Nipple-sparing mastectomy as treatment for patients with ductal carcinoma in situ: A 10-year follow-up study

Postoperative complications and surgical outcomes of robotic versus conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy in breast cancer: meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is the most common cancer worldwide, with remarkable advances in early diagnosis, systemic treatments, and surgical techniques. Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy has been trialled; however, the complication rates, surgical outcomes, and oncological safety of this approach remain obscure.

METHODS

A systematic search of the literature was conducted from conception until September 2022. Studies examining complications and operative variables where robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy was compared with conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy were included. Primary study outcomes were complications (Clavien-Dindo grade III complications, skin or nipple necrosis, seroma, haematoma, infection, implant loss, and wound dehiscence) and oncological safety (recurrence and positive margins). The secondary outcomes included operative variables, length of stay, cost-effectiveness, learning curve, and aesthetic outcome.

RESULTS

A total of seven studies of overall fair quality, involving 1674 patients, were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Grade 3 complications were reduced in robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy without statistical significance (OR 0.60 (95 per cent c.i. 0.35 to 1.05)). Nipple necrosis was significantly reduced in robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy (OR 0.54 (95 per cent c.i. 0.30 to 0.96); P = 0.03; I2 = 15 per cent). Operating time (mean difference +58.81 min (95 per cent c.i. +28.19 to +89.44 min); P = 0.0002) and length of stay (mean difference +1.23 days (95 per cent c.i. +0.64 to +1.81 days); P < 0.0001) were significantly increased in robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy, whereas the opposite was true for blood loss (mean difference -53.18 ml (95 per cent c.i. -71.78 to -34.58 ml); P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Whilst still in its infancy, robotic breast surgery may become a viable option in breast surgery. Nonetheless, the oncological safety of this approach requires robust assessment.

Nipple-sparing Mastectomy with Immediate Implant-based Reconstruction for Patients with Pure Ductal Carcinoma in Situ

OBJECTIVE

 The presence of an extensive intraductal component is associated to an increasing risk of relapse in the nipple-areola complex. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the outcomes of patients diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) with immediate breast reconstruction using silicone implants.

METHODS

 We retrospectively analyzed the postoperative complications and oncological safety of 67 breast cancer patients diagnosed with pure DCIS who underwent NSM with immediate breast reconstruction using silicone implants between 2004 and 2018.

RESULTS

 Among the 127 NSM procedures performed, 2 hematomas (1.5%) and 1 partial nipple necrosis (0.7%) were observed. After a mean follow-up of 60 months, the local recurrence rate was of 8.9%, the disease-free survival rate was of 90%, and 1 of the patients died.

CONCLUSION

 Despite the local recurrence rate, we showed that NSM with immediate breast reconstruction using silicone implants is a feasible surgical approach, with a low rate of complications and high survival rates for patients with a diagnosis of pure DCIS when breast-conserving surgery is not an option.

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

Background

Currently, 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).

Methods

Population-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.

Results

A 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.

Conclusions

In recent years, the clinical application of NSM has been increasing. NSM is a proper procedure for breast cancer patients to achieve long-term survival.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1245/s10434-021-11044-4.

Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy complication rate compared to traditional nipple-sparing mastectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Breast cancer is worldwide the most common cause of cancer in women and causes the second most common cancer-related death. Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is commonly used in therapeutic and prophylactic settings. Furthermore, (preventive) mastectomies are, besides complications, also associated with psychological and cosmetic consequences. Robotic NSM (RNSM) allows for better visualization of the planes and reducing the invasiveness. The aim of this study was to compare the postoperative complication rate of RNSM to NSM. A systematic search was performed on all (R)NSM articles. The primary outcome was determining the overall postoperative complication rate of traditional NSM and RNSM. Secondary outcomes were comparing the specific postoperative complication rates: implant loss, hematoma, (flap)necrosis, infection, and seroma. Forty-nine studies containing 13,886 cases of (R)NSM were included. No statistically significant differences were found regarding postoperative complications (RNSM 3.9%, NSM 7.0%, p = 0.070), postoperative implant loss (RNSM 4.1%, NSM 3.2%, p = 0.523), hematomas (RNSM 4.3%, NSM 2.0%, p = 0.059), necrosis (RNSM 4.3%, NSM 7.4%, p = 0.230), infection (RNSM 8.3%, NSM 4.0%, p = 0.054) or seromas (RNSM 3.0%, NSM 2.0%, p = 0.421). Overall, there are no statistically significant differences in complication rates between NSM and RNSM.

Mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction: Results of a mono-centric 4-years cohort

Introduction

Oncological safety, quality of life and cosmetic outcomes seems to be similar between breast conserving surgery (BCS) and mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). We report our experience of IBR for consecutive mastectomies realized in a recent period of four years in order to determined immediate surgical results according to type of mastectomy and type of reconstruction, as mains objectives.

Methods

All mastectomies with IBR during years 2016–2019 were included. A retrospective analysis with prospective data collection was performed.

Results

We analyzed 748 IBR: 353 nipple-sparing mastectomies (NSM), 391 skin-sparing mastectomies (SSM) and 4 standard mastectomies, 551 with definitive implant or expanders and 196 with latissimus dorsi-flap (LDF). More NSM were performed during the 2 last years and more LDF were performed for high BMI, high breast cup-size, neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy and local recurrence. We realized 111 robotic NSM and 125 robotic LDF. Longer duration of surgery was significantly associated with the robotic procedures.

The overall complications crude rate was 31.4% with 9.9% of re-operations and 5.8% of implant loss. Grade 2–3 complications were significantly associated with smoking. Breast complications occurred in 32.9% of mastectomies with principally skin or nipple-areola-complex suffering or necrosis, hematomas and infections. A predictive score was determined to evaluate risk of complications before surgery.

Conclusion

Mastectomy with IBR seems to be a safe technique with an acceptable complication rate which is increased by tobacco use, high breast cup-size and IBR-type.

•

Mastectomy with immediate breast to determined immediate surgical results.

•

More Nipple Sparing Mastectomy performed during the 2 last years.

•

More Latissimus dorsi-flap performed for high BMI, high breast cup-size, after radiotherapy.

“Harms” Associated with Breast Cancer Screening and Reliability of Frozen Section in Older Women: In the Case of an 80 Year Old Woman

The objective of this paper is to present a rare case with negative final histologic examination despite abnormal findings of all previous exams indicating breast cancer in an 80 year old woman. Mammographic and magnetic resonance imaging findings were concordant with the frozen section biopsy result of DCIS. However, the final histologic diagnosis was radial scar (benign breast lesion that can radiologically mimic malignancy). As a conclusion, abnormal mammographic and magnetic resonance imaging findings with positive for DCIS frozen section reports are not always confirmed in the final histologic examination. Furthermore, considering that screening does not seem to be associated with a reduction in mortality due to breast cancer after the age of 75, breast cancer screening could be individualized in this age group.

Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy Long-Term Outcomes: Early and Late Complications

Background and Objectives: The surgical choice treatment of the breast cancer mostly depends on the stage of the disease. In the last years, breast cancer surgery has moved from being destructive to being more respectful of the anatomical and physiological integrity of the gland. The aim of the breast surgery should be finalized to obtain the best aesthetic and functional results, respecting the principles of oncologic radicality. The present study is a retrospective analysis aimed to evaluate the long-term outcomes of a conservative technique like the nipple-sparing mastectomy. Materials and Methods: We observed 894 patients with a median age of 47.5 years old, underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy between 2002–2017. The data acquired include population and tumor characteristics, patient reconstructive outcomes, including locoregional, regional, and distant metastases; other variables, among nipple–areola complex necrosis and infection were collected. Results: The complications detected were considered as “early” within 1 month later the nipple-sparing mastectomy or “late” after this time. The overall complications rate (early and late) and the overall survival and the relapses detected by this study were comparable with those reported in the literature. In order to identify factors that correlate with complications, either early or later, it has been processed an evaluation of the univariate analysis showing adjuvant chemotherapy as the only predictive factor for late complications, while we encountered no predictors for early complications. Conclusions: The present study adds to the data already present in literature, demonstrating that the nipple-sparing mastectomy is a safe procedure, providing good oncological and aesthetic results in patients carefully selected.

Recurrence Outcomes After Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Immediate Breast Reconstruction in Patients with Pure Ductal Carcinoma In Situ

BACKGROUND

Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) has become increasingly prevalent for patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) requiring mastectomy. However, few data regarding recurrence outcomes after NSM are available for this patient population. This study evaluated the locoregional recurrence (LRR) rate for patients with pure DCIS who underwent NSM followed by immediate breast reconstruction without adjuvant radiotherapy and investigated potential risk factors for LRR and/or nipple-areola complex recurrence (NR).

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed for 199 consecutive patients with pure DCIS who underwent NSM and immediate breast reconstruction between March 2003 and December 2015. Risk factors for LRR and NR were analyzed using univariate (Chi square test) and multivariate (Cox model) methods.

RESULTS

The median follow-up duration after surgery was 97 months (range, 39-186 months). At 10 years, the LRR rate was 4.5%, and the NR rate was 3%. The univariate analysis showed that high nuclear grade, negative receptor status, positive human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status, and negative hormone receptor/positive HER2 subtype were associated with increased risk for NR. The multivariate analysis demonstrated that negative progesterone receptor status was an independent risk factor for LRR. However, margin status and tumor-to-nipple distance (TND) were not associated with increased risk for either LRR or NR.

CONCLUSIONS

The study findings suggest that NSM can be a feasible surgical option even for DCIS with a TND of 1 cm or less if the retroareolar resection margin is negative for malignancy. Determining the molecular subtype of DCIS might be helpful in identifying patients at high risk for recurrence.

The Role of Sharp Dissection in Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: A Safe Procedure with No Necrosis of the Nipple-Areolar Complex

Background

Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is becoming increasingly accepted as a treatment for breast disease; however, nipple-areolar complex (NAC) necrosis, a frequent severe postoperative complication, inhibits the popularity of this procedure. This study reports the technical aspects and short-term postoperative outcomes of NSM.

Methods

A single-center, retrospective review of 110 patients treated with NSM at our institution from November 2015 to September 2018 was performed. The primary outcome was the incidence of NAC necrosis.

Results

A total of 130 NSMs performed on 110 patients were included in our study. Median patient age was 42 years. We performed a sharp dissection by using a scalpel, raising 3–5 mm thick flaps, and continuing onto the undersurface of the NAC. None of the 110 patients appeared to have NAC necrosis or mastectomy skin flap necrosis. However, discoloration or ischemia of the NAC with eschar formation presented between postoperative days 3 and 7 in six nipples; four nipples were ischemic, and two were discolored. No infection was detected in any of the 110 patients. All NACs were intact after an average follow-up of 30 months, and no local or systemic recurrence was detected in those breast cancer cases.

Conclusion

NSM can be safely performed in properly selected patients. Nipple necrosis was avoided using a special surgical technique, and other complications occurred at an acceptable rate.

Breast cancer robotic nipple sparing mastectomy: evaluation of several surgical procedures and learning curve

BACKGROUND

Few studies of robotic nipple sparing mastectomy (NSM) were reported. We report feasibility of robotic NSM and determine standard surgical procedure and learning curve threefold.

METHODS

A cohort of patients with robotic NSM for breast cancer was analyzed. Complications and post-operative hospitalization stay were reported. The same technic was used for all patients except for skin and nipple areolar complex (NAC) dissection. Differences between three surgical procedures of NAC dissection were analyzed: group 1, dissection with robotic scissors using coagulation; group 2, dissection with robotic scissors without coagulation; and group 3, dissection with non-robotic scissors and then robotic dissection. We explored possible effect of learning curve among patients from group 1 with the same surgical procedure.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven NSM with immediate breast reconstruction for breast cancers, 22 invasive and 5 in situ, were performed, with robotic latissimus dorsi-flap (RLDF) only in 17 cases, RLDF and breast implant in 6 cases, and implant alone in 4 cases. Repartition according to 3 surgical procedure groups was 16, 5, and 6 patients. Mean time of surgery and anesthesia decrease according to groups 1 to 3. Among 16 patients from group 1, time of surgery and anesthesia decreased with learning curve. Post-operative hospitalization decreased from group 1 to 3. We reported a total of 11 complications, with significant difference between groups (10 for group 1). Skin complications were higher for group 1 in comparison with groups 2-3 (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Robotic NSM can be performed with a brief learning. Standardized technique is proposed with non-robotic scissors superficial dissection and then dissection with robot.

Current Therapeutic Approaches to DCIS

Treatment for ductal carcinoma in-situ (DCIS) has historically been extrapolated from studies of invasive breast cancer. Accepted local therapy approaches range from small local excisions, with or without radiation, to bilateral mastectomies. Systemic treatment with endocrine therapy is often recommended for hormone positive patients. With improvements in imaging, pathologic review, and treatment techniques in the modern era, combined with new information regarding tumor biology, the management of DCIS is rapidly evolving. A multidisciplinary approach to treatment is now more important than ever, with a shift towards de-escalating therapy to reduce treatment related toxicity. This review focuses on nuances of clinical management of DCIS in the modern era, highlighting key differences between DCIS as compared to invasive breast cancer. The American Cancer Society (ACS) currently recommends beginning screening with annual mammograms for women age 45, with the option to start at age 40. As treatment of DCIS has not been shown to impact survival, the USPSTF has more conservative screening recommendations of biennial mammograms from age 50-74. Unlike invasive breast cancer, DCIS is almost exclusively diagnosed by mammographic detection, and lymph node evaluation is not recommended. Pathologic review of biopsy specimens should follow the guidelines of the College of American Pathologists. Surgical management options include breast conservation, mastectomy, or possibly nipple sparing mastectomy, with upfront sentinel lymph node evaluation in the case of mastectomy. Radiation therapy is generally recommended as a component of breast conserving therapy for patients with DCIS, though in some low risk patients, there is trial data to suggest that adjuvant radiation may be omitted. Techniques for minimizing radiation toxicity should always be emphasized. Endocrine therapy is offered to women with hormone positive DCIS who have undergone lumpectomy for risk reduction, and has the benefit of decreasing incidence of events in both the ipsilateral and contralateral breast. More recent studies have explored use of targeted treatments such as trastuzumab in DCIS for HER2 overexpression. Future directions include tailoring therapy based on patient characteristics and tumor biology. With so many different options for treatment, it is also critical to engage in a discussion with the patient to arrive at a treatment decision that balances patient preferences for disease control versus treatment toxicity, financial toxicity, cosmesis, and quality of life.