Surgical and Oncologic Outcomes of Robotic and Conventional Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy with Immediate Reconstruction: International Multicenter Pooled Data Analysis

Learning curve for robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy: A single institution experience

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted nipple sparing mastectomy (RANSM) is emerging because it offers hidden incisions and ergonomic movements. In this study, we report the learning curve and feasibility of RANSM.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted among women who underwent RANSM with immediate breast reconstruction from July 2019 to June 2022. All RANSM procedures were performed by a single surgeon. We divided all the cases into two phases: the early phase (cases 1 to 21) and the late phase (cases 22 to 46). The total operation time, breast operation time, docking time, and console time were analyzed, and the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method was used to evaluate the effects of case experience accumulation on the time required for RANSM. Postoperative complications were analyzed according to their Clavien-Dindo grade.

RESULTS

Overall, 42 women underwent 46 RANSM procedures. In the early and late phases, the mean console times were 78.1 min and 60.1 min (p = 0.011), respectively. In learning curve analysis, 21 RANSM procedures were required to reduce the breast operation time. Two cases of Clavien-Dindo grade III postoperative complications occurred (4.3 %). One case was an implant removal caused by infection, and the other was partial nipple ischemia; both occurred in the early phase, with none in the late phase.

CONCLUSIONS

The breast operation time improved after the 21st RANSM procedure, and only two cases had Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher postoperative complications. RANSM is thus technically feasible and acceptable, with a short learning curve.

Minimal Access vs Conventional Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy

Importance

While nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) for breast cancer was only performed using the open method in the past, its frequency using endoscopic and robotic surgical instruments has been increasing rapidly. However, there are limited studies regarding postoperative complications and the benefits and drawbacks of minimal access NSM (M-NSM) compared with conventional NSM (C-NSM).

Objective

To examine the differences in postoperative complications between C-NSM and M-NSM.

Design, Setting, Participants

This was a retrospective multicenter cohort study enrolling 1583 female patients aged 19 years and older with breast cancer who underwent NSM at 21 university hospitals in Korea between January 2018 and December 2020. Those with mastectomy without preserving the nipple-areolar complex (NAC), clinical or pathological malignancy in the NAC, inflammatory breast cancer, breast cancer infiltrating the chest wall or skin, metastatic breast cancer, or insufficient medical records were excluded. Data were analyzed from November 2021 to March 2024.

Exposures

M-NSM or C-NSM.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Clinicopathological factors and postoperative complications within 3 months of surgery were assessed. Statistical analyses, including logistic regression, were used to identify the factors associated with complications.

Results

There were 1356 individuals (mean [SD] age, 45.47 [8.56] years) undergoing C-NSM and 227 (mean [SD] age, 45.41 [7.99] years) undergoing M-NSM (35 endoscopy assisted and 192 robot assisted). There was no significant difference between the 2 groups regarding short- and long-term postoperative complications (<30 days: C-NSM, 465 of 1356 [34.29%] vs M-NSM, 73 of 227 [32.16%]; P = .53; <90 days: C-NSM, 525 of 1356 [38.72%] vs M-NSM, 73 of 227 [32.16%]; P = .06). Nipple-areolar complex necrosis was more common in the long term after C-NSM than M-NSM (C-NSM, 91 of 1356 [6.71%] vs M-NSM, 5 of 227 [2.20%]; P = .04). Wound infection occurred more frequently after M-NSM (C-NSM, 58 of 1356 [4.28%] vs M-NSM, 18 of 227 [7.93%]; P = .03). Postoperative seroma occurred more frequently after C-NSM (C-NSM, 193 of 1356 [14.23%] vs M-NSM, 21 of 227 [9.25%]; P = .04). Mild or severe breast ptosis was a significant risk factor for nipple or areolar necrosis (odds ratio [OR], 4.75; 95% CI, 1.66-13.60; P = .004 and OR, 8.78; 95% CI, 1.88-41.02; P = .006, respectively). Conversely, use of a midaxillary, anterior axillary, or axillary incision was associated with a lower risk of necrosis (OR for other incisions, 32.72; 95% CI, 2.11-508.36; P = .01). Necrosis occurred significantly less often in direct-to-implant breast reconstruction compared to other breast reconstructions (OR, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.11-7.34; P = .03).

Conclusions and Relevance

The similar complication rates between C-NSM and M-NSM demonstrates that both methods were equally safe, allowing the choice to be guided by patient preferences and specific needs.

Pilot robotic mastectomy in Singapore (PRoMiSing I) study: first safety and feasibility prospective cohort trial in South East Asia

BACKGROUND

Robotic mastectomy has been performed worldwide since 2015. The advantages of the robotic approach in nipple-sparing mastectomy have been proven with better visualization and preservation of blood supply to the nipple-areolar complex, with a lower incidence of necrosis. It also allows smaller incisions for both mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction. To date, no centers in Singapore and Southeast Asia offer robotic mastectomy. We believe that robotic mastectomy is a feasible and safe technique that our population can utilize.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to ascertain the surgical outcomes and perform a learning curve analysis in patients undergoing robotic mastectomy in a multi-ethnic South East Asian population.

METHODS

A single-arm prospective pilot study of eligible patients aged 21-70 years old with early breast cancer or high-risk patients indicated for risk-reducing mastectomy who were eligible and consented to robotic mastectomy were enrolled in this trial from December 22, 2022 to December 15, 2023.

RESULTS

A total of 29 consecutive robotic mastectomies were performed. The mean total operative time was 95±10.2 min. The average blood loss was 5.7±1.9 ml, and the average length of stay was 1.05 days. The mean mastectomy specimen weight was 251 g, and there was no conversion to conventional mastectomy in any case. Furthermore, there were no 30-day morbidity or complications in terms of wound infection requiring intervention, flap, and nipple-areolar complex necrosis, and postoperative hematoma/bleeding requiring intervention.

CONCLUSION

This study contributes to the current evidence that robotic mastectomy is a safe and feasible option and could prove to be a great alternative to conventional mastectomy. Further prospective trials examining the long-term oncological outcomes of robotic mastectomy will be performed to establish the oncologic safety of this technique in breast cancer treatment.

Da Vinci single-port robotic system current application and future perspective in general surgery: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

The da Vinci Single-Port Robot System (DVSP) allows three robotic instruments and an articulated scope to be inserted through a single small incision. It received FDA approval in 2014 and was first introduced in 2018. The aim of this new system was to overcome the limitations of single-incision laparoscopic and robotic surgery. Since then, it has been approved for use only for urologic and transoral surgeries in some countries. It has been used as part of experimental protocols in general surgery.

OBJECTIVE

By obtaining the CE mark at the end of January 2024, DVSP will soon enter the European market. This review aims to comprehensively describe the applications of DVSP in general surgery.

DESIGN

A search of PubMed, Embase, and Ebsco databases up to March 2024 was conducted, with registration in PROSPERO (CRD42024536430), following the preferred reporting items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses for scoping review (PRISMA-Scr) guidelines. All the studies about the use of DVSP in general surgery were included.

RESULTS

Fifty-six studies were included. The following surgical areas of use were identified: transabdominal and transanal colorectal, cholecystectomy, abdominal wall repair, upper gastroesophageal tract, liver, pancreas, breast, and thyroid surgery. The reported surgical and short-term outcomes are promising; a wide range of procedures have been performed safely. Some groups have found advantages, such as faster discharge, shorter operative time, and less postoperative pain compared to multiport robotic surgery.

CONCLUSION

Five years after its initial clinical applications, the use of the DVSP in general surgery procedures has demonstrated feasibility and safety. Hernia repair, cholecystectomy, and colorectal surgery emerge as the most frequently conducted interventions with this robotic system. Nevertheless, there is anticipation for further studies with larger sample sizes and extended follow-up periods to provide more comprehensive insights and data on the long-term outcomes, including the incidence of incisional hernia.

Evaluation of safety and operative time in tumescent-free robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy: a retrospective single-center cohort study

Purpose

Tumescent in nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) has been reported to increase the risk of necrosis by impairing blood flow to the skin flap and nipple-areolar complex. At our institution, we introduced a tumescent-free robotic NSM using the da Vinci single-port system (Intuitive Surgical, Inc.).

Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent tumescent-free robotic NSM between October 2020 and March 2023 at Asan Medical Center (Seoul, Korea). Clinicopathological characteristics, adverse events, and operative time were evaluated.

Results

During the study period, 118 patients underwent tumescent-free robotic NSM. Thirty-one patients (26.3%) experienced an adverse event. Five patients (4.2%) were classified as grade III based on the Clavien-Dindo classification and required surgery. The mean total operative time was 467 minutes for autologous tissue reconstruction (n = 49) and 252 minutes for implants (n = 69). No correlation was found between the cumulative number of surgical cases and the breast operative time (P = 0.30, 0.52, 0.59 for surgeons A, B, C) for the 3 surgeons. However, a significant linear relationship (P < 0.001) was observed, with the operative time increasing by 13 minutes for every 100-g increase in specimen weight.

Conclusion

Tumescent-free robotic NSM is a safe procedure with a feasible operative time and few adverse events.

Postoperative outcomes of minimally invasive versus conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy with prosthesis breast reconstruction in breast cancer: a meta-analysis

Breast cancer is the most common malignant tumor worldwide, and mastectomy remains the primary strategy for treating early stage breast cancer. However, the complication rates, surgical variables, and oncologic safety of minimally invasive nipple-sparing mastectomy (MINSM) have not been fully addressed. We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs that compared MINSM with conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy (CNSM), both followed by Prosthesis Breast Reconstruction (PBR). The main outcomes observed included overall complications, (Grade III) complications, skin and nipple necrosis, wound dehiscence, infection, seroma, hematoma, implant loss, and oncologic safety (positive margins and recurrence). Secondary outcomes included operation time, blood loss, hospital stay, cost-effectiveness, and patient satisfaction. Binary and continuous variables were compared using odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). A total of 10 studies involving 2,166 patients were included. There were no statistically significant differences between MINSM and CNSM in terms of skin necrosis, wound dehiscence, infection, seroma, hematoma, implant loss, or oncologic safety. However, MINSM significantly reduced overall complications (OR = 0. 74, 95% CI [0. 58, 0. 94], p = 0. 01) and (Grade III) complications (OR = 0. 47, 95% CI [0. 31, 0. 71], p = 0. 0003). Nipple necrosis events were also significantly reduced in the MINSM group (OR = 0. 49, 95% CI [0. 30, 0. 80], p = 0. 005). Patient satisfaction improved notably in the MINSM group. Additionally, compared with the CNSM group, the MINSM group had longer operating times (MD = 46. 88, 95% CI [19. 55, 74. 21], p = 0. 0008) and hospital stays (MD = 1. 39, 95% CI [0. 65, 2. 12], p < 0. 001), while intraoperative blood loss was significantly reduced (MD = -29. 05, 95% CI [-36. 20, -21. 90], p < 0. 001). Compared with CNSM, MINSM offers advantages in reducing complications and intraoperative blood loss, as well as improving aesthetic outcomes and patient satisfaction. Therefore, MINSM may become a viable option for breast surgery. Nevertheless, a long-term evaluation of the oncologic safety of this approach is necessary to ensure its efficacy and safety for patients.

The emerging role of robotics in plastic and reconstructive surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The role of robotics has grown exponentially. There is an active interest amongst practitioners in the transferability of the potential benefits into plastic and reconstructive surgery; however, many plastic surgeons report lack of widespread implementation, training, or clinical exposure. We report the current evidence base, and surgical opportunities, alongside key barriers, and limitations to overcome, to develop the use of robotics within the field. This systematic review of PubMed, Medline, and Embase has been conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PROSPERO (ID: CRD42024524237). Preclinical, educational, and clinical articles were included, within the scope of plastic and reconstructive surgery. 2, 181, articles were screened; 176 articles met the inclusion criteria across lymph node dissection, flap and microsurgery, vaginoplasty, craniofacial reconstruction, abdominal wall reconstruction and transoral robotic surgery (TOR). A number of benefits have been reported including technical advantages such as better visualisation, improved precision and accuracy, and tremor reduction. Patient benefits include lower rate of complications and quicker recovery; however, there is a longer operative duration in some categories. Cost presents a significant barrier to implementation. Robotic surgery presents an exciting opportunity to improve patient outcomes and surgical ease of use, with feasibility for many subspecialities demonstrated in this review. However, further higher quality comparative research with careful case selection, which is adequately powered, as well as the inclusion of cost-analysis, is necessary to fully understand the true benefit for patient care, and justification for resource utilisation.

Emerging Role of Robotic Surgery in the Breast

In recent years, there has been increased adoption of robotic technology in oncologic breast surgery, particularly with the use of robotic nipple sparing mastectomy (r-NSM). Here we review the emergence of robotic-assisted surgery in breast procedures, and discuss the safety, limited oncologic outcomes, apparent advantages, and potential limitations of r-NSM compared to conventional open-NSM (c-NSM). Limited data suggests that robotic-assisted surgery offers smaller incisions and potential for improved cosmesis and ergonomic advantage when compared to c-NSM. Similar periprocedural complication rates are seen with r-NSM compared with c-NSM. Short-term oncologic follow-up is reassuring however, but remains early and continues to be investigated. The increased cost of r-NSM compared to open surgery and feasibility of widespread adoption of the procedure are important considerations that need to be evaluated. Randomized trials are currently ongoing to address the apparent advantages, oncologic outcomes, and cost/feasibility of robotic breast surgery.

Scarless totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP) implantation: Surgical technique, preliminary results, learning curve, and patients-reported outcome in 125 breast cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Minimal-access (endoscopic or robotic-assisted) breast surgery has been increasingly performed and shown better cosmetic results. However, location of totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP) for systemic treatment at anterior chest may compromise its aesthetic benefits. Therefore, we proposed a new scarless technique for TIVAP implantation, and reported the preliminary results, learning curve, and patients-surveyed outcome.

METHODS

Surgical technique of the new "scarless" TIVAP implantation was proposed. Patients receiving this procedure in a single institution were included. The preliminary results of the scarless TIVAP implantation, learning curve, and patient-reported outcome were analyzed and reported.

RESULTS

A total of 125 breast cancer patients received scarless TIVAP procedures were enrolled. The primary success rate of the scarless TIVAP implantation was 100%. Mean operative time was 46 ± 14 min. Mean amount of blood loss was 8.5 ± 3.2 ml. The cumulative sum plot showed operation time significantly decreased after 24th cases. In the initial learning phase, the mean operative time was 55 ± 17 min, and decreased to 43 ± 12 min in the later mature phase (P = 0.003). There were 5 (4%) complications detected, which included 1 (0.8%) seroma formation, 2 (1.6%) revisions, and 2 (1.6%) unplanned explantations. From patients-evaluated questionnaires, more than 90% of responders were satisfied with aesthetic results, experience during surgery, and application of scarless TIVAP for systemic therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The scarless TIVAP implantation is a safe & reliable procedure with high patients-reported aesthetic satisfaction, and could be an alternative TIVAP procedure for patients requiring chemotherapy and desiring a less noticeable scar.

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.

Safety and Feasibility of Single-Port Robotic-Assisted Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy

Importance

Robotic-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomies with multiport robots have been described in the US since 2015; however, significant hurdles to multiport robotic surgery exist in breast surgery.

Objective

To demonstrate that the single-port da Vinci SP (Intuitive Surgical) robotic system is feasible in patients undergoing robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy (rNSM).

Design, Setting, and Participants

An initial case series of 20 patients at a large university hospital underwent bilateral single-port robotic nipple-sparing mastectomies (SPrNSM) with tissue expander reconstruction from February 1, 2020, through January 4, 2023. Participants included women who met surgical criteria for nipple-sparing mastectomies, per standard of care.

Intervention

Surgery using a single-port robot and the surgical technique of the authors.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Age, indication, body mass index, breast size, operative time, conversion to open surgery, systemic complications, postoperative skin necrosis, and reported skin and nipple areolar complex (NAC) sensation.

Results

Twenty women aged 29 to 63 years (median, 40 years) underwent bilateral SPrNSM. Eleven patients completed prophylactic surgery due to a high risk for breast cancer (more than 20% lifetime risk) and 9 patients had breast cancer. Breast size ranged from A through D cup with median B cup and a body mass index range of 19.7 through 27.8 (median 24.4). The total duration of the procedure from incision to skin closure for both sides ranged from 205 minutes to 351 minutes (median, 277). The median robotic time for bilateral SPrNSM was 116 minutes and varied by cup size (A cup, 95 minutes; B cup, 140 minutes; C cup, 118 minutes; D cup, 114 minutes) with no inflection point in learning curve. No cases were converted to open and no immediate complications, such as hematoma, positive margins, or recurrence, were seen. In the first 10 patients prior to routine sensation testing, 20 resected breasts had measurable NAC sensation at a range from 4 to 36 months post-index resection (65%). In the second 10 patients of the cohort, measurable NAC was preserved in 13 of 20 resected breasts 2 weeks following the index operation (65%).

Conclusion and Relevance

In this case series, SPrNSM with immediate reconstruction was feasible and performed safely by an experienced breast surgeon with limited previous robotic training. Further studies confirming the preliminary data demonstrating improved NAC and skin sensation following SPrNSM are warranted.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05245812.

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.

Prince and princesses: The current status of robotic surgery in surgical oncology

Robotic surgery has experienced a dramatic increase in utilization across general surgery over the last two decades, including in surgical oncology. Although urologists and gynecologists were the first to show that this technology could be utilized in cancer surgery, the robot is now a powerful tool in the treatment of gastrointestinal, hepato-pancreatico-biliary, colorectal, endocrine, and soft tissue malignancies. While long-term outcomes are still pending, short-term outcomes have showed promise for this technologic advancement of cancer surgery.

A systematic review of robotic breast surgery versus open surgery

Robotic-assisted breast surgery (RABS) is controversial. We systematically reviewed the evidence about RABS, comparing it to open conventional breast surgery (CBS). Following prospective registration (osf.io/97ewt), a search was performed in January 2023, without time or language restrictions, through bibliographic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Scopus, Trip database and CDSR) and grey literature. Quality was assessed in duplicate using Qualsyst criteria (score range 0.0-1.0); reviewer agreement was 98%. The 16 selected studies (total patients: 334,804) had overall high quality (mean score 0.82; range 0.68-0.91). Nine of 16 (56.3%) were cohort studies, 2/16 (12.5%) RCTs, and 5/16 (31.3%) case-control studies. Taking p < 0.05 as the significance threshold, RABS versus CBS was better in aesthetic results and patient satisfaction (10/11 studies; 90%), was surgically costly (4/4 studies; 100%), time-consuming (9/13 studies; 69%), and less painful in the first 6-24 h (2/2 studies; 100%) and without statistically significant differences in complication rates (10/12 studies; 83%) or short-term oncological outcomes (10/10 studies; 100%). Surgical time could be dramatically reduced by training surgical teams, reaching no significant differences between approaches (p = 0.120). RABS was shown to be feasible and safe. The advantages of RABS and long-term outcomes need further research.

Clinical status and future prospects of single-incision robotic-assisted surgery: a review

Since the advent of conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery, the prosperity of minimally invasive surgery has been thriving on the advancement of endoscopic techniques. Cosmetic superiority, recovery benefits, and noninferior surgical outcomes weigh single-incision laparoscopic surgery as a promising modality. Although there are surgical challenges posed by steep learning curve and technological difficulties, such as instruments collision, triangulation loss and limited retraction, the establishment of robotic surgical platform as a solution to all is inspiring. Furthermore, with enhanced instrument maneuverability and stability, robotic ergonomic innovations adopt the advantages of single-incision laparoscopic surgery and surmount its recognized barriers by introducing a novel combination, single-incision robotic-assisted surgery. As was gradually diffused in general surgery and other specialties, single-incision robotic-assisted surgery manifests privileges in noninferior clinical outcomes an satisfactory cosmetic effect among strictly selected patients, and has the potential of a preferable surgical option for minimally invasive surgery.

Scarless preventive surgery

Oncogenetic risk‐reduction surgeries could be better accepted if innovation allowed the scars to be hidden. Adnexectomies, vNotes, and endoscopic mastectomies presented here are examples.

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.

Robotic-Assisted Nipple Sparing Mastectomy

Minimally invasive approaches to breast surgery have evolved from endoscopic techniques to recent developments in robotic-assisted mastectomies. Initial studies on robotic-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy (RNSM) have shown improved patient satisfaction and aesthetic outcomes with similar complication rates and oncological outcomes in selected patients. This chapter reviews techniques used and available data on complications and clinical outcomes for RNSM. Currently, RNSM is an investigational technique in the United States and should be performed in clinical trials with U.S. Food & Drug Administration approval to rigorously evaluate the safety and effectiveness of this approach.

Factors associated with alteration of nipple or skin sensation and impact of duration of time following nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM): an analysis of 460 cases with comparison of conventional versus endoscopic- or robotic-assisted NSM

BACKGROUND

The current study aims to evaluate the nipple and skin sensation following nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) and identify patient-, surgical-, or treatment-related factors affecting nipple or skin sensation in this cohort.

METHODS

Patients who received NSM with postoperative nipple and skin sensation test evaluation at a single institution over the past 10 years were retrospectively retrieved from a prospectively collected breast cancer surgery database.

RESULTS

A total of 460 NSM procedures were included in this current study, with the mean age of 48.3 ± 9.1. Three-hundred eighty-three (83.3%) patients had breast reconstructions. One-hundred seventy-four (37.8%) received conventional NSM (C-NSM), 195 (42.4%) endoscopic-assisted NSM (E-NSM), and 91 (19.8%) robotic-assisted NSM (R-NSM) procedures. For nipple sensation assessment, 15 (3.3%) were grade 0, 83 (18.2%) grade I, 229 (49.7%) grade II, and 133 (28.9%) grade III (normal sensation), respectively, with mean grade score of 2.1 ± 0.7. The preserved (grade III) nipple sensation rate was 36.2% (63/174) in the C-NSM group, 26.7% (52/195) in the E-NSM group, and 19.7% (18/91) in the R-NSM group (P = 0.06). The "time since surgery to last evaluation" was significantly longer in the C-NSM group (45.6 ± 34 months) or E-NSM group (44.7 ± 35.8 months) as compared to R-NSM group (31.8 ± 16 months, P < 0.01). In multivariate analysis, peri-areolar incision showed higher grade of nipple sensation (OR: 2.1, P = 0.02) compared to upper outer quadrant incision, and longer follow-up time post-NSM showed significant improvement of nipple or skin sensation (> 60 months vs. ≦ 12 months: nipple odds ratio (OR) = 5.75, P < 0.01; skin, OR = 1.97, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Our current analysis showed some factors to be related to postoperative nipple or skin sensation, and longer "time after surgery" was associated with significant improvement of nipple and skin sensation in patients who received NSM, regardless of the surgical approaches.

SYNOPSIS

Our current analysis showed a significant portion of patients with decrease or loss of nipple or skin sensation after nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM). Several factors associated with preserved nipple or skin sensation were identified, including age, surgical methods, surgical wound location, and association of time from surgery showing that improvement of partial nipple or skin sensation was evident after a longer follow-up.

Controversies and strengths of robot-assisted mastectomy

Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is used to improve cosmetic outcomes while maintaining oncological safety in patients with early breast cancer; however, NSM requires a higher level of skill and workload than mastectomy and is associated with long, visible scars. Robotic surgical systems reduce surgeon workload and facilitate precise surgery. Considering the increasing support of robot-assisted NSM (RNSM), this paper aims to discuss the current controversies based on the research findings reported thus far. There are four concerns regarding RNSM; increased cost, oncological outcomes, the level of experience and skill, and standardization. It should be noted that RNSM is not a surgery performed on all patients but rather a procedure performed on selected patients who meet specific indications. A large-scale randomized clinical trial comparing robotic and conventional NSM has recently begun in Korea; therefore, it is necessary to wait for these results for more insight into oncological outcomes. Although the level of experience and skill required for robotic mastectomy may not be easily achieved by all surgeons, the learning curve for RNSM appears manageable and can be overcome with appropriate training and practice. Training programs and standardization efforts will help improve the overall quality of RNSM. There are some advantages to RNSM. The robotic system provides improved precision and accuracy, helping remove breast tissue more effectively. RNSM has advantages such as smaller scars, less blood loss, and a lower rate of surgical complications. Patients who undergo RNSM report better quality of life.

FDG and Non-FDG Radiopharmaceuticals for PET Imaging in Invasive Lobular Breast Carcinoma

Invasive lobular cancer (ILC) is the second most frequent histological type of breast cancer (BC) and includes a heterogeneous spectrum of diseases with unique characteristics, especially the infiltrative growth pattern and metastatic spread. [¹⁸F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) is extensively used in oncology and BC patient evaluation. Its role in ILCs is considered suboptimal due to its low FDG avidity. Therefore, ILCs could benefit from molecular imaging with non-FDG tracers that target other specific pathways, contributing to precision medicine. This narrative review aims to summarize the current literature on the use of FDG-PET/CT in ILC and to discuss future opportunities given by the development of innovative non-FDG radiotracers.

Robot-assisted Nipple Sparing Mastectomy: Recent Advancements and Ongoing Controversies

Purpose of review

The purpose of this review is to summarize the recent technical advancements in RNSM, describe the ongoing teaching programs, and discuss the ongoing controversies.

Recent findings

Robot-assisted nipple sparing mastectomy (RNSM) is the newest addition to the armamentarium of surgical techniques for patients who require a mastectomy. The potential benefits of using the da Vinci® Robotic Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA) are the small 3D camera and lighting offering superior visualization, the Endowrist robotic instruments offering greater range of motion, and surgeon being at a seated position at the console rendering a more ergonomic operating position.

Summary

RNSM can potentially help overcome the technical difficulties of performing a conventional NSM. Further studies are needed to elucidate the oncologic safety and cost-effectiveness of RNSM.

Risk and incidence of breast cancer in transgender individuals: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The risk of developing breast cancer in transgender individuals [male-to-female (MtF) or female-to-male (FtM)] is still inadequately quantified. We aimed to evaluate the impact of breast cancer in this population.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search and review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines through the PUBMED and SCOPUS databases. We identified six cohort studies (for both populations) plus 35 case reports. Incidence and breast cancer risk quantification were the main outcomes considered.

RESULTS

FtM individuals had a higher risk of developing breast cancer in comparison to cisgender men [standardized incidence ratio (SIR) = 63.4; 95% confidence interval (CI), 32.2-124.9] but a lower risk than cisgender women (SIR = 0.42; 95% CI, 0.07-2.41). Similarly, MtF individuals were at higher risk of developing breast cancer in comparison to cisgender men (SIR = 22.5; 95% CI, 5.54-91.8) and at lower risk than cisgender women (SIR = 0.30; 95% CI, 0.22-0.42).

CONCLUSION

In this systematic study and meta-analysis, we identified that FtM and MtF individuals are at substantially higher risk of developing breast cancer in comparison to cisgender men, though at lower risk than cisgender women. These individuals, in the absence of defined guidelines for breast cancer prevention, should periodically undergo breast or chest examinations.