ABSTRACT: Plastic surgery represents a small but critical component of the comprehensive care of cancer patients. Its primary role in the treatment of cancer patients is to extend the ability of other surgeons and specialists to more radically treat cancer, offering patients the best opportunity for cure. Although the most convincing data for improved psychosocial well-being through plastic surgery is in the setting of breast cancer reconstruction after mastectomy, it is reasonable to assume that all patients who undergo major reconstruction to minimize deformity due to cancer therapy feel some improvement in quality of life. This article will provide an overview of the role of plastic surgery in cancer treatment. [ONCOLOGY 16:1685-1708, 2002]
Cancer treatment is the epitome of multidisciplinary patient care. The vast scope and interwoven facets of cancer treatment are brought together in our nation’s comprehensive cancer centers. The very existence of these centers is testimony to the broad interdisciplinary approach to cancer care today. Plastic surgery represents a small but critical component of the comprehensive care of cancer patients. This article will provide an overview of the role of plastic surgery in cancer treatment.
Role of Plastic Surgery
Plastic surgery is not confined by anatomic boundaries. Oncologic plastic surgery can involve treatment of disease and deformity from head to toe. Its primary role is to extend the ability of other surgeons and specialists to more radically treat cancer, thus offering patients the best opportunity for cure. Many of the advances in this field are in surgical treatment of head and neck cancer, sarcoma, and tumors of the breast and chest wall, but surgical oncology is not the only discipline to be affected by plastic surgery. Radiation therapy options increase when well-vascularized tissue covers an area of planned treatment. An example of this is the use of flaps to allow the insertion of radiation rods for postoperative brachytherapy.
Plastic surgeons advance the care provided by medical oncologists in two ways: (1) Plastic surgery provides well-vascularized tissue coverage that allows the medical oncologist to begin treatment earlier and with less risk of chemotherapy interruption to treat infections and delayed wound healing. (2) Plastic surgeons and medical oncologists consult on the use of intravenous (IV) infiltrates of chemotherapy and other cytotoxic medications into subcutaneous tissues. Prompt injection of diluting and dispersing agents can limit skin loss, and proper treatment of open wounds (with moist dressings and extremity elevation) can hasten healing.[1-6] A plastic surgery consultation for this activity is part of the protocol of most cancer care teams, allowing for the evaluation of possible flap or skin graft closure when necessary.
Although the most convincing data for improved psychosocial well-being following plastic surgery is in the setting of breast cancer reconstruction after mastectomy, it is reasonable to assume that all patients who undergo major reconstruction to minimize deformity due to cancer therapy achieve some improvement in quality of life. The following sections will address the major areas of cancer reconstruction in greater detail.
Breast reconstruction is a mix of reconstructive and aesthetic ideals, involving much more than closing a chest wound or filling in a defect. The appearance of the breast after reconstruction is an important component of a successful procedure. In October 1998, the Federal Breast Reconstruction Law was passed, mandating that no insurance company can consider breast reconstruction cosmetic or elective. The law requires coverage for reconstruction of the affected breast as well as for symmetry procedures performed on the opposite breast. Reconstruction has limitations, particularly with larger, more pendulous breasts and smaller breasts without rounded contours. In these situations, the symmetry of the reconstruction can be significantly improved by reducing or lifting the larger breast or by inserting a subpectoral implant to give a rounded shape to a smaller breast.
There are three main forms of breast reconstruction: the expander/implant technique, the latissimus flap with or without a permanent implant, and the transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flap. In consultation, we offer our patients a choice among these options, weighing the pros and cons of each. We use a chart, as adapted in Table 1, to help patients reach a decision that best suits their needs.
When a woman is diagnosed with breast cancer, she experiences a significant degree of psychological trauma.[7-9] Often, the ability to take part in restoration of the breast allows the patient to focus on recovery rather than diagnosis. In addition, patients who present for delayed reconstruction often have to relive the unpleasant experience of cancer diagnosis and treatment, as opposed to patients who undergo immediate reconstruction.[10,11]
The use of a tissue expander followed by insertion of a saline or silicone prosthesis (Figures 1A-C) is the most common method of breast reconstruction performed in the United States. For patients who are uncertain about which type of breast reconstruction to choose, the tissue expander followed by implant is the most advisable. This method has the lowest morbidity and maintains the viability of the other more intensive reconstructive techniques, should the patient change her mind in the future.
The expander is a thicker or more durable implant with a built-in self-sealing access port, much like the venous access port-a-cath. This allows a standard needle to be inserted through the denervated mastectomy flap so that saline may be gradually added. The expander is only partially filled when inserted to avoid placing undue stress on the mastectomy flaps that have been vascularly compromised by removal of the underlying breast tissue. Inserting a partially filled expander allows the skin to recover, and expansion is typically initiated in the office 2 to 3 weeks thereafter.
Another reason that tissue expanders are used instead of a fully filled implant at initial reconstruction is the somewhat compromised blood supply to the skin. Nevertheless, the expander/implant reconstruction has several advantages: The surgery is performed using the mastectomy incision and residual mastectomy flap skin, thus avoiding the creation of a new scar. The overall magnitude of surgery is less, and the patient recovers faster. By comparison, these patients usually spend the same amount of time in the hospital as patients who undergo mastectomy only.
The use of an expander is limited by the quality and availability of the overlying chest skin (ie, mastectomy flap). This reliance on the overlying tissue is also the reason that radiation has a relatively profound effect on this type of reconstruction. This technique does not typically produce ptosis of the reconstructed breast. Therefore, symmetry procedures on the opposite breast are more commonly needed with expander/implant reconstruction than with latissimus or TRAM flap reconstruction.
Without question, the complication rate for implant reconstruction is higher among patients who undergo radiation therapy, and the plastic surgery literature regarding the advisability of this type of reconstruction in an irradiated patient contains a good deal of controversy. We believe the procedure is acceptable as long as the patient is informed of the increased risk—ie, the risk that a firm, sometimes painful implant will need to be removed or changed to either a latissimus flap with implant or a TRAM flap reconstruction.
The expander/implant reconstruction is also limited in the way it looks and feels without clothing. Because it is composed of a silicone shell filled with saline or silicone gel, it does not have the same feel and contour as a native breast. This difference is minimized in bilateral reconstruction: the symmetrical appearance of two implants gives the illusion of a more natural result. Correction of a ptotic contralateral breast is necessary to achieve symmetry with implant reconstruction. If this is not acceptable to the patient, then a latissimus or TRAM flap reconstruction would be a better choice.
Latissimus With Implant
The latissimus flap represents the next level of reconstruction beyond an implant alone (Figures 2A-D). It can be used with or without an implant, depending on volume needs. Noticeable muscular weakness is rarely associated with harvesting of the latissimus muscle. The latissimus is a powerful adductor of the arm, pulling the arm down toward the body. The strength of this muscle could be missed by athletes, so patients should be asked if they are seriously involved in activities that require a strong downward pull of the arm.
When compared with the expander/implant technique, the latissimus procedure provides superior aesthetic results and protection from radiation changes. An elliptical paddle of skin is elevated along the underlying muscle. The incision may be made either horizontally, to hide under the bra line, or obliquely, to allow open-back clothing to be worn. The choice of the incision angle and location, as with any type of reconstruction, should be discussed with the patient so that the surgery may be tailored as much as possible to the patient’s needs.
The muscle and skin unit is transposed from the back to the front, bringing skin and soft tissue into the mastectomy defect and partially or completely restoring the breast. The skin, nipple, and areola that are removed during a mastectomy typically can be fully replaced with skin from the back, maintaining the natural skin envelope and leading to a more natural look and feel. Although the volume of the breast is rarely matched with soft-tissue volume from the back alone, the tissue that is brought forward decreases the size of the implant required to match the opposite breast. This is the crux of the advantage of the latissimus flap over an expander/implant procedure alone.
Symmetry procedures may still need to be performed on the opposite breast to achieve maximal symmetry. Latissimus reconstruction is most often chosen by patients who desire a more natural result; ie, those who want to look good without a bra, but do not want to or cannot utilize abdominal tissue, as in the TRAM flap.
1. Albanell J, Baselga J: Systemic therapy emergencies. Semin Oncol
2. Disa JJ, Chang RR, Mucci SJ, et al: Prevention of adriamycin-induced
full-thickness skin loss using hyaluronidase infiltration. Plast Reconstr Surg
3. Fenchel K, Karthaus M: Cytotoxic drug extravasation. Antibiot Chemother
4. Kassner E: Evaluation and treatment of chemotherapy extravasation
injuries. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs 17:135-148, 2000.
5. Vandeweyer E, Heymans O, Deraemaecker R: Extravasation injuries and
emergency suction as treatment. Plast Reconstr Surg 105:109-110, 2000.
6. Larson DL: Treatment of tissue extravasation by antitumor agents. Cancer
7. Alderman AK, Wilkins EG, Lowery JC, et al: Determinants of patient
satisfaction in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg
8. Goin MK, Goin JM: Midlife reactions to mastectomy and subsequent
breast reconstruction. Arch Gen Psychiatry 38:225-227, 1981.
9. Mock V: Body image in women treated for breast cancer. Nurs Res
10. Contant CM, van Wersch AM, Wiggers T, et al: Motivations, satisfaction,
and information of immediate breast reconstruction following mastectomy. Patient
Educ Couns 40:201-208, 2000.
11. Stevens LA, McGrath MH, Druss RG, et al: The psychological impact of
immediate breast reconstruction for women with early breast cancer. Plast
Reconstr Surg 73:619-628, 1984.
12. American Society of Plastic Surgeons: Breast reconstruction. Arlington
Heights, Ill, American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Available at
www.plasticsurgery.org. Accessed October 30, 2002.
13. Collis N, Sharpe DT: Breast reconstruction by tissue expansion. A
retrospective technical review of 197 two-stage delayed reconstructions
following mastectomy for malignant breast disease in 189 patients. Br J Plast
Surg 53:37-41, 2000.
14. Spear SL, Onyewu C: Staged breast reconstruction with saline-filled
implants in the irradiated breast: Recent trends and therapeutic implications.
Plast Reconstr Surg 105:930-942, 2000.
15. Bostwick J 3rd, Scheflan M: The latissimus dorsi musculocutaneous flap: A
one-stage breast reconstruction. Clin Plast Surg 7:71-78, 1980.
16. Hartrampf CR, Scheflan M, Black PW: Breast reconstruction after
mastectomy with transverse abdominal island flap. Plast Reconstr Surg
17. Arnez ZM, Smith RW, Eder E, et al: Breast reconstruction by the free
lower transverse rectus abdominus musculocutaneous flap. Br J Plast Surg
18. Hartrampf CR Jr: Abdominal wall competence in transverse abdominal island
flap operations. Ann Plast Surg 12:139-146, 1984.
19. Lejour M, Dome M: Abdominal wall function after rectus abdominis
transfer. Plast Reconstr Surg 87:1054-1068, 1991.
20. Edsander-Nord A, Jurell G, Wickman M: Donor-site morbidity after pedicled
or free TRAM flap surgery: A prospective and objective study. Plast Reconstr
Surg 102:1508-1516, 1998.
21. Hartrampf CR Jr, Noel RT, Drazan LL, et al: Rubens fat pad for breast
reconstruction: A peri-iliac soft-tissue free flap. Plast Reconstr Surg
22. Fujino T, Harasina T, Aoyagi F: Reconstruction for aplasia of the breast
and pectoral region by microvascular transfer of a free flap from the buttock.
Plast Reconstr Surg 56:178-181, 1975.
23. Shaw WW: Breast reconstruction by superior gluteal microvascular free
flaps without silicone implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 72:490-501, 1983.
24. Paletta CE, Bostwick J 3rd, Nahai F: The inferior gluteal free flap in
breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 84:875-883, 1989.
25. Veronesi U, Salvadori B, Luini A, et al: Breast conservation is a safe
method in patients with small cancer of the breast. Long-term results of three
randomized trials on 1,973 patients. Eur J Cancer 31A:1574-1579, 1995.
26. Fisher B, Anderson S, Redmond CK, et al: Reanalysis and results after 12
years of follow-up in randomized clinical trials comparing total mastectomy with
lumpectomy with or without irradiation in the treatment of breast cancer. N Engl
J Med 333:1456-1461, 1995.
27. van Dongen JA, Voogd AC, Fentiman IS, et al: Long-term results of a
randomized trial comparing breast-conserving therapy with mastectomy: European
Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 10801 trial. J Natl Cancer
Inst 92:1143-1150, 2000.
28. Clough KB, Cuminet J, Fitoussi A, et al: Cosmetic sequelae after
conservative treatment for breast cancer: Classification and results of surgical
correction. Ann Plast Surg 41:471-481, 1998.
29. Clough KB, Kroll SS, Audretsch W: An approach to the repair of partial
mastectomy defects. Plast Reconstr Surg 104:409-420, 1999.
30. Papp C, Wechselberger G, Schoeller T: Autologous breast reconstruction
after breast-conserving cancer surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 102:1932-1936, 1998.
31. Kat CC, Darcy CM, O’Donoghue JM, et al: The use of the latissimus dorsi
musculocutaneous flap for immediate correction of the deformity resulting from
breast conservation surgery. Br J Plast Surg 52:99-103, 1999.
32. Caffee HH, Mendenhall NP, Mendenhall WM, et al: Postoperative radiation
and implant capsule contraction. Ann Plast Surg 20:35-38, 1988.
33. Vandeweyer E, Deraemaecker R: Radiation therapy after immediate breast
reconstruction with implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 106:56-58, 2000.
34. Adams WM: Labial transplant for correction of loss of the nipple. Plast
Reconstr Surg 4:295, 1949.
35. Brent B, Bostwick J: Nipple-areola reconstruction with auricular tissues.
Plast Reconstr Surg 60:353-361, 1977.
36. Millard DR Jr: Nipple and areola reconstruction by split graft from the
normal side. Plast Reconstr Surg 50:350-353, 1972.
37. Eskenazi L: A one-stage nipple reconstruction with the "modified
star" flap and immediate tattoo: A review of 100 cases. Plast Reconstr Surg
38. Few JW, Marcus JR, Casas LA, et al: Long-term predictable nipple
projection following reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 104:1321-1324, 1999.
39. Gillies HD: Plastic Surgery of the Face. London, Oxford Medical
40. Schusterman MA, Miller MJ, Reece GP, et al: A single center’s
experience with 308 free flaps for repair of head and neck cancer defects. Plast
Reconstr Surg 93:472-480, 1994.
41. Wei FC, Demirkan F, Chen HC, et al: The outcome of failed free flaps in
head and neck and extremity reconstruction: What
is the next step in the reconstructive
ladder? Plast Reconstr Surg 108:1154-1160, 2001.
42. Schusterman MA, Kroll SS, Weber RS, et al: Intraoral soft tissue
reconstruction after cancer ablation: A comparison of pectoralis major flap and
free radial forearm flap. Am J Surg 162:397-399, 1991.
43. Soutar DS, McGregor IA: The radial forearm flap in intraoral
reconstruction: The experience of 60 consecutive cases. Plast Reconstr Surg
44. Nakatsuka T, Harii K, Yamada A, et al: Versatility of a free inferior
rectus abdominis flap for head and neck reconstruction: Analysis of 200 cases.
Plast Reconstr Surg 93:762-769, 1994.
45. Kimata Y, Uchiyama K, Ebihara S, et al: Postoperative complications and
functional results after total glossectomy with microvascular reconstruction.
Plast Reconstr Surg 106:1028-1035, 2000.
46. Urken ML, Weinberg H, Vickery C, et al: The neurofasciocutaneous readial
forearm flap in head and neck reconstruction: A preliminary report. Laryngoscope
47. Boyd B, Mulholland S, Gullane P, et al: Reinnervated lateral antebrachial
cutaneous neurosome flaps in oral reconstruction: Are we making sense? Plast
Reconstr Surg 93:1350-1359, 1994.
48. Santamaria E, Wei FC, Chen IH, et al: Sensation recovery of innervated
radial forearm flap for hemiglossectomy reconstruction by using different
recipient nerves. Plast Reconstr Surg 103:450-457, 1999.
49. Kimata Y, Uchiyama K, Ebihara S, et al: Comparison of innervated and
noninnervated free flaps in oral reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg
50. Gurtner GC, Evans GR: Advances in head and neck reconstruction. Plast
Reconstr Surg 106:672-682, 2000.
51. Hidalgo DA: Fibula free flap: A new method of mandible reconstruction.
Plast Reconstr Surg 84:71-79, 1989.
52. Reece GP, Kroll SS, Schusterman MA: Free flap techniques for mandibular
reconstruction, in Kroll SS (ed): Reconstructive Plastic Surgery for Cancer, pp
94-106. Philadelphia, Mosby-Year Book, 1996.
53. Zenn MR, Hidalgo DA, Cordeiro PG, et al: Current role of the radial
forearm free flap in mandible reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 99:1012-1017,
54. Reece GP, Bengtson, BP, Schusterman MA: Reconstruction of the pharynx and
cervical esophagus using free jejunal transfer. Clin Plast Surg 21:125-136,
55. Ariyan S: The pectoralis major myocutaneous flap. Plast Reconstr Surg
56. Baek S, Biller HF, Krespi YP, et al: The pectoralis major myocutaneous
island flap for reconstruction of the head and neck. Head Neck Surg 1:293-300,
57. Harii K, Ebihara S, Ono I, et al: Pharyngoesophageal reconstruction using
a fabricated forearm free flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 75:463-474, 1985.
58. Azizzadeh B, Yafai S, Rawnsley JD, et al: Radial forearm free flap
pharyngoesophageal reconstruction. Laryngoscope 111:807-810, 2001.
59. Cordeiro PG, Shah K, Santamaria E, et al: Barium swallows after free
jejunal transfer: Should they be performed routinely? Plast Reconstr Surg
60. Burget GC, Menick FJ: Subunit principle in nasal reconstruction. Plast
Reconstr Surg 76:239-247, 1985.
61. Carpue J: An Account of Two Successful Operations for Restoring a Lost
Nose. London, Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme and Brown, 1816.
62. Delay E, Lucas R, Jorquera F, et al: Composite cervicofacial flap for
reconstruction of complex cheek defects. Ann Plast Surg 43:347-353, 1999.
63. Glat PM, Longaker MT, Jelks EB, et al: Periorbital melanocytic lesions:
Excision and reconstruction in 40 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 102:19-27, 1998.
64. Yih WY, Howerton DW: A regional approach to reconstruction of the upper
lip. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 55:383-389, 1997.
65. Burget GC, Menick FJ: Aesthetic restoration of one-half the upper lip.
Plast Reconstr Surg 78:583-593, 1986.
66. Kroll SS: Staged sequential flap reconstruction for large lower lip
defects. Plast Reconstr Surg 88:620-625, 1991.
67. Paz IB, Wagman LD, Terz JJ, et al: Extended indications for functional
limb-sparing surgery in extremity sarcoma using complex reconstruction. Arch
Surg 127:1278-1281, 1992.
68. Walton RL, Beahm EK, Maguire KE, et al: Reconstruction of the lower
extremity after ablative resection for cancer. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 6:133-176,
69. Rydholm A: Improving the management of soft tissue sarcoma: Diagnosis and
treatment should be given in specialist centres. Br Med J 317:93-94, 1998.