Browsing by Author "Martinovic, Aleksandar (56120118800)"

Purpose: To evaluate the adverse outcomes after delayed breast reconstruction (DBR) by abdominal advancement flap (AAF) and permanent prosthesis in patients treated with mastectomy due to unilateral breast carcinoma, as well as to determine which factors are predictive for their occurrence. Methods: The study included 155 patients operated at the Institute for Oncology and Radiology of Serbia from 1996 to 2010. All patients had total mastectomy and axillary lymph node dissection, followed by specific oncological treatment. Patients were selected for DBR after complete diagnostic evaluation. Adverse events were evaluated in regard to patient, disease and prostheses-related factors. Results: During follow-up, DBR adverse events were observed in 23.23% of the patients - the majority (91.67%) had only one. The most frequent was capsule contracture (47.22%), followed by asymmetry (22.22%), infection (16.67%) and prosthesis rupture (16.67%). There were isolated cases of prosthesis prolapse and local disease recurrence. Infections were treated conservatively in all but one patient. Other events were managed by additional operation. Statistical analysis showed that complications occurred significantly more often in patients ≥51 years (vs 18-40, vs 41-50), disease stage IIb (vs Ia), T2 (vs TI) tumors and adjuvant radiotherapy (vs without). Prostheses-related factors were not significant for DBR complications, neither body mass index (BMI), nor smoking habits. Conclusions: DBR using AAF and permanent prosthesis is a safe technique with acceptable complication rate. It provides one-time surgery with satisfactory aesthetic results and good postoperative recovery. Most frequent complication is capsule contracture. Patients' age and irradiation of the chest wall after mastectomy are predictive factors for complications.

Purpose: To evaluate the adverse outcomes after delayed breast reconstruction (DBR) by abdominal advancement flap (AAF) and permanent prosthesis in patients treated with mastectomy due to unilateral breast carcinoma, as well as to determine which factors are predictive for their occurrence. Methods: The study included 155 patients operated at the Institute for Oncology and Radiology of Serbia from 1996 to 2010. All patients had total mastectomy and axillary lymph node dissection, followed by specific oncological treatment. Patients were selected for DBR after complete diagnostic evaluation. Adverse events were evaluated in regard to patient, disease and prostheses-related factors. Results: During follow-up, DBR adverse events were observed in 23.23% of the patients - the majority (91.67%) had only one. The most frequent was capsule contracture (47.22%), followed by asymmetry (22.22%), infection (16.67%) and prosthesis rupture (16.67%). There were isolated cases of prosthesis prolapse and local disease recurrence. Infections were treated conservatively in all but one patient. Other events were managed by additional operation. Statistical analysis showed that complications occurred significantly more often in patients ≥51 years (vs 18-40, vs 41-50), disease stage IIb (vs Ia), T2 (vs TI) tumors and adjuvant radiotherapy (vs without). Prostheses-related factors were not significant for DBR complications, neither body mass index (BMI), nor smoking habits. Conclusions: DBR using AAF and permanent prosthesis is a safe technique with acceptable complication rate. It provides one-time surgery with satisfactory aesthetic results and good postoperative recovery. Most frequent complication is capsule contracture. Patients' age and irradiation of the chest wall after mastectomy are predictive factors for complications.

Purpose: The aim of this research was to examine overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis (CRC-PC), treated with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and intraoperative hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), as well as to analyse factors of prognostic significance. Methods: We included 61 patients with pathological/and computerized tomography (CT) confirmation of CRC-PC, treated with CRS+HIPEC from 2005 to 2012. Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI) score was used for quantitative assessment of the CRC-PC extent. We performed CRS following the Sugarbaker's principles in all patients with PCI <20 and only in 3/61 (4.92%) patients with PCI >20. HIPEC (oxaliplatin 410 mg/m 2 in 2000mL isotonic solution and 41 °C) was performed using RanD Performer® HT perfusion system during 30-60 min. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to determine significant factors for OS and DFS. Results: The follow-up ranged from 1 to 83 months (median 22). Median OS was 51 months (95% confidence interval/CI 22+). Median DFS for patients without residual disease (57/61, 93.44%) was 23 months (95% CI 16+). One-, 2- and 6-year OS (DFS) were 78.6% (68.3%), 58.7% (46.7%) and 50.5% (38.1%), respectively. By the end of the study, 55.74% of the patients were still alive. Cox multivariate analysis indicated PCI score as a parameter of highly prognostic significance for patients treated with CRS+HIPEC (p<0.001). Patients with PCI <13 (vs PCI >13) had significantly longer OS and DFS (p<0.001), also confirmed for PCI subcategories (PCI <7 vs 7 < PCI < 13 vs PCI >13). All patients with PCI <7 are still alive. Conclusion: Our study indicates that CRS+HIPEC significantly improves the survival of CRC-PC patients. This treatment modality should be considered as the most suitable in well-selected patients with this disease.

Purpose: The aim of this research was to examine overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis (CRC-PC), treated with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and intraoperative hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), as well as to analyse factors of prognostic significance. Methods: We included 61 patients with pathological/and computerized tomography (CT) confirmation of CRC-PC, treated with CRS+HIPEC from 2005 to 2012. Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI) score was used for quantitative assessment of the CRC-PC extent. We performed CRS following the Sugarbaker's principles in all patients with PCI <20 and only in 3/61 (4.92%) patients with PCI >20. HIPEC (oxaliplatin 410 mg/m 2 in 2000mL isotonic solution and 41 °C) was performed using RanD Performer® HT perfusion system during 30-60 min. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to determine significant factors for OS and DFS. Results: The follow-up ranged from 1 to 83 months (median 22). Median OS was 51 months (95% confidence interval/CI 22+). Median DFS for patients without residual disease (57/61, 93.44%) was 23 months (95% CI 16+). One-, 2- and 6-year OS (DFS) were 78.6% (68.3%), 58.7% (46.7%) and 50.5% (38.1%), respectively. By the end of the study, 55.74% of the patients were still alive. Cox multivariate analysis indicated PCI score as a parameter of highly prognostic significance for patients treated with CRS+HIPEC (p<0.001). Patients with PCI <13 (vs PCI >13) had significantly longer OS and DFS (p<0.001), also confirmed for PCI subcategories (PCI <7 vs 7 < PCI < 13 vs PCI >13). All patients with PCI <7 are still alive. Conclusion: Our study indicates that CRS+HIPEC significantly improves the survival of CRC-PC patients. This treatment modality should be considered as the most suitable in well-selected patients with this disease.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to analyze outcomes of breast conserving surgery (BCS) after neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) in comparison to radical mastectomy (RM) after NAT in terms of disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS) and patients’ satisfaction with the esthetic outcomes of surgery. Methods: This prospective study was conducted at the National Cancer Research Center of Serbia, Belgrade, from January 1st 2011 to December 31st 2015, on breast carcinoma patients receiving NAT. Treatment outcome was assessed by MDAPI (MD Anderson Prognostic Index). Female patients (n=52) with satisfactory clinical response to NAT and MDAPI scores 0 or 1 were included into the treatment group (NAT-BCS group). The control group (NAT-RM group) consisted of patients (n=52) with poorer clinical response and MDAPI scores 2 to 4. On check-ups, local or distant relapses were noted and both groups were asked to value their satisfaction with the esthetic outcomes of surgery using the Likert scale. Results: OS was 100% in both groups. DFS was 96.1% in NAT-BCS group and 100% in NAT-RM group. Local recurrences were observed in two patients from the age group ≥60 years, with initial disease stage IIIA and “clear” resection margins on frozen section study. Patients in the NAT-BCS group were more satisfied with the esthetic outcome of surgery than the control group. Conclusions: BCS after NAT provides good esthetic outcome and is oncologically safe if adequate clinical response is achieved after NAT and if established criteria for patient selection are followed. © 2018 Zerbinis Publications. All Rights Reserved.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to analyze outcomes of breast conserving surgery (BCS) after neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) in comparison to radical mastectomy (RM) after NAT in terms of disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS) and patients’ satisfaction with the esthetic outcomes of surgery. Methods: This prospective study was conducted at the National Cancer Research Center of Serbia, Belgrade, from January 1st 2011 to December 31st 2015, on breast carcinoma patients receiving NAT. Treatment outcome was assessed by MDAPI (MD Anderson Prognostic Index). Female patients (n=52) with satisfactory clinical response to NAT and MDAPI scores 0 or 1 were included into the treatment group (NAT-BCS group). The control group (NAT-RM group) consisted of patients (n=52) with poorer clinical response and MDAPI scores 2 to 4. On check-ups, local or distant relapses were noted and both groups were asked to value their satisfaction with the esthetic outcomes of surgery using the Likert scale. Results: OS was 100% in both groups. DFS was 96.1% in NAT-BCS group and 100% in NAT-RM group. Local recurrences were observed in two patients from the age group ≥60 years, with initial disease stage IIIA and “clear” resection margins on frozen section study. Patients in the NAT-BCS group were more satisfied with the esthetic outcome of surgery than the control group. Conclusions: BCS after NAT provides good esthetic outcome and is oncologically safe if adequate clinical response is achieved after NAT and if established criteria for patient selection are followed. © 2018 Zerbinis Publications. All Rights Reserved.