Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Anticancer Research
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Anticancer Research

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Visit us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Linkedin
Research ArticleClinical Studies
Open Access

Post-Mastectomy Implant Complications in the Hispanic Breast Cancer Patient Population

BRIANNA CONTE, CAROLINE SHERMOEN, MAYA LUBARSKY, CAROLINE K. FISER, SOPHIA N. LIU, SUSAN B. KESMODEL, NEHA GOEL, DANIELLE CERBON and LORA WANG
Anticancer Research November 2023, 43 (11) 4953-4959; DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.16693
BRIANNA CONTE
1University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, U.S.A.;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
CAROLINE SHERMOEN
1University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, U.S.A.;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MAYA LUBARSKY
1University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, U.S.A.;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
CAROLINE K. FISER
2DeWitt Daughtry Family Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami, FL, U.S.A.;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
SOPHIA N. LIU
2DeWitt Daughtry Family Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami, FL, U.S.A.;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
SUSAN B. KESMODEL
2DeWitt Daughtry Family Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami, FL, U.S.A.;
3Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, U.S.A.;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: sxk1006{at}med.miami.edu
NEHA GOEL
2DeWitt Daughtry Family Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami, FL, U.S.A.;
3Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, U.S.A.;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DANIELLE CERBON
4Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, U.S.A.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
LORA WANG
4Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, U.S.A.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background/Aim: The purpose was to analyze the impact of post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) on implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) in self-identified Hispanic patients compared to non-Hispanic counterparts. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent IBR between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2019 at a single hospital system. Patients were cisgender women, assigned female at birth, 18 years or older, and underwent mastectomy with immediate IBR +/− PMRT. We compared characteristics between Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients, assessing capsular contracture and implant loss rates. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify factors associated with complications. Results: A total of 317 patients underwent mastectomy and reconstruction. Of these patients, 302 underwent a total of 467 mastectomies with IBR, and these 467 procedures were included in the analysis of complications. Complications occurred in 175 breasts (37.5%), regardless of PMRT. Seventy-two of the 302 patients (24%) received PMRT to one breast. The overall rates of capsular contracture, implant loss, and overall complications did not vary significantly between Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients (p=0.866, 0.974, and 0.761, respectively). When comparing only irradiated patients, there was a trend towards increased implant loss and overall complication rates in Hispanic versus non-Hispanic patients (p=0.107 and 0.113, respectively). Following PMRT the rate of any complication was 71% in Hispanic women and 53% in non-Hispanic women. Conclusion: Our study illuminates a trend towards higher complication rates after PMRT in Hispanic versus non-Hispanic patients. Further studies are needed to understand why Hispanic patients may have more side effects from radiation therapy.

Key Words:
  • Hispanic patients
  • post-mastectomy radiation
  • implant reconstruction
  • breast cancer
  • complications

Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer as well as the leading cause of death in Hispanic women (1, 2). Studies in breast cancer have shown that Hispanic patients are more likely to present with overall later stage at diagnosis (3, 4) when compared to non-Hispanic white patients. Node positive disease increases the likelihood that patients undergoing surgery will be considered for post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) and be exposed to the potential side effects of radiation therapy. Those belonging to racial or ethnic minority groups are more likely to experience adverse health outcomes, making race and ethnicity important social determinants of health to control for when analyzing complications (5). Yet, race and ethnicity as predictive factors of complications have not been included in prior analyses assessing PMRT (5).

The primary role of PMRT is to eliminate occult disease, and it has been shown to reduce local recurrence and improve overall survival (OS) in appropriately selected patients (6). Generally, PMRT is reserved for locally advanced disease (T3N1, T4, N2-N3) and is not generally recommended for small, node negative tumors unless there are positive margins or other poor prognostic features. There is still debate regarding the use of PMRT for patients with intermediate risk disease (T1-2N1 disease or T3N0) (7), and decisions regarding PMRT are often individualized to balance the potential benefits with associated risks.

Approximately half of all patients who undergo mastectomy elect to have breast reconstruction (8). The discussion of the benefits versus complications of PMRT after breast reconstruction has become of greater interest as more clinical benefits of PMRT in high-risk patients are identified (9, 10). Prosthetic reconstruction is the most common type of breast reconstruction and includes insertion of either a permanent implant or a temporary tissue expander (TE) prior to implant placement (11). When prosthetic reconstruction is followed by radiation, there is an increased risk of complications, reoperation, and implant loss. The most commonly cited complications of PMRT after breast reconstruction are capsular contracture, pain, distortion, infection and need for reoperation (12). The rates of reconstruction failure vary by the type of prosthetic reconstruction, with higher rates in the setting of TE placement (13). Additionally, several factors have been shown to contribute to implant failure including poorly controlled diabetes, tobacco use, and elevated body mass index (BMI) (14). Nonetheless, it remains difficult to predict which patients will experience complications, and the decision regarding PMRT timing and breast reconstruction must involve shared decision making.

There is a paucity of data on skin toxicity for Hispanic patients receiving radiation therapy (15) though a population-based survey study showed that Latinos had higher self-reported toxicity severity (16). There has been more progress when discussing radiation-induced changes in African American patients with data suggesting worse radiation dermatitis in these patients (17-20). However, a more recent study which examined acute skin toxicity in a race and ethnically diverse breast cancer population including Hispanic white patients showed that while BMI predicted higher skin toxicity grade, race and ethnicity did not. This study did not focus on radiation outcomes in patients undergoing breast reconstruction (21). While studies like these demonstrate some progress in analyzing the effect of race on radiation complications, almost all compare non-Hispanic white and Black patients and mostly in the setting of breast conservation therapy. To our knowledge none have specifically addressed complications among Hispanic patients with implant-based reconstruction. We aimed to fill this knowledge gap by comparing differences in complication rates between Hispanic patients and non-Hispanic patients undergoing mastectomy with implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) and the impact of PMRT on complication rates.

Patients and Methods

Study site and population. This retrospective cohort study was performed at the University of Miami Medical campus, comprised of the University of Miami Hospital, the Sylvester-Comprehensive Cancer Center, an NCI-designated Cancer Center, and the Jackson Health System, the associated partner safety-net hospital.

Patients who underwent mastectomy with reconstruction at University of Miami Medical campus between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019 were selected. Cisgender women assigned female at birth who were 18 years or older and underwent mastectomy with immediate IBR were included in the study. Patients who did not present to their follow-up visits were excluded. Patients who underwent autologous tissue reconstruction using a deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap technique were included in demographic data but excluded from the statistical analysis of complications following IBR. Patient demographics, relevant clinical history, tumor information, treatment, and follow-up were abstracted from the medical records in accordance with an Institutional Review Board approved protocol and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). All patients were staged using the AJCC 7th edition staging system.

Outcome of interest. The primary objective of the study was to determine the difference in PMRT complications between Hispanic and non-Hispanic women. The secondary objective was to determine the overall complication rates between Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients in the setting of reconstruction, regardless of radiation status, and to identify additional variables that influence these complications. PMRT was considered adjuvant radiation to the reconstructed chest wall +/− the regional lymph nodes. The median dose was 50 Gy (range=42.56-60 Gy). A complication was defined as implant loss or Baker grade II or higher capsular contracture (22). For analysis of the entire patient population, implant losses were included if the patient had an emergent or unplanned surgery to remove or replace the implant due to infection (abscess formation, cellulitis), skin necrosis, high grade capsular contracture, or discomfort and cosmetic purposes. These implant losses were both acute related to surgery and long term. For patients who received PMRT, only implant loss and capsular contracture after the completion of PMRT were included.

Statistical analysis. Baseline differences and complication rates between Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients were assessed using Chi-square tests. A multivariable binary logistic regression was performed to determine predictors of developing any complications including receipt of PMRT, ethnicity, race, age (≤50 or >50), presence of obesity (defined as BMI ≥30), comorbid conditions, current smoking status, receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), prior cosmetic breast surgery, and type of mastectomy and reconstruction performed.

Statistical analysis was performed using R version 4.2.1 (R Core Team, Vienna, Austria). All statistical tests were two-sided and deemed statistically significant at an alpha less than 0.05.

Results

Patient characteristics. A total of 351 patients underwent mastectomy with IBR during the time period. Of these, 34 patients were excluded for lack of follow up after surgery. The remaining 317 patients were included in the demographic analysis and 199 (62.0%) identified as Hispanic (Table I). Significant differences between the Hispanic and non-Hispanic patient cohorts included white race (95% of Hispanic patients vs. 71% of non-Hispanic patients, p<0.001), cancer stage at diagnosis of III or higher (7% of Hispanic patients vs. 16% of non-Hispanic patients, p=0.009), use of dermal matrix (70% of Hispanic patients vs. 82% of non-Hispanic patients, p=0.019), and use of skin sparing mastectomy (69% of Hispanic patients vs. 55% of non-Hispanic patients, p=0.035). The median age at time of mastectomy for all patients was 51 years old (range=19-83 years old). The median BMI was 26.5 (range=16.6-48.9), with 29% of patients with a BMI greater ≥30. Of the comorbidities analyzed, 5% of all patients were current tobacco users, 21% were former tobacco users, 6% had diabetes, and 2% had a known autoimmune disease, with no significant differences between the two groups.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table I.

The overall patient characteristics of our cohort.

Fifteen of the 317 patients underwent DIEP reconstruction and were excluded from further analysis of complications. Of the 302 remaining patients, 165 patients underwent bilateral mastectomy, and 137 patients underwent unilateral mastectomy, for a total of 467 breasts analyzed in our study. When analyzing the complications, each breast was considered a separate target of interest since each breast had independent risks for complications.

Analysis of complications. Complications occurred in 175 of 467 breasts (37.5%) that underwent IBR. Capsular contracture was observed in 19% of these breasts and implant loss in 23%. Multivariable analysis showed that PMRT (OR=4.39, 95%CI=2.10-9.59, p=0.0001) nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) (OR=1.80, 95%CI=1.13-2.87, p=0.0132), direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction (OR=1.92, 95%CI=1.23-3.00, p=0.0043), and NAC (OR=1.72, 95%CI=1.08-2.74, p=0.0229) were factors associated with an increased risk of complications (Table II) with PMRT having the most significant impact on complication rate.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table II.

The multivariable binomial logistic regression for overall complication rates.

Comparison of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic patients. The rates of capsular contracture, implant loss, and overall complications did not vary significantly between Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients (p=0.866, 0.974, and 0.761, respectively) (Table III). When comparing only irradiated patients, there was a trend towards increased implant loss and overall complication rates in Hispanic versus non-Hispanic patients (p=0.107 and 0.113, respectively) (Table IV) although this was not statistically significant. The rate of any complication in Hispanic patients following PMRT was 71%, while in non-Hispanic patients after PMRT the rate was 53%.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table III.

Comparison of the rates of complication in the breasts of all Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients, regardless of post-op radiation therapy.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table IV.

Comparison of the rate of complications in the breasts of Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients who received post-mastectomy radiation therapy.

Comparison of patients with and without PMRT. Complication rates were significantly higher in patients who received PMRT compared to those who did not, regardless of ethnicity (Table V). However, a much stronger correlation was observed in Hispanic patients after PMRT compared to non-Hispanic patients. In the absence of PMRT, the rate of complications was about 30% in both groups. The rate of complications in Hispanic patients after PMRT increased significantly more than the rate of non-Hispanic patients. Hispanic patients who received PMRT were significantly more likely to develop a complication and have capsular contracture or implant loss compared to those who did not. For non-Hispanic patients there was only a significant difference in capsular contracture rates between those who did and did not receive PMRT but not overall complication rates or implant loss.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table V.

Comparison of the rate of complications in the breasts of patients who received and did not receive post-op radiation therapy (RT).

Discussion

The current rate of reconstruction failure or implant loss in patients with immediate IBR treated with PMRT ranges from 5% to 48% (14). While our study showed that NSM, DTI reconstruction, and NAC were associated with an increased risk of complications, PMRT (OR= 4.39) had the largest impact. This is consistent with previous studies, which analyzed factors associated with reconstructive failure and found that more adverse events could be attributed to PMRT than other patient characteristics and treatments (12, 14, 23).

When we examined the entire cohort of patients and compared complication rates between Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients who underwent mastectomy with IBR, there were no significant differences between the two groups, despite multiple differences in the patient characteristics of the two cohorts (race, stage at diagnosis, use of dermal matrix, and mastectomy type). Multivariable analysis showed that NSM, DTI reconstruction, NAC, and PMRT were associated with a statistically significant increase in risk of complications.

There are mixed reports in the literature regarding the impact of NSM, DTI reconstruction, and NAC on complication rates following mastectomy and IBR (24-33). Approximately 20% of patients undergoing NSM develop complications and the risk of skin necrosis is higher in patients undergoing NSM when compared to other mastectomy approaches (30, 33). Multiple studies show that DTI reconstruction is associated with higher complication rates and reconstruction loss (26-29, 31). A systematic review of one-stage DTI reconstruction compared to two-stage reconstruction showed that one-stage reconstruction was associated with a 2-fold higher risk of implant loss (OR=1.87, p=0.04) (27). In a systematic review and meta-analysis of complication rates following IBR after NAC, a statistically significant increase in implant/TE loss was observed after NAC, although overall complication rates were not increased (30). However, other analyses have not shown an increased rate of complications associated with NAC (25, 32). Of the 317 patients included in our study, 87 received NAC with 49/87 patients receiving PMRT. Due to the small sample size and significant impact of PMRT on implant loss, this could be a confounding factor.

The difference in complication rates between the two subgroups dramatically increased after PMRT from 38% to 62% for the entire cohort and to 71% and 53% in Hispanics and non-Hispanics, respectively. While it is well documented in the literature that PMRT increases the risk for capsular contracture, infection, and implant loss (12) there are no studies exploring complications among different races/ethnicities. We found that capsular contracture rates were similar between groups but implant loss rates were higher in Hispanic women after PMRT (44.7% vs. 26.5% for non-Hispanic patients), although this did not reach statistical significance. This may be due to the relatively small number of patients in the entire cohort who received PMRT. When comparing complication rates in Hispanic patients who did and did not receive PMRT, a significant increase in overall complication rates, capsular contracture and implant loss were observed. In non-Hispanic patients, there was only a significant increase in capsular contracture rates. This suggests that there may be differences in radiation toxicity in Hispanic patients compared to non-Hispanic patients.

While language barriers and other socioeconomic factors likely contribute to difference in care between ethnic groups, the effect of race and ethnicity itself has not been examined in most studies assessing radiation therapy toxicity. Toxicity studies often include race in their breakdown of patient characteristics, however, non-Hispanic white breast cancer patients are the most widely studied group (34). Although Hispanics are often grouped into the white category when selecting a race, Hispanics may have different genetic ancestry when compared to non-Hispanic whites and Black patients of African descent. There needs to be a stronger emphasis on including Hispanic ethnicity in studies as they are the second largest racial/ethnic group in the United States after non-Hispanic whites, with percentage only increasing (35).

To our knowledge, our study is the first study to address PMRT complications after IBR in Hispanic patients. However, there are several limitations to note including the fact that this is a single institution, retrospective study with a short follow-up period. Additionally, capsular contracture is a measurement based on a subjective grading scale and therefore assessment may vary by provider. This study also did not take into account the potential effects of adjuvant systemic therapy. Despite these factors, this study represents the first of its kind to assess Hispanic ethnicity as a factor contributing to PMRT complications after implant-based reconstruction.

Conclusion

Our study suggests a need to further explore complication rates of PMRT in the Hispanic population. While our data illuminates a trend towards increased complication rates in Hispanic patients after PMRT (71% in Hispanic compared to 53% in non-Hispanic), a larger patient cohort needs to be examined to determine the true significance of this difference. Additionally, further analysis needs to be performed to understand why Hispanic patients may have more side effects from PMRT than their non-Hispanic counterparts. Radiation sensitivity is a complex polygenic trait, but it is likely that there are differences between racial and ethnic groups in their risk of some radiation toxicities.

Footnotes

  • Authors’ Contributions

    All Authors contributed to conceptualization, data curation, and review & editing. Original draft was written by Brianna Conte and Caroline Shermoen.

  • Conflicts of Interest

    The Authors have no conflicts to interest to declare in relation to this study.

  • Received September 5, 2023.
  • Revision received October 4, 2023.
  • Accepted October 5, 2023.
  • Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by the International Institute of Anticancer Research.

This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 international license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0).

References

  1. ↵
    1. Miller KD,
    2. Ortiz AP,
    3. Pinheiro PS,
    4. Bandi P,
    5. Minihan A,
    6. Fuchs HE,
    7. Martinez Tyson D,
    8. Tortolero-Luna G,
    9. Fedewa SA,
    10. Jemal AM,
    11. Siegel RL
    : Cancer statistics for the US Hispanic/Latino population, 2021. CA Cancer J Clin 71(6): 466-487, 2021. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21695
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Siegel RL,
    2. Miller KD,
    3. Fuchs HE,
    4. Jemal A
    : Cancer statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J Clin 72(1): 7-33, 2022. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21708
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Champion CD,
    2. Thomas SM,
    3. Plichta JK,
    4. Parrilla Castellar E,
    5. Rosenberger LH,
    6. Greenup RA,
    7. Hyslop T,
    8. Hwang ES,
    9. Fayanju OM
    : Disparities at the intersection of race and ethnicity: Examining trends and outcomes in Hispanic women with breast cancer. JCO Oncol Pract 18(5): e827-e838, 2022. DOI: 10.1200/OP.20.00381
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. ↵
    1. Ooi SL,
    2. Martinez ME,
    3. Li CI
    : Disparities in breast cancer characteristics and outcomes by race/ethnicity. Breast Cancer Res Treat 127(3): 729-738, 2011. DOI: 10.1007/s10549-010-1191-6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Williams DR,
    2. Lawrence JA,
    3. Davis BA
    : Racism and health: Evidence and needed research. Annu Rev Public Health 40: 105-125, 2019. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040218-043750
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. EBCTCG (Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group),
    2. McGale P,
    3. Taylor C,
    4. Correa C,
    5. Cutter D,
    6. Duane F,
    7. Ewertz M,
    8. Gray R,
    9. Mannu G,
    10. Peto R,
    11. Whelan T,
    12. Wang Y,
    13. Wang Z,
    14. Darby S
    : Effect of radiotherapy after mastectomy and axillary surgery on 10-year recurrence and 20-year breast cancer mortality: meta-analysis of individual patient data for 8135 women in 22 randomised trials. Lancet 383(9935): 2127-2135, 2014. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60488-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Recht A,
    2. Comen EA,
    3. Fine RE,
    4. Fleming GF,
    5. Hardenbergh PH,
    6. Ho AY,
    7. Hudis CA,
    8. Hwang ES,
    9. Kirshner JJ,
    10. Morrow M,
    11. Salerno KE,
    12. Sledge GW Jr.,
    13. Solin LJ,
    14. Spears PA,
    15. Whelan TJ,
    16. Somerfield MR,
    17. Edge SB
    : Postmastectomy Radiotherapy: An American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Surgical Oncology Focused Guideline update. Ann Surg Oncol 24(1): 38-51, 2017. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-016-5558-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Greenberg CC,
    2. Lipsitz SR,
    3. Hughes ME,
    4. Edge SB,
    5. Theriault R,
    6. Wilson JL,
    7. Carter WB,
    8. Blayney DW,
    9. Niland J,
    10. Weeks JC
    : Institutional variation in the surgical treatment of breast cancer: a study of the NCCN. Ann Surg 254(2): 339-345, 2011. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182263bb0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Polgár C,
    2. Kahán Z,
    3. Ivanov O,
    4. Chorváth M,
    5. Ligačová A,
    6. Csejtei A,
    7. Gábor G,
    8. Landherr L,
    9. Mangel L,
    10. Mayer Á,
    11. Fodor J
    : Radiotherapy of Breast Cancer-Professional Guideline 1st Central-Eastern European Professional Consensus Statement on breast cancer. Pathol Oncol Res 28: 1610378, 2022. DOI: 10.3389/pore.2022.1610378
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Remick J,
    2. Amin NP
    : Postmastectomy breast cancer radiation therapy. Treasure Island, FL, USA, StatPearls Publishing, 2022.
  11. ↵
    1. Albornoz CR,
    2. Bach PB,
    3. Mehrara BJ,
    4. Disa JJ,
    5. Pusic AL,
    6. McCarthy CM,
    7. Cordeiro PG,
    8. Matros E
    : A paradigm shift in U.S. breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 131(1): 15-23, 2013. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182729cde
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Zugasti A,
    2. Hontanilla B
    : The impact of adjuvant radiotherapy on immediate implant-based breast reconstruction surgical and satisfaction outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 9(11): e3910, 2021. DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000003910
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  13. ↵
    1. Cordeiro PG,
    2. Albornoz CR,
    3. McCormick B,
    4. Hudis CA,
    5. Hu Q,
    6. Heerdt A,
    7. Matros E
    : What is the optimum timing of postmastectomy radiotherapy in two-stage prosthetic reconstruction: Radiation to the tissue expander or permanent implant? Plast Reconstr Surg 135(6): 1509-1517, 2015. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000001278
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Baschnagel AM,
    2. Shah C,
    3. Wilkinson JB,
    4. Dekhne N,
    5. Arthur DW,
    6. Vicini FA
    : Failure rate and cosmesis of immediate tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction after postmastectomy irradiation. Clin Breast Cancer 12(6): 428-432, 2012. DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2012.09.001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Purswani JM,
    2. Nwankwo C,
    3. Adotama P,
    4. Gutierrez D,
    5. Perez CA,
    6. Tattersall IW,
    7. Gerber NK
    : Radiation-induced skin changes after breast or chest wall irradiation in patients with breast cancer and skin of color: a systematic review. Clin Breast Cancer 23(1): 1-14, 2023. DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2022.10.002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Friese CR,
    2. Harrison JM,
    3. Janz NK,
    4. Jagsi R,
    5. Morrow M,
    6. Li Y,
    7. Hamilton AS,
    8. Ward KC,
    9. Kurian AW,
    10. Katz SJ,
    11. Hofer TP
    : Treatment-associated toxicities reported by patients with early-stage invasive breast cancer. Cancer 123(11): 1925-1934, 2017. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.30547
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Deutsch M,
    2. Flickinger JC
    : Patient characteristics and treatment factors affecting cosmesis following lumpectomy and breast irradiation. Am J Clin Oncol 26(4): 350-353, 2003. DOI: 10.1097/01.COC.0000020589.75948.E7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Rodriguez-Gil JL,
    2. Takita C,
    3. Wright J,
    4. Reis IM,
    5. Zhao W,
    6. Lally BE,
    7. Hu JJ
    : Inflammatory biomarker C-reactive protein and radiotherapy-induced early adverse skin reactions in patients with breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 23(9): 1873-1883, 2014. DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0263
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Taylor ME,
    2. Perez CA,
    3. Halverson KJ,
    4. Kuske RR,
    5. Philpott GW,
    6. Garcia DM,
    7. Mortimer JE,
    8. Myerson RJ,
    9. Radford D,
    10. Rush C
    : Factors influencing cosmetic results after conservation therapy for breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 31(4): 753-764, 1995. DOI: 10.1016/0360-3016(94)00480-3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Wright JL,
    2. Takita C,
    3. Reis IM,
    4. Zhao W,
    5. Lee E,
    6. Hu JJ
    : Racial variations in radiation-induced skin toxicity severity: Data from a prospective cohort receiving postmastectomy radiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 90(2): 335-343, 2014. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.06.042
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Doyle JJ,
    2. Neugut AI,
    3. Jacobson JS,
    4. Wang J,
    5. McBride R,
    6. Grann A,
    7. Grann VR,
    8. Hershman D
    : Radiation therapy, cardiac risk factors, and cardiac toxicity in early-stage breast cancer patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 68(1): 82-93, 2007. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.12.019
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Spear SL,
    2. Baker JL
    : Classification of capsular contracture after prosthetic breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 96(5): 1119-1123; discussion 1124, 1995.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. El-Sabawi B,
    2. Sosin M,
    3. Carey JN,
    4. Nahabedian MY,
    5. Patel KM
    : Breast reconstruction and adjuvant therapy: A systematic review of surgical outcomes. J Surg Oncol 112(5): 458-464, 2015. DOI: 10.1002/jso.24028
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Varghese J,
    2. Gohari SS,
    3. Rizki H,
    4. Faheem M,
    5. Langridge B,
    6. Kümmel S,
    7. Johnson L,
    8. Schmid P
    : A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on complications following immediate breast reconstruction. Breast 55: 55-62, 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2020.11.023
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Warren Peled A,
    2. Itakura K,
    3. Foster RD,
    4. Hamolsky D,
    5. Tanaka J,
    6. Ewing C,
    7. Alvarado M,
    8. Esserman LJ,
    9. Hwang ES
    : Impact of chemotherapy on postoperative complications after mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction. Arch Surg 145(9): 880-885, 2010. DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.2010.163
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Abedi N,
    2. Ho AL,
    3. Knox A,
    4. Tashakkor Y,
    5. Omeis T,
    6. Van Laeken N,
    7. Lennox P,
    8. Macadam SA
    : Predictors of mastectomy flap necrosis in patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 76(6): 629-634, 2016. DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000000262
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Basta MN,
    2. Gerety PA,
    3. Serletti JM,
    4. Kovach SJ,
    5. Fischer JP
    : A systematic review and head-to-head meta-analysis of outcomes following direct-to-implant versus conventional two-stage implant reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 136(6): 1135-1144, 2015. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000001749
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Cordeiro PG,
    2. McCarthy CM
    : A single surgeon’s 12-year experience with tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction: Part I. A prospective analysis of early complications. Plast Reconstr Surg 118(4): 825-831, 2006. DOI: 10.1097/01.prs.0000232362.82402.e8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Fischer JP,
    2. Wes AM,
    3. Tuggle CT,
    4. Serletti JM,
    5. Wu LC
    : Risk analysis of early implant loss after immediate breast reconstruction: a review of 14,585 patients. J Am Coll Surg 217(6): 983-990, 2013. DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2013.07.389
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Headon HL,
    2. Kasem A,
    3. Mokbel K
    : The oncological safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy: a systematic review of the literature with a pooled analysis of 12,358 procedures. Arch Plast Surg 43(4): 328-338, 2016. DOI: 10.5999/aps.2016.43.4.328
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Ito H,
    2. Ueno T,
    3. Suga H,
    4. Shiraishi T,
    5. Isaka H,
    6. Imi K,
    7. Miyamoto K,
    8. Tada M,
    9. Ishizaka Y,
    10. Imoto S
    : Risk factors for skin flap necrosis in breast cancer patients treated with mastectomy followed by immediate breast reconstruction. World J Surg 43(3): 846-852, 2019. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-018-4852-y
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Lorentzen T,
    2. Heidemann LN,
    3. Möller S,
    4. Bille C
    : Impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on surgical complications in breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol 48(1): 44-52, 2022. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2021.09.007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Matsen CB,
    2. Mehrara B,
    3. Eaton A,
    4. Capko D,
    5. Berg A,
    6. Stempel M,
    7. Van Zee KJ,
    8. Pusic A,
    9. King TA,
    10. Cody HS 3rd.,
    11. Pilewskie M,
    12. Cordeiro P,
    13. Sclafani L,
    14. Plitas G,
    15. Gemignani ML,
    16. Disa J,
    17. El-Tamer M,
    18. Morrow M
    : Skin flap necrosis after mastectomy with reconstruction: a prospective study. Ann Surg Oncol 23(1): 257-264, 2016. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-015-4709-7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Abdelkarem OAI,
    2. Choudhury A,
    3. Burnet NG,
    4. Summersgill HR,
    5. West CML
    : Effect of race and ethnicity on risk of radiotherapy toxicity and implications for radiogenomics. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 34(10): 653-669, 2022. DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2022/03/013
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Bureau, U.S.C., United States Census Bureau
    , 2020. Available at: https://www.census.gov [Last accessed on October 5, 2023]
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Anticancer Research: 43 (11)
Anticancer Research
Vol. 43, Issue 11
November 2023
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Anticancer Research.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Post-Mastectomy Implant Complications in the Hispanic Breast Cancer Patient Population
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Anticancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Anticancer Research web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
7 + 6 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Post-Mastectomy Implant Complications in the Hispanic Breast Cancer Patient Population
BRIANNA CONTE, CAROLINE SHERMOEN, MAYA LUBARSKY, CAROLINE K. FISER, SOPHIA N. LIU, SUSAN B. KESMODEL, NEHA GOEL, DANIELLE CERBON, LORA WANG
Anticancer Research Nov 2023, 43 (11) 4953-4959; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.16693

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
Post-Mastectomy Implant Complications in the Hispanic Breast Cancer Patient Population
BRIANNA CONTE, CAROLINE SHERMOEN, MAYA LUBARSKY, CAROLINE K. FISER, SOPHIA N. LIU, SUSAN B. KESMODEL, NEHA GOEL, DANIELLE CERBON, LORA WANG
Anticancer Research Nov 2023, 43 (11) 4953-4959; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.16693
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Patients and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

  • Disparities in Mortality Trends of Breast Cancer by Racial and Ethnic Status in the United States
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Efficacy and Safety of Oral 5-FU Derivatives After Progression of HR+/HER2− Metastatic Breast Cancer on CDK4/6 Inhibitor
  • Postoperative Complications, Including Minor Complications, Worsen Prognosis After Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer
  • Impact of Emphysema Severity on Clinicopathological and Molecular Features in Non–small Cell Lung Cancer
Show more Clinical Studies

Keywords

  • Hispanic patients
  • post-mastectomy radiation
  • implant reconstruction
  • Breast cancer
  • complications
Anticancer Research

© 2025 Anticancer Research

Powered by HighWire