NCT02169011

Brief Summary

The purpose of this study is to examine the different outcomes of breast reconstruction in women who are treated for breast cancer with mastectomy and subsequently have delayed breast reconstruction by one of two different surgical techniques both of which are based on the use of a tissue flap from the patient's back. These techniques are either a latissimus dorsi flap (LD-flap) or a thoracodorsal artery perforator flap (TAP-flap) The main objective of the study is to establish whether one of these techniques may result in a superior outcome and thus should be recommended as first choice treatment rather than the other.

Trial Health

90
On Track

Trial Health Score

Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach

Enrollment
50

participants targeted

Target at P25-P50 for not_applicable

Timeline
Completed

Started Sep 2013

Longer than P75 for not_applicable

Geographic Reach
2 countries

4 active sites

Status
completed

Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.

Trial Relationships

Click on a node to explore related trials.

Study Timeline

Key milestones and dates

Study Start

First participant enrolled

September 1, 2013

Completed
10 months until next milestone

First Submitted

Initial submission to the registry

June 18, 2014

Completed
2 days until next milestone

First Posted

Study publicly available on registry

June 20, 2014

Completed
3.7 years until next milestone

Primary Completion

Last participant's last visit for primary outcome

March 1, 2018

Completed
1.1 years until next milestone

Study Completion

Last participant's last visit for all outcomes

March 31, 2019

Completed
Last Updated

August 14, 2019

Status Verified

August 1, 2019

Enrollment Period

4.5 years

First QC Date

June 18, 2014

Last Update Submit

August 13, 2019

Conditions

Keywords

Breast reconstructionBreast cancer

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (1)

  • Shoulder Function

    The most important difference between the two procedures is the involvement of the muscle and change in shoulder function is the most relevant clinical measure to investigate. For evaluation of shoulder function we use the internationally validated Constant Shoulder Score (CSS). This system assess pain, function in everyday-life, range of motion and strength and incorporates these parameters into one total score. It is the recommended scoring-system by the European Society of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. Each variable in the system is evaluated separately. For all patients scoring will be performed preoperatively as well as 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively. Shoulder function will be evaluated bilaterally at all stages. To avoid multiplicity-issues the primary end-point has been defined as the difference in the total score between the baseline evaluation preoperatively and the evaluation one year postoperatively.

    1 year

Secondary Outcomes (2)

  • Patient Reported Discomfort

    1 year

  • Rehabilitation

    1 year

Other Outcomes (4)

  • Quality-of-life

    1 year

  • Socio-economics

    1 year

  • Aesthetic Outcome

    1 year

  • +1 more other outcomes

Study Arms (2)

Latissimus Dorsi Flap Reconstruction

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

Patients are allocated to delayed breast reconstruction with the Latissimus Dorsi flap and if needed an implant.

Procedure: Latissimus Dorsi Flap Reconstruction

TAP Flap Reconstruction

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

Patients are allocated to delayed breast reconstruction with the TAP-flap and if needed an implant in combination with an acellular dermal matrix.

Procedure: TAP Flap Reconstruction

Interventions

Delayed, unilateral breast reconstruction with the LD-flap. The reconstruction will be performed in a standard fashion as specified in the protocol. Implants should be used when required to gain sufficient volume of the breast.

Latissimus Dorsi Flap Reconstruction

Delayed, unilateral breast reconstruction with the TAP-flap. The reconstruction will be performed as specified in the protocol and when implants are required to gain sufficient volume they should be combined with an acellular dermal matrix.

TAP Flap Reconstruction

Eligibility Criteria

Age18 Years+
Sexfemale
Healthy VolunteersNo
Age GroupsAdult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

  • \) Women over 18 years of age who are referred in the period between 1st of September 2013 and 30st of August 2015 for the purpose of unilateral, delayed breast reconstruction, and who are found best suited for reconstruction with a pedicled tissue flap from the back.

You may not qualify if:

  • Patients found better suited for reconstruction by another method i.e. abdominal or free flap-reconstruction or expander/implant-based reconstruction.
  • Patients with severe dementia that makes it impossible to collect data or obtain informed consent
  • Non-Danish speaking patients from whom informed consent cannot be obtained by interpreter
  • Patients where a suited perforator of the Thoracodorsal artery cannot be identified by colour Doppler ultrasonography.
  • Invited patients will receive both oral and written participant information after which a period of minimum 14 days is required before the patient can be enrolled in the trial in accordance with the The Danish Health Act.
  • Patients considering participation will be invited for a second consultation where written informed consent will be obtained from all who accept the invitation. Randomization will be performed immediately afterwards allocating the patient to reconstruction by either the LD-flap or the TAP-flap. Patients who do not which to be enrolled in the trial will be offered reconstruction with the LD-flap as this must be considered standard of care.

Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.

Sponsors & Collaborators

Study Sites (4)

Herlev Hospital

Herlev, 2730, Denmark

Location

Odense University Hospital

Odense, 5000, Denmark

Location

Vejle Hospital

Vejle, 7100, Denmark

Location

Telemark Hospital

Skien, Telemark, 3710, Norway

Location

Related Publications (30)

  • Bonomi S, Settembrini F, Salval A, Gregorelli C, Musumarra G, Rapisarda V. Current indications for and comparative analysis of three different types of latissimus dorsi flaps. Aesthet Surg J. 2012 Mar;32(3):294-302. doi: 10.1177/1090820X12437783.

    PMID: 22395320BACKGROUND
  • Perdikis G, Koonce S, Collis G, Eck D. Latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flap for breast reconstruction: bad rap or good flap? Eplasty. 2011;11:e39. Epub 2011 Oct 17.

    PMID: 22031843BACKGROUND
  • Garusi C, Lohsiriwat V, Brenelli F, Galimberti VE, De Lorenzi F, Rietjens M, Rossetto F, Petit JY. The value of latissimus dorsi flap with implant reconstruction for total mastectomy after conservative breast cancer surgery recurrence. Breast. 2011 Apr;20(2):141-4. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2010.10.007. Epub 2010 Nov 11.

    PMID: 21074437BACKGROUND
  • Hammond DC. Latissimus dorsi flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009 Oct;124(4):1055-1063. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181b6bf05.

    PMID: 19935289BACKGROUND
  • Dejode M, Bordes V, Jaffre I, Classe JM, Dravet F. [Oncologic, functional, and aesthetics results; evaluation of the quality of life after latissimus dorsi flap breast reconstruction. About a retrospective series of 450 patients]. Ann Chir Plast Esthet. 2011 Jun;56(3):207-15. doi: 10.1016/j.anplas.2011.01.003. Epub 2011 Mar 29. French.

    PMID: 21450385BACKGROUND
  • Forthomme B, Heymans O, Jacquemin D, Klinkenberg S, Hoffmann S, Grandjean FX, Crielaard JM, Croisier JL. Shoulder function after latissimus dorsi transfer in breast reconstruction. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2010 Nov;30(6):406-12. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-097X.2010.00956.x.

    PMID: 20633032BACKGROUND
  • Faucher A, Barrault M, Duguey I. [Contribution to the study of painful and functional sequellae after breast reconstruction using latissimus dorsi flap. Investigation into 149 patients]. Ann Chir Plast Esthet. 2010 Apr;55(2):104-10. doi: 10.1016/j.anplas.2009.04.008. Epub 2009 Oct 29. French.

    PMID: 19879032BACKGROUND
  • Button J, Scott J, Taghizadeh R, Weiler-Mithoff E, Hart AM. Shoulder function following autologous latissimus dorsi breast reconstruction. A prospective three year observational study comparing quilting and non-quilting donor site techniques. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2010 Sep;63(9):1505-12. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2009.08.017. Epub 2009 Oct 12.

    PMID: 19819774BACKGROUND
  • Koh CE, Morrison WA. Functional impairment after latissimus dorsi flap. ANZ J Surg. 2009 Jan-Feb;79(1-2):42-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1445-2197.2008.04797.x.

    PMID: 19183378BACKGROUND
  • Glassey N, Perks GB, McCulley SJ. A prospective assessment of shoulder morbidity and recovery time scales following latissimus dorsi breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008 Nov;122(5):1334-1340. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181881ffe.

    PMID: 18971716BACKGROUND
  • Adams WP Jr, Lipschitz AH, Ansari M, Kenkel JM, Rohrich RJ. Functional donor site morbidity following latissimus dorsi muscle flap transfer. Ann Plast Surg. 2004 Jul;53(1):6-11. doi: 10.1097/01.sap.0000106430.56501.b5.

    PMID: 15211190BACKGROUND
  • Hamdi M, Van Landuyt K, Hijjawi JB, Roche N, Blondeel P, Monstrey S. Surgical technique in pedicled thoracodorsal artery perforator flaps: a clinical experience with 99 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008 May;121(5):1632-1641. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31816c3bfa.

    PMID: 18453987BACKGROUND
  • Hamdi M, Salgarello M, Barone-Adesi L, Van Landuyt K. Use of the thoracodorsal artery perforator (TDAP) flap with implant in breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2008 Aug;61(2):143-6. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0b013e318158fd7b.

    PMID: 18650605BACKGROUND
  • Hamdi M, Decorte T, Demuynck M, Defrene B, Fredrickx A, Maele GV, De Pypere H, Landuyt KV, Blondeel P, Vanderstraeten G, Monstrey S. Shoulder function after harvesting a thoracodorsal artery perforator flap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008 Oct;122(4):1111-1117. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31818459b4.

    PMID: 18827644BACKGROUND
  • Sbitany H, Serletti JM. Acellular dermis-assisted prosthetic breast reconstruction: a systematic and critical review of efficacy and associated morbidity. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011 Dec;128(6):1162-1169. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e318230c29e.

    PMID: 22094735BACKGROUND
  • Hoppe IC, Yueh JH, Wei CH, Ahuja NK, Patel PP, Datiashvili RO. Complications following expander/implant breast reconstruction utilizing acellular dermal matrix: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eplasty. 2011;11:e40. Epub 2011 Nov 3.

    PMID: 22084645BACKGROUND
  • Himsl I, Drinovac V, Lenhard M, Stockl D, Weissenbacher T, Dian D. The use of porcine acellular dermal matrix in silicone implant-based breast reconstruction. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012 Jul;286(1):187-92. doi: 10.1007/s00404-012-2266-x. Epub 2012 Mar 2.

    PMID: 22382372BACKGROUND
  • Heneghan HM, Prichard RS, Lyons R, Regan PJ, Kelly JL, Malone C, McLaughlin R, Sweeney KJ, Kerin MJ. Quality of life after immediate breast reconstruction and skin-sparing mastectomy - a comparison with patients undergoing breast conserving surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011 Nov;37(11):937-43. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2011.08.126. Epub 2011 Sep 6.

    PMID: 21899982BACKGROUND
  • Metcalfe KA, Semple J, Quan ML, Vadaparampil ST, Holloway C, Brown M, Bower B, Sun P, Narod SA. Changes in psychosocial functioning 1 year after mastectomy alone, delayed breast reconstruction, or immediate breast reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012 Jan;19(1):233-41. doi: 10.1245/s10434-011-1828-7. Epub 2011 Jun 15.

    PMID: 21674270BACKGROUND
  • Bellino S, Fenocchio M, Zizza M, Rocca G, Bogetti P, Bogetto F. Quality of life of patients who undergo breast reconstruction after mastectomy: effects of personality characteristics. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011 Jan;127(1):10-17. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181f956c0.

    PMID: 21200194BACKGROUND
  • Freitas-Silva R, Conde DM, de Freitas-Junior R, Martinez EZ. Comparison of quality of life, satisfaction with surgery and shoulder-arm morbidity in breast cancer survivors submitted to breast-conserving therapy or mastectomy followed by immediate breast reconstruction. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2010 Jun;65(8):781-7. doi: 10.1590/s1807-59322010000800007.

    PMID: 20835555BACKGROUND
  • Gahm J, Wickman M, Brandberg Y. Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in women with inherited risk of breast cancer--prevalence of pain and discomfort, impact on sexuality, quality of life and feelings of regret two years after surgery. Breast. 2010 Dec;19(6):462-9. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2010.05.003. Epub 2010 Jun 3.

    PMID: 20605453BACKGROUND
  • Wasteson E, Sandelin K, Brandberg Y, Wickman M, Arver B. High satisfaction rate ten years after bilateral prophylactic mastectomy - a longitudinal study. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2011 Jul;20(4):508-13. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2354.2010.01204.x. Epub 2010 Jun 29.

    PMID: 20597955BACKGROUND
  • Min SY, Kim HY, Jung SY, Kwon Y, Shin KH, Lee S, Kim SW, Kang HS, Yun YH, Lee ES. Oncological safety and quality of life associated with mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction with a latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flap. Breast J. 2010 Jul-Aug;16(4):356-61. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4741.2010.00941.x. Epub 2010 Jun 10.

    PMID: 20545939BACKGROUND
  • Atisha D, Alderman AK, Lowery JC, Kuhn LE, Davis J, Wilkins EG. Prospective analysis of long-term psychosocial outcomes in breast reconstruction: two-year postoperative results from the Michigan Breast Reconstruction Outcomes Study. Ann Surg. 2008 Jun;247(6):1019-28. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181728a5c.

    PMID: 18520230BACKGROUND
  • Constant CR, Gerber C, Emery RJ, Sojbjerg JO, Gohlke F, Boileau P. A review of the Constant score: modifications and guidelines for its use. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008 Mar-Apr;17(2):355-61. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2007.06.022. Epub 2008 Jan 22. No abstract available.

    PMID: 18218327BACKGROUND
  • Pacella SJ, Vogel JE, Locke MB, Codner MA. Aesthetic and technical refinements in latissimus dorsi implant breast reconstruction: a 15-year experience. Aesthet Surg J. 2011 Feb;31(2):190-9. doi: 10.1177/1090820X10395506.

    PMID: 21317117BACKGROUND
  • Wirth R, Banic A, Erni D. Aesthetic outcome and oncological safety of nipple-areola complex replantation after mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2010 Sep;63(9):1490-4. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2009.08.014. Epub 2009 Oct 4.

    PMID: 19805012BACKGROUND
  • Gahm J, Jurell G, Edsander-Nord A, Wickman M. Patient satisfaction with aesthetic outcome after bilateral prophylactic mastectomy and immediate reconstruction with implants. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2010 Feb;63(2):332-8. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2008.11.014. Epub 2008 Dec 13.

    PMID: 19071075BACKGROUND
  • Makki A, Thomsen JB, Gunnarsson GL, Holmich PLR, Sorensen PJA, Rindom MB. A cost-effectiveness analysis of delayed breast reconstruction with pedicled flaps from the back. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2022 Jul;75(7):2211-2218. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2022.02.034. Epub 2022 Feb 26.

MeSH Terms

Conditions

Breast Neoplasms

Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Neoplasms by SiteNeoplasmsBreast DiseasesSkin DiseasesSkin and Connective Tissue Diseases

Study Officials

  • Jørn B Thomsen, MD, PhD

    Center Hospital Lillebaelt, Institute of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark

    STUDY CHAIR

Study Design

Study Type
interventional
Phase
not applicable
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Masking
NONE
Purpose
TREATMENT
Intervention Model
PARALLEL
Sponsor Type
OTHER
Responsible Party
SPONSOR

Study Record Dates

First Submitted

June 18, 2014

First Posted

June 20, 2014

Study Start

September 1, 2013

Primary Completion

March 1, 2018

Study Completion

March 31, 2019

Last Updated

August 14, 2019

Record last verified: 2019-08

Locations