Abstract PD15-10: PD15-10 Impact of procedure type on long-term revisional surgery and secondary reconstruction following immediate breast reconstruction: The UK Brighter national population-based cohort study

Abstract

Abstract Introduction: Women considering immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) after mastectomy for breast cancer require high-quality information about the short and long-term clinical outcomes of different procedure types, including the need for further surgery, to allow them to make fully informed decisions about their breast reconstruction options. Long-term outcome data is currently lacking. The UK Brighter population-based cohort study aimed to compare the need for revisional surgery and secondary reconstruction by type of IBR at a minimum of 12 years following the index procedure to support informed decision-making. Methods: Women who underwent unilateral mastectomy and IBR for invasive breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in England between 1 April 2008 and 31 March 2009 were identified using National Health Service (NHS) Hospital Episode Statistics (HES). Lists of procedure codes indicating revisional surgery, defined as operations performed to the same site as the index reconstruction and/or the donor site (if appropriate), excluding a single planned implant exchange in the expander group, or secondary reconstruction, defined as the replacement of one reconstruction with another, with or without a period of being flat, were iteratively developed and refined. Numbers of revision procedures and secondary reconstructions were compared by type of index reconstruction. Multivariable regression was used to control for potential confounders. Results: 2,260 women underwent IBR during the study period including 742 (32.8%) expander/implant (EI), 1,146 (50.7%) latissimus dorsi (LD) flap reconstructions with (n=649) and without (n=497) an implant and 372 (16.5%) abdominal free-flap (AFF) procedures. Women receiving reconstructions involving implants were significantly more likely to require more revisions over time, with 201/742 (27.1%) patients undergoing EI reconstruction and 154/649 (23.7%) those receiving an implant-assisted LD reconstruction requiring two or more post-reconstruction revision procedures compared with 77/497 (15.5%) patients undergoing autologous LD and 59/372 (15.9%) patients receiving AFF procedures (p< 0.001). Undergoing primary reconstructive surgery before the age of 50, and region of residence at the time of the mastectomy were factors influencing revisional surgery in the multivariable regression analysis. By 12 years, 128/742 (17.3%) of women who initially underwent an expander/implant reconstruction had received a secondary reconstruction compared with 34/1146 (3.0%) patients who had initially received an LD +/- implant procedure and 11/372 (3.0%) patients initially undergoing an AFF reconstruction (p< 0.001). Conclusions: The need for revisional surgery in women electing to undergo IBR involving implants is significantly greater than that for women electing to receive autologous reconstructions and almost 1 in 5 women undergoing primary EI reconstruction required a secondary reconstruction by 12 years. These findings should be shared with women considering IBR to support informed decision making and with healthcare providers and commissioners to support the provision of high-quality, evidence-based reconstructive care. Citation Format: Leigh Johnson, Paul White, Ranjeet Jeevan, John Browne, Carmel Gulliver-Clarke, Joe O’Donoghue, Syed Mohiuddin, William Hollingworth, Patricia Fairbrother, Mairead MacKenzie, Chris Holcombe, Shelley Potter. PD15-10 Impact of procedure type on long-term revisional surgery and secondary reconstruction following immediate breast reconstruction: The UK Brighter national population-based cohort study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr PD15-10.