Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Guideline
. 2025 Jun 17;32(6):357.
doi: 10.3390/curroncol32060357.

Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction in Patients with Non-Metastatic Breast Cancer: An Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) Clinical Practice Guideline

Affiliations
Guideline

Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction in Patients with Non-Metastatic Breast Cancer: An Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) Clinical Practice Guideline

Toni Zhong et al. Curr Oncol. .

Abstract

Several postmastectomy breast reconstruction techniques and procedures have been implemented, although with limited evaluation of benefits and adverse effects. We conducted a systematic review on the plane and timing of reconstruction, and on the use of nipple-sparing mastectomy, acellular dermal matrix, and autologous fat grafting as the evidence base for an updated clinical practice guideline on breast reconstruction for Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario). Both immediate and delayed reconstruction may be considered, with preferred timing depending on factors such as patient preferences, type of mastectomy, skin perfusion, comorbidities, pre-mastectomy breast size, and desired reconstructive breast size. Immediate reconstruction may provide greater psychological or quality of life benefits. In patients who are candidates for skin-sparing mastectomy and without clinical, radiological, and pathological indications of nipple-areolar complex involvement, nipple-sparing mastectomy is recommended provided it is technically feasible and acceptable aesthetic results can be achieved. Surgical factors including incision location are important to reduce necrosis by preserving blood supply and to minimize nerve damage. There is a role for both prepectoral and subpectoral implants; risks and benefits will vary, and decisions should be made during consultation between the patient and surgeons. In patients who are suitable candidates for implant reconstruction and have adequate mastectomy flap thickness and vascularity, prepectoral implants should be considered. Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) has led to an increased use of prepectoral reconstruction. ADM should not be used in case of poor mastectomy flap perfusion/ischemia that would otherwise be considered unsuitable for prepectoral reconstruction. Care should be taken in the selection and handling of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) to minimize risks of infection and seroma. Limited data from small studies suggest that prepectoral reconstruction without ADM may be feasible in some patients. Autologous fat grafting is recommended as a treatment for contour irregularities, rippling following implant-based reconstruction, and to improve tissue quality of the mastectomy flap after radiotherapy.

Keywords: acellular dermal matrix; autologous fat grafting; autologous reconstruction; breast implants; breast reconstruction; delayed reconstruction; immediate reconstruction; nipple-sparing mastectomy; prepectoral; subpectoral.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

CS reported receiving honoraria for chairing or moderating two speaker series on updates in oncological advancements to regional surgical, medical, and radiation oncologists. F.C.W. was Surgical Oncology Provincial Lead, which is a programme of the sponsor, Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario). The other authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funder approved the research questions and project plan prior to commencement of the systematic review. The sponsor had no role in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Similar articles

References

    1. Saiga M., Nakagiri R., Mukai Y., Matsumoto H., Kimata Y. Trends and issues in clinical research on satisfaction and quality of life after mastectomy and breast reconstruction: A 5-year scoping review. Int. J. Clin. Oncol. 2023;28:847–859. doi: 10.1007/s10147-023-02347-5. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sousa H., Castro S., Abreu J., Pereira M.G. A systematic review of factors affecting quality of life after postmastectomy breast reconstruction in women with breast cancer. Psychooncology. 2019;28:2107–2118. doi: 10.1002/pon.5206. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Winters Z.E., Benson J.R., Pusic A.L. A systematic review of the clinical evidence to guide treatment recommendations in breast reconstruction based on patient- reported outcome measures and health-related quality of life. Ann. Surg. 2010;252:929–942. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181e623db. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pusic A.L., Klassen A.F., Snell L., Cano S.J., McCarthy C., Scott A., Cemal Y., Rubin L.R., Cordeiro P.G. Measuring and managing patient expectations for breast reconstruction: Impact on quality of life and patient satisfaction. Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 2012;12:149–158. doi: 10.1586/erp.11.105. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kronowitz S.J. A systematic review of the clinical evidence to guide treatment recommendations in breast reconstruction based on patient-reported outcome measures and health-related quality of life: Winters ZE, Benson JR, Pusic AL (Univ of Bristol, UK; Univ of Cambridge, UK; Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Ctr, NY) Ann Surg 252:929-942, 2010. Breast Dis. 2011;22:420–422. doi: 10.1016/j.breastdis.2011.10.042. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources