Nipple-sparing Mastectomy Group Research Articles

Oncologic Outcomes in Nipple-sparing Mastectomy with Immediate Reconstruction and Total Mastectomy with Immediate Reconstruction in Women with Breast Cancer: A Machine-Learning Analysis.

This study used a single-institution cohort, the Severance dataset, validated the results by using the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) database, adjusted with propensity-score matching (PSM), and analyzed by using a machine learning method. To determine whether the 5-year, disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) of patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) with immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) are not inferior to those of women treated with total mastectomy/skin-sparing mastectomy (TM/SSM). The Severance dataset enrolled 611 patients with early, invasive breast cancer from 2010 to 2017. The SEER dataset contained data for 485,245 patients undergoing TM and 14,770 patients undergoing NSM between 2000 and 2018. All patients underwent mastectomy and IBR. Intraoperative, frozen-section biopsy for the retro-areolar tissue was performed in the NSM group. The SEER dataset was extracted by using operation types, including TM/SSM and NSM. The primary outcome was DFS for the Severance dataset and OS for the SEER dataset. PSM analysis was applied. Survival outcomes were analyzed by using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazard (Cox PH) regression model. We implemented XGBSE to predict mortality with high accuracy and evaluated model prediction performance using a concordance index. The final model inspected the impact of relevant predictors on the model output using shapley additive explanation (SHAP) values. In the Severance dataset, 151 patients underwent NSM with IBR and 460 patients underwent TM/SSM with IBR. No significant differences were found between the groups. In multivariate analysis, NSM was not associated with reduced oncologic outcomes. The same results were observed in PSM analysis. In the SEER dataset, according to the SHAP values, the individual feature contribution suggested that AJCC stage ranks first. Analyses from the two datasets confirmed no impact on survival outcomes from the two surgical methods. NSM with IBR is a safe and feasible procedure in terms of oncologic outcomes. Analysis using machine learning methods can be successfully applied to identify significant risk factors for oncologic outcomes.

Abstract P2-14-18: Oncological Outcomes of Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy

Abstract Introduction: Surgery is the mainstay treatment of breast cancer and has been improving in aesthetic outcomes even in locally advanced disease. Radical mastectomies are being replaced by less aggressive surgeries with immediate breast reconstruction. Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy (NSM) preserves Nipple Areolar Complex (NAC) along with the entire breast skin envelope and is associated with better aesthetic results and quality of life, improving patient satisfaction. Since NSM is a relatively recent technique and few studies have shown the feasibility of NSM after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT), there are some concerns and controversies about its oncological safety, especially, with regard to the NAC recurrence due to the remaining tissue in the retroareolar area. This study compares the long-term oncological outcomes and correlated factors of NSM and skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) after NACT. Methods: After approval by the institution’s ethics committee a retrospective review was conducted to identify all patients who underwent NSM and SSM with immediate breast reconstruction after NACT between January 2011 and December 2018 at Centro de Doenças da Mama- Breast Unit Hospital Nossa Senhora das Graças. Metastatic disease, recurrent breast cancer, and other types of mastectomies were excluded. Clinicopathological and survival data, as well as recurrence events were collected from the electronic medical records. NSM was offered to the patients without involvement of the NAC and skin clinically and on imaging. All patients underwent ultrasonography, mammography and breast MRI in the preoperative period, as well as breast MRI after NACT. The decision to undergo adjuvant radiotherapy was determined by the treating radiation oncologists according to NCCN and ASTRO recommendation. A propensity score match was used to reduce the effect of selection bias on type of surgery and create well-balanced groups. The covariates included for matching were: anatomical stage, radiotherapy and molecular subtype. Results: A total of 188 patients underwent mastectomy in this period, 134 NSM and 54 SSM. After propensity score matching, 92 patients in the NSM group were matched to the 54 patients in the SSM group. The median follow up time was 44,7 months to NSM and 40,3 months to NSM. The characteristics of patients included in both groups after propensity score matching are described in Table 1. NAC recurrence was observed in 5 (5.4%) of 92 NSM patients, and median time of recurrence was 24.2 (11.7- 40.1) months. Ki67 showed a significant relationship with relapse in the NAC. The distance from the tumor to the NAC and other clinicopathologic variables were not correlated with NAC recurrence (Table 2). There were no significative differences between the groups in locorregional recurrence (p=0.102), distant metastasis (p=0.223) and death (p=0.610) (Table 3). Conclusion: In this matched control study, there was no difference in oncological outcomes in patients submitted to NSM and SSM after NACT, suggesting NSM with immediate breast reconstruction is a feasible option in this setting. Table 1. Characteristics of patients treated with NSM and SSM after propensity score matching *Student’s t test for independent samples or non-parametric Mann-Whitney test (quantitative variables); Fisher’s exact test or chi square test (categorical variables); p<0.05 Table 2. Correlation between clinicopathologic variables and recurrence in the NAC *Fine and Gray Regression Model including death as a competitive risk and Wald test, p<0.05 Table 3. Oncological outcomes in NSM and SSM groups *Model Fine & Gray and Wald test, p<0,05 **Cox Regression Model and Wald test, p<0.05 *** Log-rank test, p<0,05 Citation Format: IRIS RABINOVICH, Leonardo P. Nissen, Isabela C. Soares, Alessandra C. Fornazari, Cleverton C. Spautz, Ana Paula M. Sebastião, CICERO A. URBAN, Karina F. Anselmi, Eduardo Schunemann, Flavia Kuroda, Maira T. Doria, Ana Clea S. Andrade, Rubens S. Lima. Oncological Outcomes of Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-14-18.

Abstract P2-14-13: Propensity score matching for survival outcomes in breast cancer patients with nipple sparing mastectomy versus total mastectomy and breast-conserving surgery: a single-center retrospective study

Abstract Objective: With the development of the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer, the pattern of multidisciplinary treatment has resulted a new tendency of breast conserving surgery and reconstruction. Nipple sparing mastectomy (NSM) preserves the aesthetically important nipple-areolar complex, improved appearance satisfaction and quality of life of patients after mastectomy, and had similar oncologic outcomes compared with traditional mastectomy techniques. The primary guiding principles of NSM are oncologic safety. Some studies have demonstrated its oncologic safety while others have demonstrated recurrent risk increasing because of the nipple-areolar complex. We sought to assess the overall survival and disease-free survival of NSM compared with breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and total mastectomy (TM). Key words: nipple sparing mastectomy, breast-conserving surgery, total mastectomy, the overall survival, the disease-free survival Methods: This retrospective matched-cohort study was conducted patients accepted breast surgery between January 2007 and December 2017 in the Department of Breast Surgery of Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center. Cancer stages were identified depending on the American Joint Committee on Cancer [AJCC] TNM staging system. The inclusion criteria included (1) female breast cancer, (2) histopathology confirmed invasive breast cancer without distant metastasis or local relapses, (3) had complete clinical and pathological T&N stages. The exclusion criteria included in situ carcinoma, phylloides tumor, recurrent or metastatic breast cancer and pregnancy. The primary outcome was the overall survival (OS), the secondary outcome was the disease-free survival (DFS). Statistical methods included Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and COX regression analysis, all of which were completed by SPSS 20.0. Results: A total of 2757 patients were evaluated for eligibility, of which 430 were included (86 NSM vs 172 BCS vs 172 TM), the median follow-up is 61.57 months. Clinical T&N stage and other factors of the above three operations were balanced and comparable after matching. COX regression analysis reported that pT (pT3 vs pT1, P=0.00, HR 16.051, 95%CI:3.822-67.409) and pN (pN2 vs pN0, P=0.00, HR 16.626, 95%CI:4.581-60.337) were related factors for OS, and pT (pT3 vs pT1, P=0.021, HR 6.619, 95%CI:1.331-32.927) and pN (pN2 vs pN0, P=0.000; HR 13.320, 95%CI:3.250-54.591) are independent predictive factor of OS. In addition, pN (pN2 vs pN0, P=0.013; HR 3.448, 95%CI:1.304-9.118) was a related factor for DFS. Among 94.19% patients of the NSM group underwent breast reconstruction, 70 underwent implant-based breast reconstruction, 8 underwent autogenous flaps reconstruction, and 3 patients chose latissimus dorsi flap combined with prosthesis immediate breast reconstruction. Only 4 of 172 patients underwent autogenous flaps reconstruction in TM, and 1 chose implant-based breast reconstruction. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis found that the 5-year OS of NSM group, TM group and BCS group were respectively 100%, 95.8% and 99.2%. The 5-year DFS of three operations were respectively 95.2%, 92.1%, 93.5%. Patients who underwent NSM had no difference compared with BCS or TM regarding the OS (P=0.875, HR 0.938, 95%CI:0.421-2.090) and the DFS (P=0.882, HR 0.967, 95%CI:0.623-1.502). Conclusions: Patients undergoing NSM are not disadvantaged in terms of the OS and the DFS compared with patients who underwent BCS or TM. Patients with NSM tend to opt for breast reconstruction to keep good shape and it has the same prognostic outcome as patients with TM or BCS. Citation Format: Min Xiong, Shuang Hao, Jiajian Chen, Xiaoyan Huang, Guangyu Liu, Zhimin Shao, Jiong Wu. Propensity score matching for survival outcomes in breast cancer patients with nipple sparing mastectomy versus total mastectomy and breast-conserving surgery: a single-center retrospective study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-14-13.

Satisfaction with Long-Term Aesthetic and 10 Years Oncologic Outcome following Risk-Reducing Mastectomy and Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction with or without Nipple Preservation.

Simple SummaryWomen at significant increased risk of developing breast cancer may choose to undergo removal of both breasts (mastectomy) with reconstruction of the breasts using silicone implants. This study aimed to compare satisfaction, aesthetic and cancer related outcomes in women undergoing bilateral mastectomy comparing those who had the nipples removed and then a nipple reconstruction with women who had surgery with preservation of the nipples. Ninety-three women participated, sixty (64.5%) had nipple preservation and thirty-three (35.5%) nipples removed. Nipple projection was shorter in the reconstructed nipple group than the preserved nipple group. There was no significant difference in overall symmetry, satisfaction regarding nipple preservation or overall nipple satisfaction. There were no diagnoses of breast cancer in the study population who were followed up for approximately 10 years. We concluded that women who undergo nipple preserving surgery maintain long-term nipple symmetry. Nipple projection was less maintained after nipple reconstruction.Incidence of bilateral risk-reducing mastectomies (RRMs) is increasing. The aim of this study was to compare satisfaction, aesthetic and oncological outcomes in women undergoing RRM with implant-based reconstruction comparing nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) with skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) (sacrificing the nipple +/− nipple reconstruction). Women who had undergone bilateral RRM between 1997 and 2016 were invited. Aesthetic outcome and nipple symmetry were evaluated using standardized anthropometric measurements. The oncological outcome was assessed at last documented follow up. Ninety-three women (186 breasts) participated, 60 (64.5%) had NSM, 33 (35.5%) SSM. Median time between surgery and participation was 98.4 months (IQR: 61.7–133.9). Of the women, 23/33 (69.7%) who had SSM underwent nipple reconstruction. Nipple projection was shorter in the reconstructed SSM group than the maintained NSM group (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in overall symmetry (p = 0.670), satisfaction regarding nipple preservation (p = 0.257) or overall nipple satisfaction (p = 0.074). There were no diagnoses of breast cancer at a median follow up of 129 months (IQR: 65–160.6). Women who undergo nipple-sparing RRM maintain long-term nipple symmetry. Nipple projection was less maintained after nipple reconstruction. Although satisfaction with the nipples was higher in the NSM group, this did not reach statistical significance. No breast cancers developed after RRM with long-term follow up.

Prognosis Comparison Between Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Total Mastectomy in Breast Cancer: A Case-Control Study After Propensity Score Matching

BackgroundCurrently, the operation rate of nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is increasing. However, the long-term prognosis of NSM is not well documented. We utilized the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database to analyze the long-term prognosis of NSM compared with total mastectomy (TM).MethodsPopulation-level data of female breast cancer patients treated with NSM and TM were extracted from 1998 to 2016 from the SEER database. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to reduce the influence of selection bias and confounding variables in comparisons. Kaplan-Meier analysis, log-rank test, and Cox proportional hazard regression were performed.ResultsA total of 5765 patients underwent NSM, which increased from 266 in 2004–2009 to 5370 in 2010–2016. A total of 134,528 patients underwent TM, and the number of patients undergoing TM continued to decline. The overall survival (OS) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) were similar between the NSM group and the TM group (P = 0.058 and 0.87, respectively). For OS, subgroup analysis showed that patients with age ≥ 46, White race, median household income ≥ $70,000, hormone receptor-positive, and HER2 negative had a better prognosis for treatment with NSM. There was no significant difference in BCSS between the NSM group and the TM group.ConclusionsIn recent years, the clinical application of NSM has been increasing. NSM is a proper procedure for breast cancer patients to achieve long-term survival.

Sensory Reinnervation With Subcutaneously Embedded Innervated Flaps: An Experimental Study in Rats.

In breast reconstruction, both aesthetic outcomes and sensory function are important for postoperative quality of life. Innervated flaps are useful in reconstruction after conventional mastectomy (CM), which leaves a large portion of the skin paddle exposed on the body surface. However, whether they are also useful in skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) and nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) remains unclear. This study aimed to examine the usefulness of innervated flaps in restoring sensation after SSM and NSM using a rat model. Dorsal cutaneous nerves of rats were entirely eliminated except for the medial branch of the dorsal cutaneous nerve of thoracic segment 13, resulting in an innervated field surrounded by a denervated field. The innervated field was elevated as an innervated island flap and then subcutaneously embedded, with the skin paddle deepithelialized entirely (NSM group, n = 5) or except at the center (SSM group, n = 6). In the control model (CM group, n = 5), the flap was sutured back into its original position. Postoperative changes in the mechanonociceptive field were evaluated using the cutaneous trunci muscle reflex test. Immunohistochemical evaluation of regenerated nerves in the new mechanonociceptive field was performed at postoperative week 12. In the SSM and CM groups, the mechanonociceptive field expanded around the skin paddle. In the NSM group, a new mechanonociceptive field appeared at postoperative week 4 and expanded thereafter. Areas of the mechanonociceptive field at postoperative week 12 did not differ significantly between the SSM and NSM groups, but were significantly smaller compared with the CM group and comparable to original flap areas. Histologically, S100- and PGP9.5-positive nerve fibers were observed in the dermis of the new mechanonociceptive field and subcutaneous flap tissue. Subcutaneously embedded innervated island flaps induced nerve regeneration and sensory reinnervation of the denervated skin, suggesting that innervated flaps may also be useful in reconstruction post-SSM/NSM.

Patient satisfaction after nipple-sparing mastectomy with intraoperative radiotherapy and breast reconstruction for breast cancer

Introduction The use of nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) combined with breast reconstruction is increasing in breast cancer surgeries despite its controversial safety profile. To reduce the recurrence rate of tumors in the nipple-areola complex (NAC), we used intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT). The purpose of this study was to explore patients’ feedback on this novel treatment strategy. Patients and methods From January 2014 to May 2018, eligible patients with breast cancer were enrolled in this study and separated into 2 groups. Patients in the NSM group underwent IORT to the NAC flap, and patients in the skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) group underwent SSM and breast reconstruction. The postoperative satisfaction was collected and assessed using the Breast-Q reconstruction questionnaire and a standardized questionnaire; this was compared between the 2 groups. Results There were 46 patients (52 NSMs) in the NSM group and 20 patients (22 SSMs) in the SSM group. The breast-Q scores were higher in the NSM group than the SSM group, with trends for a ‘higher satisfaction with breasts’ (67.39 ± 20.59 vs. 55.00 ± 19.33; p = 0.026) and ‘higher sexual well-being’ (61.74 ± 22.24 vs. 49.50 ± 20.12; p = 0.039). All the patients recognized the importance of nipple preservation. Thirty-seven women (80.40%) were satisfied or very satisfied with the appearance and shape of the NAC in the NSM group, while 38/46 women (82.60%) were very unsatisfied or unsatisfied with the sensitivity of the nipples. Conclusions The Breast-Q scores showed great satisfaction with breasts and sexual well-being in the NSM group. However, more effort should be made in improving postoperative NAC sensitivity.

Retrospective analysis between complication and nipple areola complex preservation in direct-to-implant breast reconstruction.

Since the introduction of skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM), more breast surgeons have been preserving the areola and often nipple areolar complex (NAC) entirely. For better outcomes, more studies are necessary to analyze whether preserving the areola or NAC is unfavorable in breast reconstruction. The aim of this study was to assess the potential risk of areola or NAC preservation in direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction after SSM. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who underwent immediate breast reconstruction from May 2011 to July 2017. Immediate breast reconstruction was performed with DTI procedure in all cases. In total, 213 breasts met the inclusion criteria and were divided into 3 groups: nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM), aerola-sparing mastectomy (ASM) which only nipple is excised, and skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) which whole NAC was excised. Complications including infection, capsular contracture, skin necrosis and explantation were measured. The mean patient age was 45.3 years, with a range of 27-62 years; the mean follow-up was 3.08 years. NSM, ASM and SSM groups consisted of 121, 30 and 62 breasts, respectively. The Infection rates were statistically lower in SSM group (4.8%) compared with NSM group (15.7%) (P=0.033) but not statistically different from ASM group (13.3%) (P=0.210). SSM group showed significantly lower rate of overall complication compared with both NSM and ASM groups (P=0.005, 0.025 respectively). Our research suggests that preservation of the NAC increases the rate of infection and skin necrosis in DTI breast reconstruction.

Delivery of nipple-sparing mastectomy within a single healthcare system: The impact of provider preferences.

Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) offers superior esthetic outcomes without sacrificing oncologic safety for select patients requiring mastectomy. While disparities in oncologic care are well established, no study to date has investigated equitable delivery of the various mastectomy types. The objective of this study is to examine multilevel factors related to the distribution of NSM. Patients undergoing mastectomy between 2014 and 2018acrosseight hospitalsin a single healthcare systemwere retrospectively reviewed.Patients were categorized by mastectomy type-NSM or other mastectomy (OM). Patient information such as age, race, comorbidities, and median income by ZIP code was collected. Diseasecharacteristics, such as mastectomy weight, breast cancer stage, and treatment history,were identified. Provider and system-level variables, such as specific provider, hospital of operation, and insurance status, weredetermined. Bivariate analysis was used to identify variables for inclusion in a backward multivariable model. A cohort of 1202 mastectomy patients was identified, with 388 receiving NSM. The average age was 55.8years (NSM: 48.8, OM: 59.1, P<.001). 39.8% of white patients (n=242) and 20.0% of African American patients (n=88) received NSM (P<.001). Average mastectomy weight was 384.3 (SD 195.7) in the NSM group, compared to 839.4 (SD 521.1) in the OM group (P<.001). 41.4% (n=359) of patients treated at academic centers, and 6.9% (n=21) of patients treated at community centers received NSM (P<.001). In the multivariate model, the factor with the largest impact on NSM was specific provider. Odds of NSM decreased by 76%-88% for certain surgeons, while odds increased by 63 times for one surgeon. This study utilizes a large multi-institutional database to highlight disparities in NSM delivery. Expectedly, younger, relatively healthy patients, with smaller breast size were more likely to undergo NSM, in accordance with surgical guidelines. However, when all other factors were controlled, provider preferences played the most significant role in NSM delivery rates. These findings demonstrate the need for practice reexamination to ensure equitable access to NSM.

A Propensity Score-matched Analysis of Long-term Oncologic Outcomes After Nipple-sparing Versus Conventional Mastectomy for Locally Advanced Breast Cancer.

To compare the long-term oncologic outcomes of nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) with those of conventional mastectomy (CM) in patients with locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). NSM has been increasingly implemented in patients with breast cancer. However, oncologic efficacy of NSM in patients with LABC has not been sufficiently demonstrated. The study group comprised 850 patients with clinical stage IIB to IIIC breast cancer who underwent NACT followed by either NSM and immediate breast reconstruction or CM alone. After propensity score-matching, 418 patients were included in the analysis. Local recurrence-free survival, disease-free survival (DFS), distant metastasis-free survival, and overall survival (OS) rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank tests between the NSM and CM groups. After matching, the mean follow-up period was 70 ± 25 months for the NSM group and 74 ± 27 months for the CM group ( P = 0.181). There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of 6-year local recurrence-free survival (91.6% vs. 95.8%; P = 0.239), DFS (70.5% vs. 73.4%; P = 0.583), distant metastasis-free survival (79.8% vs. 77.4%; P = 0.320), or OS (87.6% vs. 84.8%; P = 0.465) rates. Additionally, we identified 30 patients in the NSM group who initially presented with tumor extension in the subareolar area; the nipple-areola complex was successfully preserved after NACT, and no recurrence at the nipple was observed in these patients. In this matched control study, we demonstrated comparable long-term oncologic outcomes between NSM with immediate reconstruction and CM alone after NACT for LABC. In patients who had tumors extending to the subareolar area before NACT, NSM can be tried if tumor involvement of the nipple-areola complex appears resolved on imaging studies after chemotherapy.

Microwave Ablation Versus Nipple Sparing Mastectomy for Breast Cancer ≤5 cm: A Pilot Cohort Study.

ObjectivesCompared with nipple sparing mastectomy (NSM), microwave ablation (MWA) is one relatively new modality indicated for selected breast cancer with nipple sparing and with little of evidence-based medical research for decision-making. The objective of this study was to compare the effect of ultrasound-guided percutaneous MWA and NSM for breast cancer.Materials and MethodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted in a single institution from 2014 to 2020. Women with invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast ≤ 5cm treated by MWA or NSM were enrolled. The primary end point was tumor progression and secondary end points included survival, cosmetic results, and complications.Results21 patients in the MWA group and 43 in the NSM group were evaluated. The mean tumor size was 2.3 cm (range, 0.3–5.0 cm). Median follow-up was 26.7 months (range, 14.6–62.5 months). The mean age of MWA was 24 years older than that of the NSM group. All the patients achieved technique effectiveness. One local tumor progression and one ipsilateral breast recurrence occurred at 42 and 28 months after MWA, respectively. One ipsilateral breast recurrence and two bone metastasis occurred at 31.2, 34, and 30.5 months after NSM. Two groups had no significant difference in tumor progression (P = 0.16). No participants in both groups developed cancer related death (P > 0.99) and major complications (P > 0.99). However, MWA needed less hospitalization time (P < 0.001) and achieved better cosmetic results (P < 0.001).ConclusionsMWA achieved similar short term effect for breast cancer control and better cosmetic satisfaction compared with NSM in selected patients. MWA provides appropriate option for elderly patients who are unfit for surgery.

Nipple-sparing Mastectomy and Immediate Breast Reconstruction After Recurrence From Previous Breast Conservation Therapy.

Breast conservation therapy (BCT) is widely accepted for breast cancer treatment. Nipple-sparing mastectomy has been newly developed to preserve the nipple-areolar complex and enhance aesthetic results. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the oncological safety and results of nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) after previous BCT. Eighteen patients who received NSM and immediate breast reconstruction for local recurrence after BCT were identified. An additional 127 affected breasts with NSM and immediate breast reconstruction for primary breast cancer were selected as the control group. The patient disease status, reconstructive method, postoperative complications, and oncological outcome were investigated. No apparent significant differences between the 2 groups were found regarding patient demographic data, tumor stage, reconstructive method, surgical complication, or tumor recurrence rate (all P values >0.05), except preoperative radiotherapy was higher in secondary NSM group (0% vs 77.8%, P < 0.001). The further nipple and secondary deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap reconstruction rate was higher in the secondary NSM group (11.1% vs 0.8%, P = 0.041 and 16.7% vs 2.4%, P = 0.026, respectively). Prior BCT did not contribute to higher surgical complications in patients who received NSM and immediate reconstruction as a salvage procedure after tumor local recurrence. The oncological safety, general surgical result, and postoperative patient-reported satisfaction remain safe and reliable despite prior ipsilateral surgery and radiation. Care should be taken for possible higher nipple necrosis in the secondary NSM patients.

Oncological safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy in young patients with breast cancer compared with conventional mastectomy.

Although nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is being used more frequently, the oncological safety of NSM remains unclear, particularly in young patients (<35 years). The aim of the present study was to compare the rates of local recurrence (LR), disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in young patients with breast cancer who had undergone NSM or conventional mastectomy (CM). The clinicopathological data of young patients with stage 0–IIB breast cancer who had undergone NSM (163 cases) or CM (194 cases) between 2007 and 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. The log-rank test was used to analyze the differences in the LR, DFS and OS rates between the two groups and multivariate analysis was used to analyze the patient prognostic factors for DFS. The median follow-up time was 49 months. Patients who had undergone CM were more likely to exhibit stage II disease (68.4 vs. 58.3%; P=0.015) and positive lymph nodes (45.9 vs. 33.1%; P=0.014). In the NSM group, LR occurred in 7 (4.3%) cases, systemic recurrence in 15 (9.2%) cases and mortality in 9 (5.5%) cases. In the CM group, LR occurred in 6 (3.1%) cases, systemic recurrence in 27 (13.9%) cases and mortality in 15 (7.7%) cases. There were no statistical differences in the LR, DFS and OS rates between the two groups (P>0.05). Following adjustment for clinical stage, the LR and DFS rates between the two groups exhibited no significant differences. Analysis of the prognostic factors demonstrated that clinical stage, lymph node status, estrogen and progesterone receptor status and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status were associated with DFS (P<0.05). NSM is safe for young patients with early-stage breast cancer and provides patients with an improved cosmetic outcome. Furthermore, nipple-areola complex preservation does not increase the risk of recurrence.

In the Age of Breast Augmentation, Breast Reconstruction Provides an Opportunity to Augment the Breast.

Background:Augmentation mammoplasty remains the most common cosmetic surgery procedure performed. The objective of this article is to evaluate the impact of augmented volume of the reconstructed breast in patients that undergo nipple-sparing mastectomy and patients previously augmented who undergo mastectomy with tissue expander/implant-based reconstruction.Methods:Patients undergoing skin-sparing mastectomy, nipple-sparing mastectomy, and mastectomy after previous augmentation followed by tissue expander/implant-based reconstruction between June 2011 and April 2015 by 2 surgeons at the same institution were included. Retrospective chart review of the patients identified using these criteria was performed to record patient characteristics, complications, breast volume, implant volume, and percentage change in volume at the time of reconstruction. Percentage change of breast volume was calculated using the formula (implant breast weight)/(breast weight) for skin-sparing and nipple-sparing mastectomy patients and (final breast implant weight − [breast weight + augmentation breast implant weight])/([breast weight + augmentation breast implant]) for patients undergoing mastectomy following previous augmentation.Results:A total of 293 patients were included in the study with 63 patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy, 166 patients who underwent skin-sparing mastectomy, and 64 patients who underwent previous augmentation with subsequent mastectomy. Mean percentage change in breast volume was 66% in the nipple-sparing mastectomy group, 15% for the right breast and 18% for the left breast in the skin-sparing mastectomy group, and 81% for the right breast and 72% for the left breast in the mastectomy following previous augmentation group. Complication rate for nipple-sparing mastectomy was 27%, mastectomy following previous augmentation was 20.3%, and skin-sparing mastectomy group was 18.7%.Conclusion:Patients who undergo nipple-sparing mastectomy or mastectomy following previous augmentation have the ability to achieve greater volume in their reconstructed breast via tissue expander/implant-based reconstruction.

Quality-of-Life Outcomes Improve with Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction.

Loss of the nipple-areola complex can be psychologically and sexually devastating. Nipple-sparing mastectomy provides robust cosmetic results, but few studies have investigated the quality-of-life outcomes associated with it. The authors performed an institutional review board-approved retrospective study of 32 patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy with implant-based or autologous reconstruction and 32 control patients who underwent non-nipple-sparing mastectomy with reconstruction matched by reconstruction type and operative period. They then compared premastectomy and postreconstruction responses to the BREAST-Q, a validated and breast reconstruction-specific quality-of-life questionnaire, within and between their study and control populations. The nipple-sparing and non-nipple-sparing mastectomy groups were statistically similar in terms of mean age [49.9 ± 8.5 years (range, 36 to 69 years) and 47.7 ± 10.3 years (range, 26 to 68 years) (p = 0.29), respectively] and mean body mass index [24.3 ± 3.5 kg/m (range, 17.9 to 33.7 kg/m) and 25.5 ± 5.4 kg/m (range, 19.2 to 39.2 kg/m) (p = 0.29), respectively]. There were no significant between-group differences in occurrence of postreconstruction complications. The authors found significantly higher mean postreconstruction scores in the nipple-sparing mastectomy group within the Satisfaction with Breasts (p = 0.039) and the Satisfaction with Outcome (p = 0.017) domains. Finally, they noted higher median postreconstruction scores in the nipple-sparing mastectomy group within the Psychosocial Well-being (p = 0.043) and Satisfaction with Breasts (p = 0.004) domains. Psychological concerns regarding malignancy may negatively impact premastectomy patient quality of life. Reconstructive surgery improves patients' postmastectomy quality of life. Nipple-sparing mastectomy appears to provide significantly better improvement in postreconstruction quality of life, specifically in the Satisfaction with Breasts and Satisfaction with Outcome domains of the BREAST-Q, compared with non-nipple-sparing mastectomies. Therapeutic, III.

Nipple sparing mastectomy for breast cancer is associated with high patient satisfaction and safe oncological outcomes

BackgroundThe preservation of the nipple areolar complex (NAC) for cancer treatment is still a matter of debate because of suspected increase of local recurrence and surgery-specific complications. The aim of the study was to investigate both the relapse risk associated with nipple sparing mastectomy (NSM) for breast cancer and women's satisfaction with preservation of the NAC. MethodsWe included retrospectively all patients who had skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) or NSM from 2007 to 2012 for breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). We compared NSM and SSM group for oncological and surgical outcomes. Patients’ satisfaction and quality of life has been evaluated by a specifically designed questionnaire. ResultsWe included 63NSM (41.5%) and 89SM (58.5%). Eighty-nine (58.6%) patients had DCIS, and the other had small invasive disease. Median follow-up was 42 (IQR: 18–58) months. Local recurrence rate was 1.7% (n=1) in the NSM group and 0% in the SSM group without recurrence in the preserved nipple. After NSM, one patient had complete NAC necrosis, and three patients suffered partial necrosis. Satisfaction with the NAC was higher in the NSM group compared to the SSM group with delayed reconstruction of the nipple (75% vs. 59%, P=0.14). Patients with NSM required less psychological support before (P=0.028) and immediately after surgery (P=0.14) than patients in the SSM group. ConclusionNSM can successfully and safely be performed for pre-invasive and small invasive breast cancer. Besides esthetic aspects, preserving the nipple may ease the acceptance of these radical form of surgery.

The Nipple-Areola Preserving Mastectomy: The Value of Adding a Delay Procedure.

Background:Conservative mastectomy procedures, such as the nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM), present appealing options for patients with small invasive or noninvasive malignancies and those needing prophylactic mastectomies. Despite outstanding postoperative cosmetic results, nipple–areola complex (NAC) and mastectomy skin flap (MSF) survival remains a concern. We present our two-stage nipple–areola preserving (NAP) mastectomy, which aims to decrease the rate of NAC loss and MSF necrosis after conservative mastectomies.Material and Methods:Seventy patients who underwent NSM because of malignant and benign conditions were divided into 2 groups: those who underwent our two-stage NAP mastectomy were matched to the group of mastectomy patients without preservation techniques. Demographic data and postoperative results were retrospectively assessed.Results:The NAP group comprised 45 flaps (24 patients), and the NSM group comprised 75 flaps (46 patients). None were actively smoking. The mean time between the delay of the flap and breast reconstruction was 17.6 days (range, of 10–35 days) in the NAP group. No signs of NAC vascular compromise were observed in the NAP group. Nipple necrosis rates were significantly greater (P = 0.0136) in the NSM group: 9 cases in the NSM group versus none within the NAP group. Two patients within the NAP group required nipple excision at the time of their mastectomies after biopsies performed at the time of the NAC delay were positive for malignancy or atypia.Conclusions:Vascular delay techniques favor the blood supply of a tissue after a surgical wound, effectively improving the survival of the NAC and MSF after nipple-sparing mastectomies.

Oncologic Safety of Immediate Breast Reconstruction in Breast Cancer Patients Who Underwent Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Short-Term Outcomes of a Matched Case–Control Study

IntroductionAlthough the indication for immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) after skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) or nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) has been expanded, IBR after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) is still controversial. We conducted retrospective matched case–control study to analyze oncologic outcomes between patients who underwent TM only and those who underwent IBR after SSM or NSM after NACT. Patients and MethodsA retrospective review of breast cancer patients who underwent IBR after SSM or NSM after NACT between 2008 and 2015 at a single center was conducted. These cases were maximally matched by 1:5 to patients who underwent total mastectomy (TM) alone after NACT. Matching variables included age, clinical T and N stage before NACT, response to NACT, and pathologic stage after NACT. Pathologic stage followed the 7th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) classification. ResultsOverall, 31 patients were enrolled onto the IBR after SSM or NSM group (study group) and matched to 85 patients (control group). In the study group, 13 patients (41.9%) underwent NSM and 18 (58.1%) underwent SSM. Median follow-up duration was 29.2 (range, 7-31) and 38.8 (range, 11-85) months for the study and control groups (P = .012), respectively, and median age was 37.0 (range, 26-57) and 40.0 (range, 24-56) years (P = .890), respectively. Overall survival (P = .971), disease-free survival (P = .520), distant metastasis-free survival (P = .795), and local recurrence-free survival (P = .628) did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. ConclusionIBR after SSM or NSM might be a feasible surgical treatment option even in breast cancer patients who underwent NACT.

Patient Satisfaction and Nipple-Areola Sensitivity After Bilateral Prophylactic Mastectomy and Immediate Implant Breast Reconstruction in a High Breast Cancer Risk Population: Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy Versus Skin-Sparing Mastectomy.

Prophylactic skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) and nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) both are associated with major risk reduction in women with high breast cancer risk. Skin-sparing mastectomy followed by nipple-areola complex (NAC) reconstruction is standard of care, but NSM is increasingly being performed. Preservation of the NAC in NSM may increase patient satisfaction. Therefore, we measured NAC sensitivity after NSM and compared patient satisfaction as well as body image after SSM with NSM. Women who underwent prophylactic bilateral SSM or NSM and immediate implant breast reconstruction between 2002 and 2012 were eligible. Patient satisfaction was assessed using the Breast-Q reconstruction questionnaire, body image using Hopwood's body image scale (BIS), and satisfaction with the (reconstructed) NAC using a study-specific questionnaire. In the NSM group, NAC sensitivity was assessed using Semmes Weinstein monofilaments with a 5-point scale and compared with NAC sensitivity in a nonoperated control group. The SSM group comprised 25 women (50 SSMs) and the NSM group 20 women (39 NSMs). Median follow-up was 65 months in the SSM group compared with 27 months in the NSM group (P < 0.01). In univariable analyses, Breast-Q scores were favorable in the SSM group compared with the NSM group with trends for higher "satisfaction with breasts" (66.2 vs 56.6; P = 0.06) and "satisfaction with outcome" (76.1 vs 61.5; P = 0.09). Mean BIS score of 7.1/30 in the SSM group and 9.3/30 in the NSM group (P = 0.35). Adjusted for follow-up, there were no significant differences in Breast-Q scores, nor in BIS scores. Interestingly, satisfaction with the (reconstructed) NAC was similar after SSM and NSM. Nipple-areola complex sensitivity was lower in the NSM group (mean score, 1.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-2.3) compared with the control group (mean score, 4.7; 95% confidence interval, 4.6-4.9; P < 0.01). Breast-Q scores regarding satisfaction with breasts and overall outcome were in favor of the SSM group. Residual NAC sensitivity after NSM was low. This suggests that SSM followed by NAC reconstruction is a balanced alternative to NSM. We observed no significant differences in body image and NAC-specific satisfaction between the NSM and SSM groups.

Initial Experience Using Closed Incision Negative Pressure Therapy after Immediate Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction.

Summary:Although immediate postmastectomy breast reconstruction is favored over delayed reconstruction, it remains associated with high complication rates. Potential complications include seroma formation, dehiscence, infection, and tissue necrosis along incision edges. Closed incision negative pressure therapy (ciNPT; Prevena Incision Management System, KCI, an Acelity company, San Antonio, Tex.) has been reported to help hold incision edges together, protect incisions from external contamination, and remove fluid and infectious material. We investigated outcomes of applying ciNPT with a customizable dressing over closed incisions in 13 patients (25 breasts) who received immediate postmastectomy reconstruction as part of 2-stage expander/implant breast reconstruction. Nipple-sparing mastectomy was performed on 14 breasts, reduction-pattern mastectomy on 6 breasts, and skin-sparing mastectomy on 5 breasts. All breasts had ciNPT with a customizable dressing applied over the entire clean closed incision immediately after surgery at −125 mmHg for an average of 4.3 days. At 3-month follow-up, 24 of the 25 (96%) breasts had achieved healing. Delayed hematoma occurred on postoperative day 13 in 1 breast in the nipple-sparing mastectomy group and resolved. In the reduction-pattern mastectomy group, superficial dehiscence occurred on 3 breasts and resolved with local wound care. One breast in that group developed flap necrosis requiring surgical revision. Less drainage was observed in attached closed-suction drains, so time to drain removal was reduced from an estimated average of 12–14 days to 8.2 days. Based on the initial experience in this study, larger studies are warranted to evaluate the use of ciNPT with customizable or peel-and-place dressings after immediate postmastectomy breast reconstruction.