Abstract Abstract #22 Introduction: Cosmetic outcome is one of the most important aspects of surgical treatment of breast cancer. Therefore, to maximize the cosmetic outcome for patients who require a mastectomy, what can be done from an oncologically safe perspective must be considered. Recent reports have suggested that nipple-areola-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is oncologically as safe as a classical mastectomy (MT) and provides a better cosmetic outcome than MT. However, little is known about the long-term outcome of NSM.
 Aim: To determine the oncological and technical outcomes of NSM compared with MT using long term follow-up data.
 Patients and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 788 patients, median age 51 years, with primary breast cancer who underwent NSM from 1985 to 2004. The indication of NSM in this study was defined as being for any stage, any tumor size and any tumor-areola distance. Briefly, NAC was preserved when palpation and the outlook of the nipple was normal. Median tumor size and tumor-areola distance were 2.5cm (0-10.0) and 1.8cm (0-9.0), respectively. Our surgical notes for NSM were; (1) a thin flap (approximately 5 mm thick subcutaneous adipose tissue) was placed close to the tumor, and a thick flap (more than 1cm thick subcutaneous adipose tissue) was created more than 2cm away from the tumor to conserve breast volume using subcutaneous fat, and (2) tissue under the NAC was left at 5 mm in thickness, but the major ducts were removed from within its lumen. Eighty-one patients (10%) underwent immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) using implants. We also analyzed 144 patients with breast cancer who underwent MT in the same period as those who underwent NSM. No patient received radiotherapy. We compared the local recurrence rate (LRR), disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) between 788 NSM and 144 MT cases.
 Results: Median follow-up of NSM and MT was 92 (10-252) and 87 (0-231) months, respectively. To our surprise, no complications of NSM including nipple and areola necrosis were recorded (0/788). For NSM, there were 70 patients (8.9%) with local recurrence, including 23 (2.9%) at the nipple, 4 (0.5%) at the areola, 4 (0.5%) at both nipple and areola, and 39 at the skin flap (4.9%). This suggested that the rate of NAC relapse was quite low. There were no significant differences in LLR between NSM and MT, (10y, 8.9% vs. 7.6%, p=0.62), DFS (10y, 83% vs. 83%, p=0.34) and OS (10y, 88% vs. 86%, p=0.34), respectively. Cosmetic outcome of NSM was better than that of MT in the majority of patients.
 Conclusion: These results suggested that NSM provides a good cosmetic outcome and is as safe oncologically as MT. Our long term follow-up data shows that NSM is a possible alternative to mastectomy. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2009;69(2 Suppl):Abstract nr 22.
Read full abstract