Endoscopic nipple sparing mastectomy with immediate implant-based reconstruction versus breast conserving surgery: a long-term study

Comparison of minimal access and open breast surgery: a propensity score-matched study on postoperative immune function in breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Minimal access breast surgery (MABS) is commonly employed in the management of breast cancer, but there is limited research on the postoperative immune function associated with MABS.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the postoperative immune function in breast patients who underwent MABS or conventional open breast surgery (COBS).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 829 breast cancer patients treated with either MABS or COBS at a single hospital between January 2020 and June 2023. Among them, 116 matched pairs were obtained through 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM). Flow cytometry was used to measure the percentages of CD3+, CD4+, and CD8+ cells, as well as the CD4+/CD8+ ratio, on three different time points: preoperative day 1 (PreD1), postoperative day 1 (PostD1), and postoperative day 7 (PostD7).

RESULTS

Both the MABS and COBS groups demonstrated a significant reduction in the percentages of CD3+, CD4+, and CD8+ cells, along with the CD4+/CD8+ ratio, from PreD1 to PostD1. Interestingly, the MABS group showed a reversal of these parameters, returning to preoperative levels by PostD7. Conversely, the COBS group showed an increase in these parameters from PostD1 to PostD7, but they still remained significantly lower than preoperative levels at PostD7.

CONCLUSION

MABS treatment may result in reduced postoperative immune suppression and faster recovery of preoperative immune function compared to COBS in patients.

Overall survival after mastectomy versus breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy for early-stage breast cancer: meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy and mastectomy are currently offered as equivalent surgical options for early-stage breast cancer based on RCTs from the 1970s and 1980s. However, the treatment of breast cancer has evolved and recent observational studies suggest a survival advantage for breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy. A systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to summarize the contemporary evidence regarding survival after breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy versus mastectomy for women with early-stage breast cancer.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Embase that identified studies published between 1 January 2000 and 18 December 2023 comparing overall survival after breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy versus mastectomy for patients with unilateral stage 1-3 breast cancer was undertaken. The main exclusion criteria were studies evaluating neoadjuvant chemotherapy, rare breast cancer subtypes, and specific breast cancer populations. The ROBINS-I tool was used to assess risk of bias, with the overall certainty of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. Studies without critical risk of bias were included in a quantitative meta-analysis.

RESULTS

From 11 750 abstracts, 108 eligible articles were identified, with one article including two studies; 29 studies were excluded from the meta-analysis due to an overall critical risk of bias, 42 studies were excluded due to overlapping study populations, and three studies were excluded due to reporting incompatible results. A total of 35 observational studies reported survival outcomes for 909 077 patients (362 390 patients undergoing mastectomy and 546 687 patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy). The pooled HR was 0.72 (95% c.i. 0.68 to 0.75, P < 0.001), demonstrating improved overall survival for patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy. The overall certainty of the evidence was very low.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis provides evidence suggesting a survival advantage for women undergoing breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy for early-stage breast cancer compared with mastectomy. Although these results should be interpreted with caution, they should be shared with patients to support informed surgical decision-making.

Is minimal-accessed (endoscopic- or robotic-assisted) nipple-sparing mastectomy contraindicated for large breasts?

BACKGROUND

In the developmental stage of minimal-accessed nipple-sparing mastectomy (MA-NSM), selecting patients with small to medium-sized breasts was common for better cosmetic outcomes and oncological safety. However, the suitability of MA-NSM for large, ptotic breasts remained uncertain. This retrospective study aim to assess MA-NSM outcomes in patients with large breasts.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included patients receiving conventional NSM (C-NSM) and MA-NSM from January 2011 to September 2022, at a single institution. We analyzed perioperative parameters and clinical outcomes based on breast specimen size, classified as small (≤300 g), medium (>300-450 g), large (>450-600 g), and very large (>600 g).

RESULTS

A total of 728 patients was enrolled. C-NSM was performed in 51% (371/728) of cases, while MA-NSM was done in 49% (357/728). The overall complication rate of MA-NSM was comparable to C-NSM (p = 0.573), but severe complications (Clavien-Dindo, CD III) was significantly reported more following C-NSM, regardless of breast size. During a median follow-up of 52 months, no significant difference in oncological outcomes was observed. Comparing MA-NSM and C-NSM outcomes in large-very large breasts (>450 g), MA-NSM demonstrated significantly less blood loss (p = 0.036) and lower incidence of severe complications (CD ≥ III) compared to C-NSM (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

MA-NSM is feasible for large breasts and offers benefits by reducing blood loss and decreasing the incidence of severe complications (CD ≥ III) in this patient group.

Reverse-sequence endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate implant-based breast reconstruction: an improvement of conventional minimal access breast surgery

Background

Our center proposes a new technique that effectively provides space to broaden the surgical field of view and overcomes the limitations of endoscopy-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy (E-NSM) by changing the dissection sequence and combining it with air inflation. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of the new technique designated "reverse-sequence endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy (R-E-NSM) with subpectoral breast reconstruction (SBR)" and the conventional E-NSM (C-E-NSM) with SBR.

Method

All patients undergoing E-NSM with SBR at our breast center between April 2017 and December 2022 were included in this study. The cohort was divided into the C-E-NSM group and the R-E-NSM group. The operation time, anesthesia time, medical cost, complications, cosmetic outcomes, and oncological safety were compared.

Results

Twenty-six and seventy-nine consecutive patients were included in the C-E-NSM and R-E-NSM groups, with average ages of 36.9 ± 7.0 years and 39.7 ± 8.4 years (P=0.128). Patients in the R-E-NSM group had significantly shorter operation time (204.6 ± 59.2 vs. 318.9 ± 75.5 minutes, p<0.001) and anesthesia time (279.4 ± 83.9 vs. 408.9 ± 87.4 minutes, p<0.001) and decreased medical costs [5063.4 (4439.6-6532.3) vs. 6404.2 (5152.5-7981.5), USD, p=0.001] and increase SCAR-Q scores (77.2 ± 17.1 vs. 68.8 ± 8.7, P=0.002) compared to the C-E-NSM group. Although trends increased in both the excellent rate of Ueda scores (53.8% vs. 42.3%, P = 0.144), excellent rate of Harris scores (44.0% vs. 63.1%, P=0.102), and decreased surgical complications (7.6% vs. 19.2%, P = 0.135) were observed in the R-E-NSM group, the differences were not significant. There were no significant differences in oncological outcomes between the two groups.

Conclusion

R-E-NSM improves cosmetic outcomes and efficiency of C-E-NSM, reduces medical costs, and has a trend of lower surgical complications while maintaining the safety of oncology. It is a safe and feasible option for oncological procedures that deserves to be promoted and widely adopted in practice.

Transaxillary Single-Port Endoscopic Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy with Immediate Implant-based Breast Reconstruction in Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy or Not: A Comparative Study with Analysis of Surgical Complications and Patient-Reported Outcomes

BACKGROUND

In most cases, transaxillary single-port endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (E-NSM-IIBR) is conducted in patients with early-stage breast cancer, ensuring surgical safety while achieving improved breast aesthetics. However, whether E-NSM-IIBR is appropriate in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is still unclear. The aim of this study was to report the surgical safety and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of breast cancer patients who underwent E-NSM-IIBR with NAC in comparison to those who did not receive NAC.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients who underwent E-NSM-IIBR with or without NAC at a single center between January 2021 and July 2022. Patient demographics, postoperative complications, and PROs evaluated using the BREAST-Q version 2.0 questionnaire were compared between the two groups. Factors associated with PROs at 9 months after surgery were assessed with linear regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 92 patients who underwent E-NSM-IIBR were included in the study, with 27 patients receiving NAC and 65 patients not receiving NAC. There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between the two groups. The BREAST-Q version 2.0 questionnaire was completed by 24 out of 27 patients (88.9%) in the NAC group and 59 out of 65 patients (90.8%) in the non-NAC group at 9 months after surgery. The patient-reported outcomes in various domains of the BREAST-Q did not show a significant difference between the two cohorts. The results of the multiple linear regression analysis indicated that in the both groups age (β = - 0.985, 95% CI - 1.598 to - 0.371, p = 0.003 in the NAC group; β = - 0.510, - 1.011 to - 0.009, p = 0.046 in the non-NAC group) and rippling (β = - 21.862, - 36.768 to - 6.955, p = 0.006 in the NAC group; β = - 7.787, - 15.151 to - 0.423, p = 0.039 in the non-NAC group) significantly impacted the patients' satisfaction with breasts, and PMRT was negatively associated with patients' physical well-being of chest (β = - 13.813, - 26.962 to - 0.664, p = 0.040 in the NAC group; β = - 18.574, - 30.661 to - 6.487, p = 0.003 in the non-NAC group). Our findings revealed that patients with larger implant volumes had higher scores in psychosocial well-being (β = 0.082, 0.001 to 0.162, p = 0.047), whereas implant displacement (β = - 14.937, - 28.175 to - 1.700, p=0.028) had a negative impact on patients' psychological well-being in the non-NAC group. However, our results did not demonstrate any significant influencing factors on patients' psychosocial well-being within the NAC group.

CONCLUSION

Our preliminary experiences confirm that E-NSM-IIBR is a safe option for selected patients even after NAC, with favorable patient-reported outcomes comparable with those in the primary surgery setting. The postoperative long-term outcomes of patients who undergo radiation therapy after NAC merit further investigation in the future.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Single-port three-dimensional (3D) endoscopic-assisted breast surgery-preliminary results and patient-reported satisfaction in 145 breast cancer and gynecomastia cases

BACKGROUND

Minimal-accessed (robotic and endoscopic) breast cancer surgery is increasingly performed due to better cosmetic results and acceptable oncological outcomes. This study aims to demonstrate the clinical safety and patient-reported cosmetic satisfaction of single-port three-dimensional endoscopic-assisted breast surgery (S-P 3D EABS), which is our new endoscopic surgical innovation, in both malignant and benign breast conditions.

METHODS

Patients who underwent S-P 3D EABS from 1 August 2018 to 31 July 2022 in a single institution were enrolled. Clinical outcomes of this procedure were retrospectively reviewed, and the patient-reported cosmetic satisfaction was evaluated by a questionnaire and reported herein.

RESULTS

During the study period, 145 patients underwent 164 procedures of S-P 3D EABS. One hundred fifty (91.5%) procedures were endoscopic-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy (S-P 3D E-NSM; 117 therapeutic procedures for breast cancer, 13 prophylactic mastectomies, 20 procedures for gynecomastia). Fourteen (8.5%) procedures of endoscopic-assisted breast-conserving surgery (S-P 3D E-BCS) were performed (12 S-P 3D E-BCS, 2 S-P 3D E-BCS with 3D videoscope-assisted partial breast reconstruction, which was 1 case of latissimus dorsi flap and 1 case of omental flap). The mean operative time was 245 ± 110 min in S-P 3D E-NSM and 260 ± 142 min in S-P 3D E-BCS. The mean intraoperative blood loss was 49.7 ± 46.9 ml in S-P 3D E-NSM and 32.8 ± 17.5 ml in S-P 3D E-BCS. Subnipple biopsy showed positive malignancy in 3 (2.6%) S-P 3D E-NSM patients. None of the S-P 3D E-BCS patients found margin involvement; however, 3 (2.6%) reported margin involvement in S-P 3D E-NSM patients. Thirty-two complications were found (24.6%): 7 (5.3%) transient nipple-areolar complex (NAC) ischemia, 7 (5.3%) partial NAC necrosis, 1 (0.7%) total NAC necrosis, and 1 (0.7%) implant loss. During the mean follow-up time of 34 months, there were 2 (1.5%) patients with locoregional recurrence, 9 (6.9%) distant metastasis, and 2 (1.5%) mortality. 78.6% (77/98) of patients answering the cosmetic-evaluated questionnaire reported good and excellent overall satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

S-P 3D EABS is a novel surgical innovation, which is able to perform safely in either malignant or benign breast conditions and offer promising cosmetic results.

Trans-axillary single port insufflation technique-assisted endoscopic surgery for breast diseases: Clinic experience, cosmetic outcome and oncologic result

Purpose

With an increasing demand for postoperative cosmetic effects in breast diseases, the single port by trans-axillary incision and air-inflation system, which provided better space and spared the assistant the effort of retraction, is widely used in clinic surgical treatment for multiple breast diseases.

Methods

According to inclusion and exclusion criteria, patients who underwent trans-axillary single-incision surgery at Tianjin Medical University Cancer Hospital between December 2020 and July 2022 were included in the study. We collected and analyzed data on age, fertility history, ultrasound grade, clinical stage, pathological results, oncological prognosis, patient-centered cosmetic outcome, etc.

Results

A total of 115 cases were included, of which 33 patients with benign disease underwent mass resection, 68 patients with malignant tumors underwent mastectomy. 10 patients had a special type of breast lesion. A mastectomy was performed in 4 patients with male mammary gland development. Of the 115 cases, the maximum mass diameter was 3.00 ± 1.644 (0.6–8.5) cm. Blood loss during surgery was 85.77 ± 50.342 (10-200) ml. The surgery took 131.84 ± 59.332 (30-280) minutes to complete. The patient spent a total of 5.05 ± 2.305 (2-18) days in the hospital. And the length of surgical incision in all patients was 3.83 ± 0.884 (3-8) cm. All patients were very satisfied with the appearance of their breasts after dressing. 94.78% of patients were satisfied with the position of the incision.

Conclusion

Through this study, we believe that in benign breast diseases and malignant breast tumors, trans-axillary single port insufflation technique-assisted endoscopic surgery has oncological safety and an aesthetic effect for most people with breast diseases.

A Preliminary Experience of Endoscopic Total Mastectomy With Immediate Free Abdominal-Based Perforator Flap Reconstruction Using Minimal Incisions, and Literature Review

PURPOSE

Endoscopic total mastectomy (ETM) is predominantly performed with reconstruction using prostheses, lipofilling, omental flaps, latissimus dorsi flaps, or a combination of these techniques. Common approaches include minimal incisions, e.g., periareolar, inframammary, axillary, or mid-axillary line, which limit the technical ability to perform autologous flap insets and microvascular anastomoses, as such the ETM with free abdominal-based perforator flap reconstruction has not been robustly explored.

METHODS

We studied female patients with breast cancer who underwent ETM and abdominal-based flap reconstruction. Clinical-radiological-pathological characteristics, surgery, complications, recurrence rates, and aesthetic outcomes were reviewed.

RESULTS

Twelve patients underwent ETM with abdominal-based flap reconstruction. The mean age was 53.4 years (range 36-65). Of the patients, 33.3% were surgically treated for stage I, 58.4% for stage II, and 8.3% for stage III cancer. Mean tumor size was 35.4 mm (range 1-67). Mean specimen weight was 458.75 g (range 242-800). Of the patients, 92.3% successfully received endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy and 7.7% underwent intraoperative conversion to skin-sparing mastectomy after carcinoma was reported on frozen section of the nipple base. Mean operative time for ETM was 139 minutes (92-198), and the average ischemic time was 37.3 minutes (range 22-50). Fifty percent of patients underwent deep inferior epigastric perforator, 33.4% underwent MS-2 transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (TRAM), 8.3% underwent MS-1 TRAM, and 8.3% underwent pedicled TRAM flap reconstruction. No cases required re-exploration, no flap failure occurred, margins were clear, and no skin or nipple-areolar complex ischemia/necrosis developed. In the aesthetic outcome evaluation, 16.7% were excellent, 75% good, 8.3% fair, and none were unsatisfactory. No recurrences were observed.

CONCLUSION

ETM through a minimal-access inferior mammary or mid-axillary line approach, followed by immediate pedicled TRAM or free abdominal-based perforator flap reconstruction, can be a safe means of achieving an "aesthetically scarless" mastectomy and reconstruction through minimal incisions.

Association of Long-term Oncologic Prognosis With Minimal Access Breast Surgery vs Conventional Breast Surgery

Importance

Minimal access breast surgery (MABS) has been used in breast cancer management. However, long-term prognostic data associated with MABS vs conventional breast surgery (CBS) are lacking.

Objective

To investigate long-term therapeutic outcomes associated with MABS vs CBS for breast cancer management.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this single-center retrospective cohort study, 9184 individuals were assessed for inclusion. After exclusions, 2412 adult female individuals were included who were diagnosed with stage 0 to III breast cancer, underwent unilateral breast surgery between January 2004 and December 2017, and had no distant metastasis or history of severe underlying disease. Propensity score matching was performed to minimize selection bias. Data were analyzed from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2019.

Exposures

MABS or CBS.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Data on demographic and tumor characteristics and long-term outcomes were collected and analyzed.

Results

This study included 2412 patients (100% female; median [IQR] age, 44 [40-49] years). Of these, 603 patients underwent MABS (endoscopic, endoscopy-assisted, or robot-assisted procedures in 289, 302, and 12 patients, respectively) and 1809 patients underwent CBS. The median follow-up time was 84 months (93 in the MABS group and 80 months in the CBS group). Intergroup differences were not significant for the following parameters: 10-year local recurrence-free survival (93.3% vs 96.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.39; 95% CI, 0.86-2.27; P = .18), regional recurrence-free survival (95.5% vs 96.7%; HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.81-2.36; P = .23), and distant metastasis-free survival (81.0% vs 82.0%; HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74-1.23; P = .72). The 5-, 10-, and 15-year disease-free survival rates in the MABS group were 85.9%, 72.6%, and 69.1%, respectively. The corresponding rates in the CBS group were 85.0%, 76.6%, and 70.7%. The intergroup differences were not significant (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.86-1.31; P = .55). The 5-, 10-, and 15-year overall survival rates in the MABS group were 92.0%, 83.7%, and 83.0%, respectively. The corresponding rates in the CBS group were 93.6%, 88.7%, and 81.0%. The intergroup differences were not significant (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.97-1.72; P = .09). Post hoc subgroup analysis showed no significant intergroup differences in disease-free survival.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, long-term outcomes following MABS were not significantly different from those following CBS in patients with early-stage breast cancer. MABS may be a safe and feasible alternative in this patient population.

Breast cancer recurrence after immediate and delayed postmastectomy breast reconstruction-A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Oncological safety of different types and timings of PMBR after breast cancer remains controversial. Lack of stratified risk assessment in literature makes current clinical and shared decision‐making complex. This is the first systematic review and meta‐analysis to evaluate differences in oncological outcomes after immediate versus delayed postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR) for autologous and implant‐based PMBR separately.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase. The Cochrane Collaboration Handbook and Meta‐analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist were followed for data abstraction. Variability in point estimates attributable to heterogeneity was assessed using I²‐statistic. (Loco)regional breast cancer recurrence rates, distant metastasis rates, and overall breast cancer recurrence rates were pooled in generalized linear mixed models using random effects.

Results

Fifty‐five studies, evaluating 14,217 patients, were included. When comparing immediate versus delayed autologous PMBR, weighted average proportions were: 0.03 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02–0.03) versus 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01–0.04), respectively, for local recurrences, 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01–0.03) versus 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01–0.03) for regional recurrences, and 0.04 (95% CI, 0.03–0.06) versus 0.01 (95% CI, 0.00–0.03) for locoregional recurrences. No statistically significant differences in weighted average proportions for local, regional and locoregional recurrence rates were observed between immediate and delayed autologous PMBR. Data did not allow comparing weighted average proportions of distant metastases and total breast cancer recurrences after autologous PMBR, and of all outcome measures after implant‐based PMBR.

Conclusions

Delayed autologous PMBR leads to similar (loco)regional breast cancer recurrence rates compared to immediate autologous PMBR. This study highlights the paucity of strong evidence on breast cancer recurrence after specific types and timings of PMBR.

Lay summery

Oncologic safety of different types and timings of postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR) remains controversial.

Lack of stratified risk assessment in literature makes clinical and shared decision‐making complex.

This meta‐analysis showed that delayed autologous PMBR leads to similar (loco)regional recurrence rates as immediate autologous PMBR. Data did not allow comparing weighted average proportions of distant metastases and total breast cancer recurrence after autologous PMBR, and of all outcome measures after implant‐based PMBR.

Based on current evidence, oncological concerns do not seem a valid reason to withhold patients from certain reconstructive timings or techniques, and patients should equally be offered all reconstructive options they technically qualify for.

Oncologic safety of different types and timings of postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR) remains controversial. This meta‐analysis showed that delayed autologous PMBR leads to similar (loco)regional breast cancer recurrence rates compared to immediate autologous PMBR.

Triple-negative breast cancer: current treatment strategies and factors of negative prognosis

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women and the most common cause of death in working-age women. According to the results of immunohistochemical studies, 10-20% of cases revealed a triple-negative type of breast cancer. This subtype is characterized by significant proliferative activity and growth rate, aggressive clinical course, and early metastasis. This leads to a suspicious prognosis and, accordingly, encourages an increase of surgical treatment radicalism and aggressive systemic treatment. This review briefly analyzes existing treatment strategies for triple-negative breast cancer with a focus on surgical treatment. Surgical treatment is an integral part of complex therapy. Currently, the attention of researchers is focused not only on the radicalism of the operation, ensuring long-term survival, but also on achieving a good cosmetic result that determines the quality of life of patients. In this aspect, organ-preserving and prosthetic methods of operations are promising, the feasibility and effectiveness of which are being discussed. The relevance of choosing the optimal method of operation is evidenced by the lack of generally accepted approaches based on informative markers for the prognosis of the course of the disease. Therefore, the choice of the optimal method of surgical treatment taking into account the individual characteristics of the patient and the tumor, indications for chemotherapy, and radiation therapy remains an unresolved issue and requires further research.

Oncological safety of therapeutic 'nipple-sparing mastectomy' followed by reconstruction: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer (BC) treatment traditionally consisted of radical and often mutilating surgery. Advances in the field of BC have led to new remedies, enabling the paradigm shift from radical to conservative surgery. New treatments such as nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) are becoming more popular, aiming to improve both oncological and aesthetic outcomes. However, evidence confirming the oncological safety of NSM is currently lacking, hindering its application. This systematic review sought to analyze NSM's oncological safety as an alternative to conventional mastectomy (CM).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A systematic review was performed, respecting the PRISMA guidelines. Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were consulted and searched for keywords: 'nipple-sparing mastectomy' and 'mammaplasty', or combinations of synonyms. Only original studies published between 2000 and 2020 reporting tumor recurrence and/or survival rates with a minimum of 5-year follow-up were included.

RESULTS

From the 1675 unique records found, 14 studies were included, amounting to 5980 female BC patients who underwent NSM plus reconstruction. Included studies described either only ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS, n = 1), only invasive BC (n = 3) or DCIS and invasive BC (n = 10). The most recurrent oncological metrics were 5-year local recurrence (0-10%), locoregional recurrence (0-7.4%), distant recurrence (1.6-15.6%), and overall survival rate (93.1-100%).

CONCLUSION

Based on long-term low BC recurrences and high survival rates, NSM is perceived to be non-inferior to CM from an oncological perspective. This identifies NSM plus reconstruction to be a safe curative treatment. Further studies should aim to elicit clear and applicable selection criteria in order to maximize NSM's potential.

Current Trends in and Indications for Endoscopy-Assisted Breast Surgery for Breast Cancer

Endoscopic oncoplastic breast surgery represents a minimal invasive approach with the aim of both safe excision of cancer and preserving the breast shape. It has less noticeable scar, excellent cosmetic outcomes, high patient satisfaction rate. Recently, relative long-term follow-up results have been reported to be very safe (Soybir and Fukuma, J Breast Health 11:52-58, 2015; Fan et al., Chin Med J 122:2945-2950, 2009; Jiang, Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi 45:439-441, 2007).Operative techniques for both endoscopic breast-conserving surgery and endoscopic nipple/areola/skin-sparing mastectomy have been described in detail. Two different working planes in which one of them is subcutaneous and the other one is sub-mammary planes are being used during the surgery. Surgical technique needs some instruments such as endoscopic retractor, light guided specific mammary retractor, wound protector, and energy device such as bipolar scissor, Harmonic Scalpel, LigaSure, Thunderbeat. Endoscopic breast retractors provide magnified visualization and extensive posterior dissection facility. Tunneling method and the hydro-dissection simplify the technique in the subcutaneous field (Soybir and Fukuma, J Breast Health 11:52-58, 2015; Fan et al., Chin Med J 122:2945-2950, 2009). Oncoplastic reconstruction techniques are also applied after the tumor resection by endoscopic method. The complication rate of endoscopic breast surgery is similar with the rate of open breast surgery. Quite successful local recurrence, distant metastasis, and overall survival rates have been declared. However, it looks reasonable to wait for the results with longer follow-up before having a judgement about oncologic efficiency and safety of the endoscopic breast cancer surgery (Tamaki et al., Nihon Geka Gakkai Zasshi 103(11):835-838, 2002; Leff et al., Breast Cancer Res Treat 125(3):607-625, 2011; Fukuma, Nihon Geka Gakkai Zasshi 116(5):316-319, 2015).Recently some surgeons reported about robotic nipple sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction with Gel implant procedure. Nevertheless, experience with application of a robotic surgery platform in the management of breast cancer is limited. From the preliminary experiences, R-NSM and IBR with Gel implant is a safe procedure, with good cosmetic results, and could be a promising new technique for breast cancer patients indicated for mastectomy (Lai et al., Ann Surg Oncol 26(1):42-52, 2019).

Comparison of Single Incision Endoscopic Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Conventional Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy for Breast Cancer Based on Initial Experience

Purpose

Endoscopic breast surgery for patients with breast cancer was introduced for its superior cosmetic outcomes; it was initially studied in the field of breast-conserving surgery and, more recently, in robotic-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM). The main purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility and safety of endoscopic NSM (E-NSM) in patients with breast cancer by comparing E-NSM and conventional NSM (C-NSM).

Methods

Between May 2017 and October 2020, we retrieved the records of 45 patients who underwent NSM with permanent silicone implants and divided them into the E-NSM group (20 patients) and the C-NSM group (25 patients), depending on the use of the endoscopic device. We also analyzed demographic information, pathology, operative time, and complications.

Results

No significant differences were observed between the 2 groups based on demographic information, postoperative pathological data, mean length of hospital stay, and total number of complications. The mean preparation time for surgery was comparable between both groups. Compared to the C-NSM group, the E-NSM group had a significantly longer mean operative time and, subsequently, a significantly longer mean total operative time and number of complications.

Conclusion

The results showed that E-NSM was feasible and safe with a more inconspicuous incision in patients with breast cancer.

Evolution of minimal access breast surgery

Surgical management of breast cancer has been evolving rapidly over the past 20-30 years. Prior to this, conventional surgical options were limited to either a mastectomy or breast conserving surgery. The demand for better aesthetic outcomes had driven the development of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery where glandular rearrangement or replacement coupled with thoughtfully placed incisions became the standard approach to breast conserving surgery. As breast surgeons and patients demand for improved aesthetic outcomes, minimally invasive or minimal access breast surgery has gained much attention over the past two decades, from endoscopic assisted to robotic-assisted breast surgery more recently. However, there has been a lack of review articles discussing this relatively recent but under-reported subset of surgical techniques in the management of breast cancer. This article aims to discuss the concept and development of minimal access breast surgery along with a review of current literature on its indications, techniques and outcome measures as well as a discussion on the strengths, limitations as well as future directions. Continued improvement in techniques and advancement of technology will definitely increase the likelihood of minimal access techniques being placed as the standard of care in the management of breast cancer.

Postoperative outcomes of breast reconstruction after mastectomy: A retrospective study

Breast reconstruction after mastectomy plays an active role in improving the quality-of-life (QoL) and alleviating the psychological trauma of breast cancer patients, and has become an indispensable part of the comprehensive treatment in breast cancer. However, compared with mastectomy alone, breast reconstruction also increase operative complications. The surgical, oncological outcomes, and cosmetic effect of breast reconstruction remains to be evaluated. Data for patients with breast cancer who underwent breast reconstruction after mastectomy from February 2009 to November 2015 in our hospital were retrospectively analyzed, with a median follow-up time of 44 months. The operating time, blood loss, drainage fluid, postoperative complications, postoperative cosmesis, oncological outcomes, and QoL were evaluated and compared between different reconstruction types. A total of 151 women were included. The flap-based group had higher complication rates of marginal necrosis of incision, while the incidence of capsular contracture was higher in immediate implant group. There was no difference in blood loss, drainage fluid, and other postoperative complications. Several independent factors were associated with increased postoperative complications included diabetic, obese, and reconstruction with flap. There was no significant difference in the disease-free survival rate and overall survival rate between different surgical groups. In terms of cosmetic effect, patients in the tissue expander group were more likely to get a satisfactory postoperative breast appearance. QoL outcomes shown that the tissue expander group has better body image and sexual enjoyment, while there was no significant difference for other QoL domains. In conclusion, different methods of breast reconstruction are safe and feasible for patients with breast cancer, tissue expander implantation following delayed implant breast reconstruction is a more effective treatment on cosmetic and QoL outcomes.