# Mastectomy Reconstruction Techniques for Gender Diverse Breast Cancer and High Risk Patients: A Case Series and Literature Overview

## TL;DR

This paper presents a case series and literature review on mastectomy and reconstruction techniques for transgender and gender-diverse individuals with breast cancer or high-risk factors, emphasizing personalized and multidisciplinary approaches.

## Contribution

The study provides a detailed overview of surgical techniques and outcomes for oncologic gender-affirming mastectomy in a unique patient population with limited existing literature.

## Key findings

- Eight AFAB TGD patients underwent various mastectomy and reconstruction techniques with no positive margins and minimal complications.
- Common procedures included simple mastectomy with flat closure and free nipple graft, as well as Goldilocks reconstruction.
- Half of the patients experienced revision surgery, and one surgical site infection occurred.

## Abstract

Background/Objectives: Assigned female at birth (AFAB) individuals who identify as transgender or gender-diverse (TGD) with concurrent breast cancer or high-risk genetic mutations represent a unique population, requiring consideration of oncologic and aesthetic goals. These patients sought chest masculinization with oncologic gender-affirming mastectomy (OGAM) or non-binary reconstruction to alleviate gender dysphoria and treat their breast cancer. There is limited literature on surgical techniques in this patient population. Methods: A retrospective chart review of AFAB TGD adults (>18 years of age) who underwent OGAM or non-binary reconstruction at the University of Washington between 2019 and 2023 was conducted. All patients had a consultation with a plastic surgeon for reconstruction and a minimum of one year follow-up. Demographic data, oncologic status, post-operative complications, and revision surgical history were collected. Results: Eight AFAB TGD individuals met the inclusion criteria. The mean age at the time of mastectomy was 35.13 years (SD = 8.04), and the mean BMI was 29.88 (SD = 6.40). Indications for mastectomy included a breast cancer diagnosis (N = 4) or a strong family history of breast cancer or genetic predisposition (N = 4). Two (25%) patients underwent nipple-sparing mastectomies (NSM), two patients (25%) underwent skin-sparing mastectomy with Goldilocks reconstruction, and four patients (50%) underwent simple mastectomy (oncologic gender-affirming mastectomy), flat closure with free nipple graft (FNG). Two patients had staged nipple mastectomy with secondary nipple reduction and fat grafting. Six patients had immediate reconstruction, four (50%) patients underwent immediate double-incision OGAM with FNG, and two (25%) patients underwent Goldilocks procedures—one with and one without FNG. One patient (12.5%) experienced a surgical site infection, and three patients (37.5%) underwent revision surgery. No patients had positive margins following their mastectomy. Conclusions: This case series highlights the importance of a multidisciplinary and highly personalized approach for AFAB and TGD individuals undergoing oncologic gender-affirming mastectomy or non-binary reconstruction. We reviewed reconstructive options performed at our institution, demonstrating safe oncologic and reconstructive techniques that emphasized collaboration between breast and plastic surgeons.