapy, gradually progressive capsular contracture on the tumorous side, nipple flattening, nipple tattoo fading etc.) the two sides change differently resulting in significant asymmetry and consequently could lead to decreased patient satisfaction. The high degree of asymmetry over time (which can be similar to the difference between the result of a simple mastectomy and natural breast (control group)), may indicates additional surgeries or usage of medical devices, putting a financial burden on the patient and the health system. On the other hand, the symmetry can be achieved with bilateral skin-sparing mastectomies and implant-based immediate or delayed-immediate reconstructions is clearly better and change less with time. The mastectomy of the contralateral disease-free side is considered as an unreasonable burden for moderate risk patients. The information such as the need for multiple surgeries, change in symmetry over time etc., should be an important part of the professional decision-making mechanism and the surgeon should inform the patient during the primer surgery. Nowadays due to the lack of evidence-based knowledge, it is not part of the patient's information and surgical planning internationally. Planning breast units, attention, capacity and financial resources must also be provided to meet the long-term needs of patients who underwent postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Simple mastectomy with an external prosthesis can be an alternative for patients with intolerable degree of asymmetry or on the contrary, the results may justify the need for bilateral mastectomy and reconstruction even in the absence of high oncological risk and for purely symmetrical and cosmetic reasons.

Detailed description

Introduction The indication of total breast removal is primarily the part of a correct oncological therapy, but secondly the removal of the full parenchyma can be prophylactic among high risk patients with positive genetic testing. Unlike in the US, in Europe it is not yet common to perform prophylactic breast surgery on the contralateral side among average risk patients with unilateral breast cancer.

In modern breast surgery, mastectomy means the removal of the entire glandular tissue. Surgery can be done in the absence of contraindication (eg, skin infiltration, mastitis carcinomatosis), by preserving the nipple-areola complex (NAC) and the skin layer above the parenchyma (nipple-sparing mastectomy, NSM) by removal of the whole or a part of the NAC (skin-sparing mastectomy, SSM) or by removal of the nipple but with the preservation of the areola (areola-sparing mastectomy, ASM).

It is important to emphasize that similarly to the classic simplex mastectomy in the cases of SSM, ASM and NSM techniques provided by an experienced and qualified breast surgeon, the complete oncological removal of the mammary gland is done.

The essence of advanced mastectomy techniques is that they ensure the combination of radical oncological resection and immediate (immediate breast reconstruction, IBR) or delayed-immediate breast reconstructive surgery (delayed immediate breast reconstruction, D-IBR) (insertion of a tissue expander during the first operation, then as a second step replace it with a silicone implant). It avoids all the burden and negative effects of distant flap surgery, like donor scars, loss of movements etc.

One or two-step post-mastectomy breast reconstructive surgeries are mainly implant-based techniques and less commonly autologous tissue techniques like distant pedicle flaps or free flaps. The tissue expander or silicone implant is placed primarily in a submuscular position but also can be inserted in a subcutaneous position in front of the large pectoral muscle.

The coverage of the lower pole or even the entire surface of the implant may be strengthened with biological (so-called acellular dermal matrix) or synthetic materials (Ultrapro mesh) to reduce the pressure load of the implant on the preserved skin, the consequent skin perforation and so the loss of the implant.

The international literature of immediate or delayed-immediate postmastectomy breast reconstructive techniques is extensive and the correlation between these procedures and the oncological treatments (such as adjuvant radiotherapy) are well known. According to the currently available evidence, reconstructive techniques do not adversely affect oncological outcome, so these breast surgical techniques are nowadays considered standard procedures in advanced breast cancer surgery.

The immediate or delayed-immediate implant-based reconstruction of the affected breast following skin-sparing mastectomy techniques requires almost in all cases symmetrization of the contralateral breast. Symmetrization surgery involves mastopexy, volume reduction or silicone implant augmentation, or furthermore skin-sparing mastectomy with an implant-based reconstruction corresponding to the tumorous side. Symmetrization can be performed in one step with the tumorous breast surgery or more often at a deferred time.

Postmastectomy breast reconstruction surgeries are well-known as an effective rehabilitation procedures, with significant psycho-oncological benefits to patients with low complication rates and high patient satisfaction. Postmastectomy breast reconstructive surgery however require more sophisticated surgical techniques, special expertise, longer surgical time and significantly higher costs than simplex mastectomies.

The cosmetic results and patient satisfaction achieved with the immediate postmastectomy reconstructive techniques with the use of symmetrisation, are widely studied, and high, mainly in the early postoperative period.

However, the long-term results of the more and more popular and widespread usage of skin-sparing mastectomies, immediate reconstructions and symmetrization surgery and the related patient satisfaction rates have so far not or only barely been in the focus of clinical trials, so the available scientific data is severely limited. The long-term disease-free survival with multidisciplinary treatments in early stage breast cancer could raise up to 85% of patients, so knowing the long-term changes of patient satisfaction, cosmetic result and symmetry of stressful and expensive immediate or delayed-immediate postmastectomy breast reconstruction surgeries is top priority.

Aim of the study

This is a response-adaptive (RAR) prospective randomized study with a long-term follow-up and the aim of this clinical study is to measure with qualitative and quantitative indicators the changes in cosmetic results, quality of life and patient satisfaction after breast reconstructive surgery with silicone implant (following SSM, ASM or NSM mastectomy) and symmetrization (mastopexy and/or silicone implant and/or Ultrapro mesh sling technique) over time.

According to the hypothesis of the study, the results of implant-based breast reconstruction and symmetrization following advanced postmastectomy techniques significantly decrease over time and later results limited patient satisfaction rate.

This is mainly due to the fact that over time, the natural breast differs from the reconstructed breast with silicone implant. Because of the different biological properties (gravity results ptosis on breast with mastopexy, significant volume increasement of the breast with mastopexy due to endocrine therapy, gradually progressive capsular contracture on the tumorous side, nipple flattening, nipple tattoo fading etc.) the two sides change differently resulting in significant asymmetry and consequently could lead to decreased patient satisfaction.

The high degree of asymmetry over time (which can be similar to the difference between the result of a simple mastectomy and natural breast (control group)), may indicates additional surgeries or usage of medical devices, putting a financial burden on the patient and the health system. On the other hand, the symmetry can be achieve with bilateral skin-sparing mastectomies and implant-based immediate or delayed-immediate reconstructions is clearly better and change less with time. The mastectomy of the contralateral disease-free side is considered as an unreasonable burden for moderate risk patients.

The information such as the need for multiple surgeries, change in symmetry over time etc., should be an important part of the professional decision-making mechanism and the surgeon should inform the patient during the primer surgery. Nowadays due to the lack of evidence-based knowledge, it is not part of the patient's information and surgical planning internationally. Planning breast units, attention, capacity and financial resources must also be provided to meet the long-term needs of patients who underwent postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Simple mastectomy with an external prosthesis can be an alternative for patients with intolerable degree of asymmetry or on the contrary, the results may justify the need for bilateral mastectomy and reconstruction even in the absence of high oncological risk and for purely symmetrical and cosmetic reasons.

Patients and method Participation in the study is voluntary. In this response-adaptive (RAR) prospective randomized study, the used standardized surgical techniques are considered to be routine procedures in the literature and iat department as well. The oncological and reconstructive surgeries do not represent new surgical procedures for patients either in their technique nor in the indication, this prospective trial guarantee quantitative and qualitative data collection only. Applied oncological therapies are unaffected by the study and still follows the decisions of the Institute's preoperative and postoperative multidisciplinary breast cancer committee. The study does not change the complex oncological treatment in any way compared to the institute's protocol.

Response-adaptive classification in this study means that the choice of the optimal surgical technique for the patient is not affected by the clinical trial. The selection of the surgical technique is based on the decision-making models that is used for a long time, and made individually for the patient's oncological disease (eg. nipple removal), breast size and degree of ptosis (NSM vs. SSM), which is the same way as patients are treated out-of-study. The principles of selecting symmetrizational techniques are presented in the introduction. In addition, reinforcement with Ultrapro mesh is used during mastopexy when the degree of the breast ptosis is at least Grade 3 or size D according to Regnault's classification or the patient has significant pseudoptosis, so the fibrous system and the skin of the breast have a very loose structure.

Therefore, in a scientific sense, this study does not involve treatments other than routine treatment protocols.

Preoperative examinations:

* Physical examination * Triplet examination of the breast * Chest X-ray * Axillary ultrasound with aspiration cytology if needed * Required additional imaging based on the oncological staging (targeted x-ray, CT, MRI, PET) * Routine hematological and blood test analysis * Measurements of jugulum-nipple width, nipple midline width, and nipple inframammary-fold width * Regnault Classification of breasts' ptosis * Photo documentation (standard 5 directions and ap with raised arms) and the application of the BCCT.core program (regarding data protection regulations) * Filling out the BREAST-Q questionnaire

Recorded data:

Age, body mass, height, BMI, pre-/postoperative cup sizes, presence of preoperative breast assymetry and its severity (BCCT.core software data), past history, medication, smoking habits, oncological data, cTNM, pTN, pathological data, molecular genetic subtype, neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy, type of axillary treatment, locoregional cancer recurrance, metastasis.

Age, weight, body mass, BMI, skin type typisation (normal, atypical, seborrheals, dehidrated, hyperhydrated (oedamatic)), preoperative cup size, presence of preoperative breast assymetry and its severity (BCCT.core software data), past history, medication, smoking habits, oncological data, cTNM, pTN, pathological data, molecular genetic subtype, type of mastectomy (SM, SSM,ASM, NSM), type of primary reconstruction, neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy, type of axillary treatment, type of delayed reconstruction, type and time of symmetrisation according to primary surgery, type of the primer surgery, bra cup size after the reconstruction and symmetrisation then measuring it yearly, the size of used silicone implant(s).

Postoperative complications were classified following Clavien-Dindo Classification.

Grade I complication (light inflammations, non-surgical haematoma or suffusion, seroma formation, partial skin/NAC loss, limited fat necrosis, SSI and lymphoedema) does not require medication or surgical treatment. Grade II complication is a Grade I complication that requires medication or surgical interaction (antibiotic therapy, resuture due SSI and multiple puncture due chronic seroma). Grade III complication requires invasive surgical action (haematoma evacuation, chronic inflammation which requires reoperation, severe fat necrosis, full skin/ NAC necrosis and wound dehiscense). Grade IV complication means temporary organ failure. Grade V complication is one that leads to death.

The following data are collected in this trial: preoperative jugulum-nipple width, nipple-midline width, nipple-IMF width, vertical and horizontal width of the areola, Regnault Classification of the breast ptosis then repeating the above measurements during the follow-up (every 6 months) with parallel photo documentation, using BCCT.core program

Interventions

  • Procedure A: expander-silicone implant exchange and contralateral symmetrization with mastopexy and if needed with volume reduction
    expander-silicone implant exchange and contralateral symmetrization with mastopexy and if needed with volume reduction
  • Procedure B: expander-silicone implant exchange with contralateral symmetrization with mastopexy and Ultrapro sling
    expander-silicone implant exchange with contralateral symmetrization with mastopexy and Ultrapro sling
  • Procedure C: expander-silicone implant exchange and contralateral symmetrization with mastopexy and silicone implant augmentation
    expander-silicone implant exchange and contralateral symmetrization with mastopexy and silicone implant augmentation
  • Procedure D: expander-silicone implant exchange and contralateral symmetrization with mastopexy and Utrapro sling and silicone implant augmentation
    expander-silicone implant exchange and contralateral symmetrization with mastopexy and Utrapro sling and silicone implant augmentation
  • Procedure E: unilateral simple mastectomy
    unilateral simple mastectomy
  • Procedure F: after bilateral SSM, ASM, NSM, expander-implant exchange
    after bilateral SSM, ASM, NSM, expander-implant exchange

Primary outcome measures

  • Quality of life: BREAST-Q validated questionnaire [Time frame: up to 5 years]
  • Patient satisfaction: BREAST-Q validated questionnaire [Time frame: up to 5 years]
Secondary outcome measures (1)
  • Objective cosmetic results [Time frame: up to 5 years]

Eligibility criteria

Inclusion criteria

  • Under the age of 65 with uni- or bilateral primary breast cancer ( clinical Stage 0-III), needing modern skin sparing mastectomy, nipple sparing mastectomy or areola sparing mastectomy independently of the axillary surgery, having immediate or delayed-immediate implant based reconstrucion on the ipsilateral side and symmetrisation on the contralateral side ( mastopexy and/or implant based reconstruction and/or breast sling with ultrapro mesh)
  • Control group: patients under 65 years with unilateral simplex mastectomy without breast reconstruction

Exclusion criteria

  • In case the patient does not volunteer for the examination or the follow-ups
  • Age above 65 years or poor general health condition, where the estimated life expectancies would be less than 2 years even without the tumorous disease
  • Malignant invasive tumor in the past history (except for non-melanoma skin tumors)
  • Mastectomyand reconstruction performed due pregnancy associated breast cancer
  • Prior breast surgery (e.g. aesthetic surgery, mastopexy) and/or radiotherapy on the breast or in the axilla
  • Malignant tumor is not removed completely with pathological examination
  • Severe non-surgical (e.g. radiotherapy) complication, which could influence the aesthetic and functional results
  • Autoimmune diseases
  • Mastitis carcinomatosa
  • Lymphangitis carcinomatosa
  • Open wound therapy due SSI
  • Long-term steroid usage, which changed the skin's quality and structure
  • Patient under foster care, or psychically non-cooperative patient
  • If breast correction performed during the 5 years follow up

Criteria are shown verbatim from the registry (in English). Final eligibility is always assessed by the study center.

Healthy volunteers: Yes

Study design

Observational model
Cohort

Study locations

Hungary · 1 center
  • National Institute of Oncology — Budapest

Publications

  • Galimberti V, Vicini E, Corso G, Morigi C, Fontana S, Sacchini V, Veronesi P. Nipple-sparing and skin-sparing mastectomy: Review of aims, oncological safety and contraindications. Breast. 2017 Aug;34 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S82-S84. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2017.06.034. Epub 2017 Jun 30. PMID 28673535
  • Murthy V, Chamberlain RS. Defining a place for nipple sparing mastectomy in modern breast care: an evidence based review. Breast J. 2013 Nov-Dec;19(6):571-81. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4741.2011.01220.x. Epub 2012 Jan 29. PMID 22284266
  • Weber WP, Haug M, Kurzeder C, Bjelic-Radisic V, Koller R, Reitsamer R, Fitzal F, Biazus J, Brenelli F, Urban C, Paulinelli RR, Blohmer JU, Heil J, Hoffmann J, Matrai Z, Catanuto G, Galimberti V, Gentilini O, Barry M, Hadar T, Allweis TM, Olsha O, Cardoso MJ, Gouveia PF, Rubio IT, de Boniface J, Svensjo T, Bucher S, Dubsky P, Farhadi J, Fehr MK, Fulco I, Ganz-Blattler U, Gunthert A, Harder Y, Hause PMID 30182349
  • Rowland JH, Desmond KA, Meyerowitz BE, Belin TR, Wyatt GE, Ganz PA. Role of breast reconstructive surgery in physical and emotional outcomes among breast cancer survivors. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000 Sep 6;92(17):1422-9. doi: 10.1093/jnci/92.17.1422. PMID 10974078
  • Fang SY, Shu BC, Chang YJ. The effect of breast reconstruction surgery on body image among women after mastectomy: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013 Jan;137(1):13-21. doi: 10.1007/s10549-012-2349-1. Epub 2012 Dec 6. PMID 23225142
  • Rosenberger WF, Sverdlov O, Hu F. Adaptive randomization for clinical trials. J Biopharm Stat. 2012;22(4):719-36. doi: 10.1080/10543406.2012.676535. PMID 22651111
  • Regnault P. Breast ptosis. Definition and treatment. Clin Plast Surg. 1976 Apr;3(2):193-203. PMID 1261176
  • Cardoso JS, Cardoso MJ. Towards an intelligent medical system for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment. Artif Intell Med. 2007 Jun;40(2):115-26. doi: 10.1016/j.artmed.2007.02.007. Epub 2007 Apr 8. PMID 17420117

Identifiers

NCT: NCT04356235 · Ageing-NIO

Primary sources (government registries)

View this study on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗