MARCOS DESIDERIO RICCI
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina - Médico
LIM/58 - Laboratório de Ginecologia Estrutural e Molecular, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina
LIM/58 - Laboratório de Ginecologia Estrutural e Molecular, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina
2 resultados
Resultados de Busca
Agora exibindo 1 - 2 de 2
- Skin-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of breast cancer(2023) MOTA, B. S.; BEVILACQUA, J. L. B.; BARRETT, J.; RICCI, M. D.; MUNHOZ, A. M.; FILASSI, J. R.; BARACAT, E. C.; RIERA, R.Background: Skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) is a surgical technique that aims to maximize skin preservation, facilitate breast reconstruction, and improve cosmetic outcomes. Despite its use in clinical practice, the benefits and harms related to SSM are not well established. Objectives: To assess the effectiveness and safety of skin-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of breast cancer. Search methods: We searched Cochrane Breast Cancer's Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov on 9 August 2019. Selection criteria: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomized or non-randomized studies (cohort and case-control) comparing SSM to conventional mastectomy for treating ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or invasive breast cancer. Data collection and analysis: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were local recurrence free-survival, adverse events (including overall complications, breast reconstruction loss, skin necrosis, infection and hemorrhage), cosmetic results, and quality of life. We performed a descriptive analysis and meta-analysis of the data. Main results: We found no RCTs or quasi-RCTs. We included two prospective cohort studies and twelve retrospective cohort studies. These studies included 12,211 participants involving 12,283 surgeries (3183 SSM and 9100 conventional mastectomies). It was not possible to perform a meta-analysis for overall survival and local recurrence free-survival due to clinical heterogeneity across studies and a lack of data to calculate hazard ratios (HR). Based on one study, the evidence suggests that SSM may not reduce overall survival for participants with DCIS tumors (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.02; P = 0.06; 399 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or for participants with invasive carcinoma (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.38; P = 0.44; 907 participants; very low-certainty evidence). For local recurrence-free survival, meta-analysis was not possible, due to high risk of bias in nine of the ten studies that measured this outcome. Informal visual examination of effect sizes from nine studies suggested the size of the HR may be similar between groups. Based on one study that adjusted for confounders, SSM may not reduce local recurrence-free survival (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.42; P = 0.48; 5690 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The effect of SSM on overall complications is unclear (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.46; P = 0.07, I2 = 88%; 4 studies, 677 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Skin-sparing mastectomy may not reduce the risk of breast reconstruction loss (RR 1.79, 95% CI 0.31 to 10.35; P = 0.52; 3 studies, 475 participants; very low-certainty evidence), skin necrosis (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.12; P = 0.22, I2 = 33%; 4 studies, 677 participants; very low-certainty evidence), local infection (RR 2.04, 95% CI 0.03 to 142.71; P = 0.74, I2 = 88%; 2 studies, 371 participants; very low-certainty evidence), nor hemorrhage (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.47 to 3.27; P = 0.67, I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 677 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence due to the risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency among the studies. There were no data available on the following outcomes: systemic surgical complications, local complications, explantation of implant/expander, hematoma, seroma, rehospitalization, skin necrosis with revisional surgery, and capsular contracture of the implant. It was not possible to perform a meta-analysis for cosmetic and quality of life outcomes due to a lack of data. One study performed an evaluation of aesthetic outcome after SSM: 77.7% of participants with immediate breast reconstruction had an overall aesthetic result of excellent or good versus 87% of participants with delayed breast reconstruction. Authors' conclusions: Based on very low-certainty evidence from observational studies, it was not possible to draw definitive conclusions on the effectiveness and safety of SSM for breast cancer treatment. The decision for this technique of breast surgery for treatment of DCIS or invasive breast cancer must be individualized and shared between the physician and the patient while considering the potential risks and benefits of available surgical options.
- Nipple- and areola-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of breast cancer(2016) MOTA, Bruna S.; RIERA, Rachel; RICCI, Marcos Desiderio; BARRETT, Jessica; CASTRIA, Tiago B. de; ATALLAH, Alvaro N.; BEVILACQUA, Jose Luiz B.Background The efficacy and safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy and areola-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of breast cancer are still questionable. It is estimated that the local recurrence rates following nipple-sparing mastectomy are very similar to breast-conserving surgery followed by radiotherapy. Objectives To assess the efficacy and safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy and areola-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer in women. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase (via OVID) and LILACS (via Biblioteca Virtual em Saude [BVS]) using the search terms ""nipple sparing mastectomy"" and ""areola-sparing mastectomy"". Also, we searched theWorld HealthOrganization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov. All searches were conducted on 30th September 2014 and we did not apply any language restrictions. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) however if there were no RCTs, we expanded our criteria to include non-randomised comparative studies (cohort and case-control studies). Studies evaluated nipple-sparing and areola-sparing mastectomy compared tomodified radical mastectomy or skin-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive breast cancer. Data collection and analysis Two review authors (BS and RR) performed data extraction and resolved disagreements. We performed descriptive analyses and metaanalyses of the data using Review Manager software. We used Cochrane's risk of bias tool to assess studies, and adapted it for nonrandomised studies, and we evaluated the quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria. Main results We included 11 cohort studies, evaluating a total of 6502 participants undergoing 7018 procedures: 2529 underwent a nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM), 818 underwent skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) and 3671 underwent traditional mastectomy, also known as modified radical mastectomy (MRM). No participants underwent areola-sparing mastectomy. There was a high risk of confounding for all reported outcomes. For overall survival, the hazard ratio (HR) for NSM compared to SSM was 0.70 (95% CI 0.28 to 1.73; 2 studies; 781 participants) and the HR for NSM compared to MRM was 0.72 (95% CI 0.46 to 1.13; 2 studies, 1202 participants). Local recurrence was evaluated in two studies, the HR for NSM compared to MRM was 0.28 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.68; 2 studies, 1303 participants). The overall risk of complications was different in NSM when compared to other types of mastectomy in general (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.82, 2 studies, P = 0.03; 1067 participants). With respect to skin necrosis, there was no evidence of a difference with NSMcompared to other types of mastectomy, but the confidence interval was wide (RR 4.22, 95% CI 0.59 to 30.03, P = 0.15; 4 studies, 1948 participants). We observed no difference among the three types of mastectomy with respect to the risk of local infection (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.09, P = 0.91, 2 studies; 496 participants). Meta-analysis was not possible when assessing cosmetic outcomes and quality of life, but in general the NSMstudies reported a favourable aesthetic result and a gain in quality of life compared with the other types of mastectomy. The quality of evidence was considered very low for all outcomes due to the high risk of selection bias and wide confidence intervals. Authors' conclusions The findings from these observational studies of very low-quality evidence were inconclusive for all outcomes due to the high risk of selection bias.