Search

Purpose: Preoperative partial breast irradiation (PBI) can increase accuracy of target volume definition and decrease irradiated volumes compared with postoperative PBI. In the ABLATIVE trial (NCT02316561), 15 of 36 patients achieved pathologic complete response 6 to 8 months after preoperative PBI and breast-conserving surgery (BCS). We now present the 5-year results., Methods and Materials: The ABLATIVE trial is a Dutch prospective cohort study conducted in 4 hospitals. Women aged ≥50 years with unifocal, nonlobular breast cancer, estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, and a tumor negative sentinel node were treated between 2015 and 2018 with preoperative single-dose PBI followed by BCS after 6 or 8 months. The primary endpoint was pathologic complete response. Secondary endpoints were annually evaluated oncological outcomes, toxicity, cosmetic outcome (assessed by patients and physicians), and quality of life., Results: Thirty-six patients were treated with BCS 6 (n = 15) and 8 (n = 21) months following PBI. Median tumor size was 13 mm (IQR 9-16 mm). After a median follow-up of 5.5 years (IQR, 5.1-6.0), 2 (6%) patients had ipsilateral breast events and 2 (6%) distant metastases. The 5-year overall survival was 94% (95% CI, 87-100). The 5-year cumulative incidence of clinician-reported grade 1/2 breast fibrosis and breast discomfort/pain were 94%/6% and 75%/6%, respectively. The proportion of patients (very) satisfied with the cosmetic results was 89% at baseline and 78% at 5 years. Cosmetic results evaluated using the BCCT.core software were excellent or good in all patients. The 4-year median global quality of life score was 83 (IQR, 67-92), similar to baseline (83; IQR, 75-83; P = .42)., Conclusions: Preoperative single-dose PBI and BCS may be an oncologically safe treatment with mild late toxicity and no decline in cosmetic results and quality of life during 5 years of follow-up. This means that preoperative instead of standard postoperative irradiation has the potential to challenge the current clinical practice., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women, and breast reconstruction improves the patient's quality of life. Autologous breast reconstruction provides benefits of natural appearance, feel, and long-term results without implant-associated problems. However, thin patients are not always suitable for standard autologous reconstructions. In these patients, an omental flap could be a useful alternative. The aim of this review was to provide an overview of the literature regarding the clinical outcomes of omental flaps in breast reconstruction., Methods: A systematic review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using the Medline and Embase databases up to November 1, 2023. Study outcomes were type of flap, tissue transfer, cosmetic outcomes, and short- and long-term complications., Results: Eleven studies covering 985 reconstructions in 969 patients were included. The omentum was mostly laparoscopically harvested (88.6%) and a pedicled reconstruction was mostly performed (91.2%). The most commonly reported short-term complications were wound infections at the donor site (5.8%), partial flap necrosis, and fat necrosis. In the long term, epigastric, umbilical and tunnel hernias, and epigastric bulging were observed. Satisfactory cosmetic results were reported by the patients (88.7%) and professionals (80.0%)., Conclusion: Breast reconstruction using an omental flap can be performed in unilateral reconstructions with acceptable donor-site morbidity if laparoscopically harvested. In general, satisfactory cosmetic outcomes were reported and it appears to be a suitable alternative for selected patients who prefer autologous, unilateral breast reconstruction. Further research is necessary to determine the ideal candidates for this reconstruction and the long-term effects of an omentectomy in young patients., (© 2024 The Author(s).)

Background: Centralization of care jeopardizes interns' learning experiences and necessitates educational changes. Here we present the development and evaluation of a structured digital curriculum, offered in addition to the clinical internship, to address these challenges., Methods: The structured digital curriculum was implemented in a the VUmc/Amsterdam UMC surgical internship program in the Netherlands. The curriculum used a modular format built around a skill or clinical condition. Each module included background information, digital elements like e-learnings and interactive vlogs, and self-assessments. From April 1st to June 30th, 2022, we conducted a mixed-methods evaluation comparing interns' experiences between the conventional and digital curriculum through surveys and interviews., Results: Thirty-nine interns (28.1 %) completed the survey, 17 (24.2 %) from the traditional curriculum and 22 (31.9 %) from the structured blended curriculum. Results from the interviews triangulated and complemented survey results. Interns appreciated both curricula (course marks 7.4 ± 2.0 vs. 8.1 ± 1.1, P  = 0.207). The intervention cohort specifically appreciated the structured and comprehensive presentation of available study materials, which resulted in a sense of empowerment., Conclusions: Integrating a structured digital curriculum to support clinical internships provides interns with comprehensive, readily accessible knowledge, refines their understanding of clinical topics, and results in feelings of empowerment. The combination of clinical and digital education ensures adequate exposure to subjects vital for future doctors, even if clinical exposure is limited. Thus, using a structured digital curriculum prepares the intern and helps the internship program to adequately navigate future medical challenges., Key Message: Centralization of care jeopardizes interns' learning experiences and necessitates educational changes. A structured digital curriculum can empower interns in this scenario by providing readily accessible knowledge which refines their understanding of clinical topics., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.)