Search

Background Paget's disease of the breast is a rare condition that is associated with underlying breast cancer in the majority of patients. The conventional treatment for Paget's disease has been mastectomy, but there is an increasing trend to consider breast-conserving surgery ( BCS) in selected patients. Owing to the uncommon nature of the disease, research studies tend to be small and retrospective. This systematic review presents the published evidence regarding BCS for patients with Paget's disease with a focus on patient selection and oncological safety. Methods A search of Ovid and PubMed databases was conducted to identify all papers published regarding BCS for Paget's disease. Results The search identified 172 papers of which 43 were clinically relevant. BCS is a safe alternative to mastectomy, provided a clear surgical margin is achieved and adjuvant radiotherapy used. However, patients with Paget's disease should be assumed to have underlying breast cancer, and these cancers tend to have poor biological profiles. When BCS is considered, careful preoperative investigation should be undertaken to identify the presence and extent of an underlying cancer. These cancers can be mammographically occult, multifocal or multicentric. Although the evidence is limited, there may be a role for MRI in selecting patients with Paget's disease for BCS. Conclusion Patients with Paget's disease are candidates for breast conservation with appropriate preoperative investigations. Oncological outcomes are equivalent to those of mastectomy if surgical margins are achieved and adjuvant radiotherapy is given. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Acellular dermal matrix ( ADM) may improve outcomes in implant-based breast reconstruction ( IBBR). The aim of this study was critically to appraise and evaluate the current evidence for ADM-assisted IBBR. Methods Comprehensive electronic searches identified complete papers published in English between January 2000 and August 2013, reporting any outcome of ADM-assisted IBBR. All systematic reviews, randomized clinical trials ( RCTs) and non-randomized studies ( NRSs) with more than 20 ADM recipients were included. Studies were critically appraised using AMSTAR for systematic reviews, the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for RCTs and its adaptation for NRSs. Characteristics and results of identified studies were summarized. Results A total of 69 papers (8 systematic reviews, 1 RCT, 40 comparative studies and 20 case series) were identified, all of which were considered at high risk of bias, mostly due to patient selection and selective outcome reporting. The median ADM group sample size was 51.0 (i.q.r. 33.0-127.0). Most studies were single-centre (54), and they were often single-surgeon (16). ADM was most commonly used for immediate (40) two-stage IBBR (36) using human ADM (47), with few studies evaluating ADM-assisted single-stage procedures (10). All reported clinical outcomes (for example implant loss) and more than half of the papers (33) assessed process outcomes, but few evaluated cosmesis (16) or patient-reported outcomes (10). Heterogeneity between study design and, especially, outcome measurement precluded meaningful data synthesis. Conclusion Current evidence for the value of ADMs in IBBR is limited. Use in practice should therefore be considered experimental, and evaluation within registries or well designed and conducted studies, ideally RCTs, is recommended to prevent widespread adoption of a potentially inferior intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]