Objective: To evaluate clinical outcomes of using acellular dermal matrix (ADM) with implant based breast reconstructions (IBBRs) in a randomized controlled trial. Summary Background Data: The use of ADMs in IBBRs is widespread, but link between ADM and complications remain a controversial topic. In view of reports concerning harm, we present 6-months safety data of ADM-assisted IBBR in the setting of breast cancer treatment. Methods: An open-label, randomized, controlled trial recruiting patients from 4 centers in Sweden and 1 in UK. Eligible were women with breast cancer planned for mastectomy with immediate IBBR. Participants were randomly allocated to IBBR with or without ADM (Strattice, Branchburg, NJ), with stratification by center in blocks of 6. Main primary endpoint was number of unplanned reoperations at 24 months, and safety expressed as the incidence of adverse events with a 6-month follow-up time for all participants. Analysis were done per protocol using Fisher exact test for complications and reoperations. Results: From start of enrolment on April 24, 2014, to close of trial on May 10, 2017, 135 women were enrolled, of whom 64 with ADM and 65 without ADM were included in the final analysis. Four patients (6%) in each group had reconstructive failure with implant loss, but IBBR with ADM exhibited a trend of more overall complications and reoperations (difference 0·16, 95% CI, −0·01 to 0·32, P = 0·070), and with higher risk of wound healing problems (P = 0·013). Conclusions: With 6-months follow-up for all participants, immediate IBBR with ADM carried a risk of implant loss equal to conventional IBBR without ADM, but was associated with more adverse outcomes requiring surgical intervention. Further investigation of risk factors and patient selection in a long-term follow-up is warranted.

IMPORTANCE The use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in implant-based breast reconstructions (IBBRs) is established practice. Existing evidence validating ADMs proposed advantages, including improved cosmetics and more single-stage IBBRs, is lacking. OBJECTIVE To evaluate whether IBBR with ADM results in fewer reoperations and increased healthrelated quality of life (HRQoL) compared with conventional IBBR without ADM. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This was an open-label, multicenter, randomized clinical trial of women with primary breast cancer who planned for mastectomy and immediate IBBR, with a 2-year follow-up for all participants. Participants were enrolled at 5 breast cancer units in Sweden and the United Kingdom between 2014 and May 2017. Exclusion criteria included previous radiotherapy and neo-adjuvant chemotherapy. Data were analyzed until August 2017. INTERVENTIONS Participants were allocated to immediate IBBR with or without ADM. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary trial end point was number of reoperations at 2 years. HRQoL, a secondary end point, was measured as patient-reported outcome measures using 3 instruments from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of life Questionnaire.

Background: Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in implant-based breast reconstructions (IBBRs) aims to improve cosmetic outcomes. Six-month data are presented from a randomized trial evaluating whether IBBR with ADM provides higher health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and patient-reported cosmetic outcomes compared with conventional IBBR without ADM. Methods: In this multicentre open-label RCT, women with breast cancer planned for mastectomy with immediate IBBR in four centres in Sweden and one in the UK were allocated randomly (1 : 1) to IBBR with or without ADM. HRQoL, a secondary endpoint, was measured as patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) using three validated instruments (EORTC-QLQC30, QLQ-BR23, QLQ-BRR26) at baseline and 6 months. Results: Between 24 April 2014 and 10 May 2017, 135 women were enrolled, of whom 64 with and 65 without ADM were included in the final analysis. At 6 months after surgery, patient-reported HRQoL, measured with generic QLQ-C30 or breast cancer-specific QLQ-BR23, was similar between the groups. For patient-reported cosmetic outcomes, two subscale items, cosmetic outcome (8⋅66, 95 per cent c.i. 0⋅46 to 16⋅86; P = 0⋅041) and problems finding a well-fitting bra (−13⋅21, −25⋅54 to −0⋅89; P = 0⋅038), yielded higher scores in favour of ADM, corresponding to a small to moderate clinical difference. None of the other 27 domains measured showed any significant differences between the groups. Conclusion: IBBR with ADM was not superior in terms of higher levels of HRQoL compared with IBBR without ADM. Although two subscale items of patient-reported cosmetic outcomes favoured ADM, the majority of cosmetic items showed no significant difference between treatments at 6 months. Registration number: NCT02061527 (www.clinicaltrials.gov).