Minimally Invasive Breast Removal: Improved Survival Rates and Lower Recurrence – A Breakthrough in Breast Cancer Treatment
A recent report highlights a breakthrough in breast cancer treatment that could potentially improve survival rates and lower the risk of recurrence. The article discusses the use of minimally invasive breast removal, a procedure that allows breast cancer patients to undergo mastectomy without removing the nipple through endoscopic-assisted means. Following the removal, immediate breast reconstruction is performed by a plastic surgeon.
One of the key advantages of this two-in-one procedure is the inconspicuous 4cm incision, which offers a more aesthetically pleasing outcome. However, the article fails to provide a comprehensive account of the procedure’s other pros and cons, leaving readers with limited information. Furthermore, the surgeons hope to establish this as a standard procedure and primary treatment option compared to conventional approaches, without offering a well-rounded view of other surgical treatments available.
Over the past two decades, the field of breast surgery has made significant progress, offering a myriad of different approaches. Based on the scientific evidence present in contemporary literature, breast conservation treatment (BCT) has shown better outcomes in terms of improved survival and decreased local recurrence rates compared to mastectomy. As a surgeon in private practice, I have been advocating for BCT since 2014.
A substantial body of evidence supports the superior outcomes achieved through BCT. A recent meta-analysis involving over 1.5 million patients found that women who underwent BCT had a higher overall survival rate compared to those who had mastectomy. In some cases, BCT resulted in 56-70% better survival rates than mastectomy.
Comparatively, women who underwent mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction experienced higher rates of complications and re-operation compared to those who had BCT or mastectomy alone. Additionally, the cost of mastectomy with reconstruction is significantly higher than that of BCT.
Although the article briefly mentions endoscopic breast conserving surgery, it fails to emphasize that BCT should be the default procedure, with mastectomy being necessary only for a minority of patients.
Based on my own experience as a surgeon who has audited the outcomes of her own patients, more than 85% of local women are eligible for BCT without compromising their survival. Unfortunately, many local surgeons tend to focus solely on performing mastectomy.
I strongly believe that women diagnosed with breast cancer should be adequately informed about their surgical treatment options. They deserve to have a balanced view and access to comprehensive information to make informed decisions about their healthcare.
In conclusion, the breakthrough procedure of minimally invasive breast removal offers promising results in terms of improved survival rates and reduced recurrence. However, it is essential to provide a balanced view of other surgical options available to breast cancer patients. Based on current scientific evidence, BCT has emerged as a preferable approach with better outcomes in terms of survival and complication rates. It is crucial to prioritize patient education and provide them with unbiased information to make informed decisions regarding their treatment.
