Purpose: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak has significantly impacted the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. Our study investigated the change in diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer with the progress of COVID-19 pandemic. Materials and Methods: The study group comprised 6,514 recently diagnosed breast cancer patients between January 1, 2019, and February 28, 2021. The patients were divided into two groups: pre–COVID-19 period (3,182; January 2019 to December 2019) and COVID-19 pandemic period (3,332; January 2020 to February 2021). Clinicopathological information related to the first treatment after breast cancer diagnosis was retrospectively collected and analyzed in the two groups. Results: Among the 6,514 breast cancer patients, 3,182 were in the pre–COVID-19 period and 3,332 were in the COVID-19 pandemic period. According to our evaluation, the least breast cancer diagnosis (21.8%) was seen in the first quarter of 2020. The diagnosis increased gradually except for the fourth quarter in 2020. While early-stage breast cancer was diagnosed 1,601 (48.1%) during the COVID-19 pandemic (p=0.001), the number of surgical treatments increased 4.6% (p < 0.001), and the treatment time was slightly shorter 2 days (p=0.001). The breast cancer subtype distribution was not statistically different between the pre–COVID-19 and COVID-19 period groups. Conclusion In the early stages of the pandemic, the number of breast cancer cases temporarily decreased; however, they stabilized soon, and no significant differences could be identified in the diagnosis and treatment when compared to the period before the pandemic.

Purpose: Latissimus dorsi mini-flap (LDMF) reconstruction after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is a useful volume replacement technique when a large tumor is located in the upper or outer portion of the breast. However, few studies have reported the impact of LDMF on patients’ quality of life (QoL) and cosmesis compared with conventional BCS. Methods: We identified patients who underwent BCS with or without LDMF between 2010 and 2020 at a single center. At least 1 year after surgery, we prospectively administered the BREAST-Q to assess QoL and obtained the patients’ breast photographs. The cosmetic outcome was assessed using four panels composed of physicians and the BCCT.core software. Results: A total of 120 patients were enrolled, of whom 62 and 58 underwent LDMF or BCS only, respectively. The LDMF group had significantly larger tumors, shorter nipple-to-tumor distances in preoperative examinations, and larger resected breast volumes than did the BCSonly group (p < 0.001). The questionnaires revealed that QoL was poorer in the LDMF group, particularly in terms of the physical well-being score (40.9 vs. 20.1, p < 0.001). Notably, the level of patients’ cosmetic satisfaction with their breasts was comparable, and the cosmetic evaluation was assessed by panels and the BCCT.core software showed no differences between the groups. Conclusion Our results showed that cosmetic outcomes of performing LDMF are comparable to those of BCS alone while having the advantage of resecting larger volumes of breast tissue. Therefore, for those who strongly wish to preserve the cosmesis of their breasts, LDMF can be considered a favorable surgical option after the patient is oriented toward the potential for physical dysfunction after surgery.

Purpose: Although the overall survival (OS) of breast cancer patients is increasing with improved detection and therapies, so is the risk of breast cancer patients developing subsequent malignancies. We investigated the OS of breast cancer survivors according to sites of second primary malignancies (SPM). The OS of the second primary hematologic malignancy (SPHM) was then compared with that of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients diagnosed with primary breast cancer between 1998 and 2019. Only those with SPM were eligible for analysis. First, the OS of patients with SPM diagnosed as the first event after the diagnosis of breast cancer was analyzed. Next, the OS of patients with SPHM, with or without breast cancer relapse, was compared with that of patients with MBC, matched using the propensity score. Results: Patients diagnosed with SPM without breast cancer relapse as the first event had a significantly better OS than did patients with MBC, but the OS of those with SPHM as the first event did not differ significantly from that of patients with MBC (hazard ratio [HR], 1.558; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.856–2.839; P = 0.147). The OS of patients with SPHM with or without breast cancer relapse was worse than that of the MBC group after propensity score matching (HR, 1.954; 95% CI, 1.045–3.654; P = 0.036). Conclusion Prognosis of SPM diagnosed as the first event was statistically better than that of MBC, except in case of SPHM. Patients with SPHM, with or without MBC, showed poor OS before and after propensity score matching.