Porocarcinoma is a rare malignant adnexal tumor. Little is known about the location of the disease in the head and neck. Our aim is to offer the largest analysis of demographic, pathological, and treatment patterns of head and neck porocarcinoma in comparison with other locations of the neoplasm from an epidemiologically representative cohort. Method: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program of the National Cancer Institute was searched for all cases of porocarcinomas diagnosed between 2000 and 2018. This database is considered representative of the US population. Demographic, pathological, and treatment variables were compared between the head and neck and other regions. Overall and disease-specific survival was calculated and compared between groups. Results: 563 porocarcinomas were identified, with 172 in the head and neck. The mean age was 66.4 years. Males were more affected in the head and neck. Regional and distant invasion rates were low (2.9 and 2.3%, respectively). Local excision and Mohs surgery were the most frequent therapies. Five-year overall survival was 74.8%. Five-year disease-specific survival was 97%. Conclusions: Head and neck porocarcinoma affects more males than females. Regional or distant metastatic rates are low and overestimated in previous literature. Disease-specific mortality is low. Surgery remains the mainstay of treatment.

(1) Background: Implant-based breast reconstruction following mastectomy helps to restore quality of life while aiming at providing optimal cosmetic outcomes. Both prepectoral (PP) and subpectoral (SP) breast implants are widely used to fulfill these objectives. It is, however, unclear which approach offers stronger postoperative benefits. (2) Methods: We performed a systematic review of the literature through PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ResearchGate, following the PRISMA guidelines. Quantitative analysis for postoperative pain as the primary outcome was conducted. Secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction and postoperative complications such as seroma, implant loss, skin necrosis, wound infection, and hematoma. (3) Results: Nine articles involving 1119 patients were retrieved. Our results suggested increased postoperative pain after SP implants and significantly higher rates of seroma following PP implants (p < 0.05). Patient satisfaction was found to be similar between the two groups; however, the heterogeneity of measurement tools did not allow us to pool these results. The rates of implant loss, skin necrosis, wound infection, and hematoma showed no significant differences between the two cohorts. (4) Conclusion: Our data suggest that both implant placements are safe and effective methods for breast reconstruction following mastectomy. However, homogeneity in outcome measurements would allow one to provide stronger statistical results.

No abstract