Does Breast Reconstruction Affect Radiation Therapy? Examining Device Type, Placement, and Dose Effects

Background: Prepectoral breast reconstruction has surpassed subpectoral placement over the past decade, with most reconstructions being prepectoral. However, the impact of reconstruction, including type (immediate implant-based versus delayed with a tissue expander [TE]) and device position (prepectoral versus subpectoral) on radiation therapy (RT) planning is understudied. This study compares RT dose metrics and time to treatment between reconstructed and nonreconstructed cases and by reconstruction device type and placement. Methods: This single-institution study included 161 patients who underwent mastectomy or lumpectomy followed by RT from 2021 through 2024. Eighty patients were reconstructed (implants, n = 29; TEs, n = 51) and 81 were not reconstructed. Reconstruction was prepectoral ( n = 41) or subpectoral ( n = 39). Radiation outcomes included mean heart dose, volume of lung irradiated, volume of reduced dose areas (“cold spots”), volume of increased dose areas (“hot spots”), and internal mammary node (IMN) coverage. Additional outcomes included time to RT, IMN omission, TE deflation, and skin toxicity. Results: Prepectoral and subpectoral reconstructions were associated with increased heart dose and reduced volume of cold spots compared with nonreconstruction. Subpectoral reconstruction was associated with reduced ipsilateral lung dose versus nonreconstruction. Prepectoral devices were most frequently associated with IMN omission. No differences in time to RT, IMN coverage, TE deflations, or complications were observed. No differences were observed based on device type. Conclusions: Device position or type does not significantly affect RT plan quality. For prepectoral reconstructions, there may be additional considerations affecting IMN treatment. Reconstruction, especially subpectoral, may minimize lung dose when IMN treatment is needed.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery
Published
2026-07-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000012691
Primary Topic
Breast Implant and Reconstruction
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Does Breast Reconstruction Affect Radiation Therapy? Examining Device Type, Placement, and Dose Effects

Catheryn M. Yashar, Natalie Sarafian, Haydee Ojeda‐Fournier, Kelly Kisling et al.
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery
Breast Implant and Reconstruction
article

Does Breast Reconstruction Affect Radiation Therapy? Examining Device Type, Placement, and Dose Effects

Catheryn M. Yashar, Natalie Sarafian, Haydee Ojeda‐Fournier, Kelly Kisling, Dominique L. Rash, Megan E. Orr, Chris M. Reid, Sarah L. Blair, Miriam C. Becker, Florin A. Vaida
article en

Abstract

Background: Prepectoral breast reconstruction has surpassed subpectoral placement over the past decade, with most reconstructions being prepectoral. However, the impact of reconstruction, including type (immediate implant-based versus delayed with a tissue expander [TE]) and device position (prepectoral versus subpectoral) on radiation therapy (RT) planning is understudied. This study compares RT dose metrics and time to treatment between reconstructed and nonreconstructed cases and by reconstruction device type and placement. Methods: This single-institution study included 161 patients who underwent mastectomy or lumpectomy followed by RT from 2021 through 2024. Eighty patients were reconstructed (implants, n = 29; TEs, n = 51) and 81 were not reconstructed. Reconstruction was prepectoral ( n = 41) or subpectoral ( n = 39). Radiation outcomes included mean heart dose, volume of lung irradiated, volume of reduced dose areas (“cold spots”), volume of increased dose areas (“hot spots”), and internal mammary node (IMN) coverage. Additional outcomes included time to RT, IMN omission, TE deflation, and skin toxicity. Results: Prepectoral and subpectoral reconstructions were associated with increased heart dose and reduced volume of cold spots compared with nonreconstruction. Subpectoral reconstruction was associated with reduced ipsilateral lung dose versus nonreconstruction. Prepectoral devices were most frequently associated with IMN omission. No differences in time to RT, IMN coverage, TE deflations, or complications were observed. No differences were observed based on device type. Conclusions: Device position or type does not significantly affect RT plan quality. For prepectoral reconstructions, there may be additional considerations affecting IMN treatment. Reconstruction, especially subpectoral, may minimize lung dose when IMN treatment is needed.

Plastic & Reconstructive SurgeryVol. 158(2)
Cancer Research And Biostatistics (US), Breast Center (CH), Radiation Oncology Associates (US)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Breast Implant and Reconstruction
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.