Conservative mastectomies for breast cancer and risk-reducing surgery: the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center experience

Society of Surgical Oncology Breast Disease Site Working Group Statement on Bilateral Risk-Reducing Mastectomy: Indications, Outcomes, and Risks

Bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy (BRRM) is the surgical removal of both breasts to reduce the risk of cancer. In this Society of Surgical Oncology position statement, we review the literature addressing the indications, outcomes, and risks of BRRM to update the society's 2017 statement. We held a virtual meeting to outline key topics and conducted a literature search using PubMed to identify relevant articles. After literature review, recommendations were made according to group consensus. Individuals with a high lifetime risk of breast cancer due to pathogenic variants in high penetrance breast cancer-predisposition genes, early chest or breast radiation exposure, or a compelling family history should be counseled on the option of BRRM. However, BRRM is not recommended for most patients with high-risk lesions and may be contraindicated in patients who have other competing cancers and/or a high risk of surgical complications. BRRM effectively reduces the risk of breast cancer development, although the survival benefit is unclear. For patients with low-to-moderate breast cancer risk, alternative management strategies should be encouraged, including lifestyle modifications, high-risk screening, and risk-reducing medications. Discussions of BRRM should cover: (1) breast-cancer risk estimates; (2) the procedure's degree of risk reduction and impact on survival; (3) surgical techniques, potential surgical complications and long-term sequelae; and (4) alternatives to surgery. Surgeons should encourage shared and informed decision making with patients who have an elevated lifetime risk of developing breast cancer.

A New Convenient Incision Model of the Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: Lateralized Parabolic Multiplanar Incision

BACKGROUND

In this study, a lateralized parabolic multiplanar incision was defined. It was aimed to reduce necrosis in the nipple-areola complex (NAC) and, in the long run, to prevent the scar from pulling the areola laterally by maintaining healthy skin tissue between the scar and the areola and preserving the natural round appearance of the areola. Moreover, we purposed the scar not to be visible from the anterior view.

METHODS

The study included 243 patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate implant-based breast reconstruction. The incision was made 4-5 cm away from the lateral border of the NAC. The incision was completed after passing the anterior axillary line by drawing a parabolic curve in superolateral axis.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up period was 24.6 months, and the mean age of the patients was 42.3 years. Full-thickness necrosis of the NAC occurred in 3.6% of breasts. In long-term follow-ups, the incision scar measured an average length of 8.6 cm. None of the patients had lateral displacement of the NAC. The NAC preserved its round appearance, except for 12 breasts that had full-thickness NAC necrosis. Ten breasts had an unnatural breast appearance.

CONCLUSION

The lateralized parabolic multiplanar incision is an ideal incision model for nipple-sparing mastectomy, as it allows for the exposure and reconstruction of all breast quadrants. We maintain areolar circulation; there are no visible scars when viewed anteriorly. Furthermore, it prevents lateral displacement of the NAC, ensuring that the natural round form of the NAC is not distorted.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

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 .

The wide base bipedicled (WIBB) flap in nipple-sparing skin-reducing mastectomy

In this article, we present a modification of the NS/SRM technique in which the mastopexy design for skin reduction is undertaken with a wide-base bipedicled (WIBB) flap. The WIBB flap can be applied in both autologous and implant-based breast reconstruction. Our reconstructive algorithm is also presented. The clinical data of patients operated on from June 2017 to November 2022 were collected: 51 patients for a total of 71 breasts. Personal data, BMI, type and volume of implants used, and major and minor complications were analyzed by descriptive statistics. The mean age was 48.3 years. BMI ranged between 21.5 and 30.9 kg/m2. Thirty-one patients underwent unilateral mastectomy, while twenty patients underwent bilateral surgery. In 25 breasts, immediate reconstruction was performed with implants and ADM. In 40 breasts, reconstruction was performed with a subpectoral tissue expander, and in 6 breasts, reconstruction was performed with a DIEP flap. We observed only one case (1.4%) of periprosthetic infection requiring implant removal under general anesthesia. Minor complications occurred in 14.1% of patients. The use of both the WIBB flap and our algorithm maintained a low complication rate in our series, ensuring oncological radicality and a good aesthetic result at the same time.

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

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

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.

Analysis of Secondary Surgeries after Immediate Breast Reconstruction for Cancer Compared with Risk Reduction

Background:

This study sets out to compare reconstructive practice between patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) for cancer and those who opted for risk reduction (RR), with an emphasis on examining patterns of secondary surgery.

Methods:

Data collection was performed for patients undergoing mastectomy and IBR at a teaching hospital breast unit (2013–2016).

Results:

In total, 299 patients underwent IBR (76% cancer versus 24% RR). Implant-based IBR rate was similar in both groups (58% cancer versus 63% RR). Reconstruction loss (5.3% cancer versus 4.2% RR) and complication (16% cancer versus 12.9% RR) rates were similar. Cancer patients were more likely to undergo secondary surgery (68.4% versus 56.3%; P = 0.025), including contralateral symmetrization (22.8% versus 0%) and conversion to autologous reconstruction (5.7% versus 1.4%). Secondary surgeries were mostly planned for cancer patients (72% planned versus 28% unplanned), with rates unaffected by adjuvant therapies. This distribution was different in RR patients (51.3% planned versus 48.7% unplanned). The commonest secondary procedure was lipomodeling (19.7% cancer versus 23.9% RR). For cancer patients, complications resulted in a significantly higher unplanned secondary surgery rate (82.5% versus 38.8%; P = 0.001) than patients without complications. This was not evident in the RR patients, where complications did not lead to a significantly higher unplanned surgery rate (58.9% versus 35.2%; P = 0.086).

Conclusions:

Most of the secondary surgeries were planned for cancer patients. However, complications led to a significantly higher rate of unplanned secondary surgery. Approximately 1 in 4 RR patients received unplanned secondary surgery, which may be driven by the desire to achieve an optimal aesthetic outcome.

Development of a Classification Tree to Predict Implant-Based Reconstruction Failure with or without Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy for Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to determine the complications, incidence, and predictors of implant-based reconstruction failure (RF) among patients treated with mastectomy for breast cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 108 patients who underwent mastectomy, tissue expander, and implant-based breast reconstruction with or without radiation therapy (RT) at our institution (2000-2014). Descriptive statistics determined complication incidences, with major complications defined as any complications requiring surgical intervention or inpatient management. Chi square and Fisher's exact tests determined differences in RF incidences, defined as implant loss. Logistic regression analyses identified predictors of RF.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 42.5 months. Sixty patients (55.6%) experienced major complications. Overall, 27 patients (25%) experienced RF. Incidences of RF were significantly increased in patients who had any major complication (43.3% vs. 2.1%; p < 0.0001), especially infection (61.3% vs. 10.4%; p < 0.0001), delayed wound healing (83.3% vs. 21.7%; p = 0.004), and implant exposure (80.0% vs. 19.4%; p = 0.0002). Receiving RT, but not timing of RT, significantly predicted RF [odds ratio (OR) 4.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11-14.47; p = 0.03]. On multivariable analysis, infection (OR 7.69, 95% CI 2.12-27.89; p = 0.002) and delayed wound healing (OR 17.86, 95% CI 1.59-200.48; p = 0.02) independently predicted for RF. Our newly developed classification tree, which includes stepwise assessment of major infection, delayed wound healing, implant exposure, age ≥ 50 years, and total number of lymph nodes removed ≥ 10, accurately predicted 74% of RF events and 75% of non-RF events.

CONCLUSIONS

Infection or delayed wound healing requiring surgical intervention or hospitalization and receipt of RT, but not radiation timing, were significant predictors of RF. Our classification tree demonstrated > 70% accuracy for stepwise prediction of RF.

Pectoral Fascia Preservation in Oncological Mastectomy to Reduce Complications and Improve Reconstructions: A Systematic Review

Excision of the pectoral fascia (PF) is routinely performed in oncological mastectomies. Preservation of the PF may, however, decrease postoperative complication rates for bleeding, infections, and seroma. It may also improve reconstructive outcomes by better prosthesis coverage, thereby reducing implant extrusion rates and improving cosmetic outcomes.

Bilateral Risk-Reducing Mastectomies with Implant-Based Reconstructions Followed Long Term: A Consecutive Series of 185 Patients

BACKGROUND

Bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy (BRRM) is the most effective method to prevent breast cancer in genetically predisposed women and is often performed concomitantly with breast reconstruction. The reconstruction time varies and corrective surgeries are common.

METHODS

This study evaluated 185 consecutive cases of BRRM and immediate breast reconstruction with implants with regard to surgical outcome and resource consumption. With an 18-year observation period, it was possible to compare permanent expander implants (PEIs) with permanent fixed volume implants (PIs).

RESULTS

A minimum follow-up of 2 years for all participants but one was achieved. Seventy-five percent (n = 138) of the women received PEI and 25% (n = 47) PI. In a multivariate analysis including age, BMI (<25, ≥25), smoking (yes, no), implant type (PEI, PI), incision technique, operation time and specimen weight <350 g, ≥350 g), only BMI ≥25 was associated with an increased risk of an early complication (OR 7.1, 95% CI 2.44-20.4). As expected, there was a significant difference in median reconstruction time between PEI and PI (12.4 vs. 1.0 months, p < 0.001). The cumulative reoperation-free 2-year survival was significantly higher in the PI than in the PEI group (81% vs. 26%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Implant-based reconstruction remains a valid option after BRRM in high-risk women. Whenever possible (low BMI and small breast volume without severe ptosis), permanent fixed volume implants can be safely recommended and are resource saving in comparison with permanent expander implants.

Trending Towards Safer Breast Cancer Surgeries? Examining Acute Complication Rates from A 13-Year NSQIP Analysis

As breast cancer surgery continues to evolve, this study highlights the acute complication rates and predisposing risks following partial mastectomy (PM), mastectomy(M), mastectomy with muscular flap reconstruction (M + MF), mastectomy with implant reconstruction (M + I), and oncoplastic surgery (OPS). Data was collected from the American College of Surgeons NSQIP database (2005⁻2017). Complication rate and trend analyses were performed along with an assessment of odds ratios for predisposing risk factors using adjusted linear regression. 226,899 patients met the inclusion criteria. Complication rates have steadily increased in all mastectomy groups (p < 0.05). Cumulative complication rates between surgical categories were significantly different in each complication cluster (all p < 0.0001). Overall complication rates were: PM: 2.25%, OPS: 3.2%, M: 6.56%, M + MF: 13.04% and M + I: 5.68%. The most common predictive risk factors were mastectomy, increasing operative time, ASA class, BMI, smoking, recent weight loss, history of CHF, COPD and bleeding disorders (all p < 0.001). Patients who were non-diabetic, younger (age < 60) and treated as an outpatient all had protective OR for an acute complication (p < 0.0001). This study provides data comparing nationwide acute complication rates following different breast cancer surgeries. These can be used to inform patients during surgical decision making.

Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy Incisions for Cancer Extirpation Prospective Cohort Trial: Perfusion, Complications, and Patient Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Nipple-sparing mastectomy offers several advantages for women seeking postmastectomy breast reconstruction, but compromised skin and nipple perfusion may lead to skin and nipple necrosis. It is unclear whether the incisional approach contributes to these complications; therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the impact of incision type on outcomes in patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy.

METHODS

This is a prospective cohort study of patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy with prosthetic breast reconstruction through an inframammary fold versus a lateral radial incision. Skin and nipple perfusion as represented by fluorescence intensity, mammometric parameters, patient-reported outcomes, and clinical outcomes were analyzed and compared for the two cohorts, and multivariable logistic regression models were performed to evaluate the effects of covariates on outcomes.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine patients were studied: 55 in the inframammary fold cohort and 24 in the lateral radial cohort. The inframammary fold group had significantly less fluorescence intensity to the inferior (21.9 percent versus 36.9 percent; p = 0.001) and lateral portions of breast skin (23.1 percent versus 40.7 percent; p = 0.003) after reconstruction. Decreased fluorescence intensity was associated with smoking, decreased mean arterial pressure, and greater specimen weight. Postreconstruction breast volumes were increased over preoperative volumes in the inframammary fold group (38.3 percent) versus the lateral radial (31.2 percent) group; however, patients with a lateral radial incision had a greater increase in satisfaction with their breasts and psychosocial well-being.

CONCLUSIONS

There are significant differences in patient-reported outcomes and final breast volumes based on the incisional approach to nipple-sparing mastectomy. These data can be used to guide providers and counsel patients considering nipple-sparing mastectomy with prosthetic reconstruction.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, II.

MRI-based quantification of residual fibroglandular tissue of the breast after conservative mastectomies

PURPOSE

Skin-sparing and nipple-sparing mastectomies (SSM; NSM) remove the breast's fibroglandular tissue (FGT), thereby reducing breast cancer risk. The postoperative presence of residual FGT (RFGT) is associated with remaining cancer risk. This study evaluated the role of MRI in the quantitative assessment of RFGT and its impact on the estimation of the remaining breast cancer risk.

METHODS

The postoperative MRI scans (following EUSOMA recommendations) of 58 patients who had undergone SSM or NSM between 2003 and 2013, as well as preoperative MRI scans that were available in 25 of these patients, were retrospectively evaluated for the presence and location of RFGT by three radiologists. Two different observers quantitatively assessed the volume and percentage of retromamillary and other RFGT (RFGT_rm and RFGT_other) were assessed. The Fisher's exact test, the Student's t-test, and intraclass coherence were used to compare patient groups and to assess reproducibility.

RESULTS

RFGT was found in 20% of all breasts and significantly more frequently after NSM than SSM (50% vs. 13%, p = .003). RFGT_rm and RFGT_other were more prevalent after NSM (p < 0.001; p = .127). RFGT ranged from 0.5 to 26% of the preoperative FGT, with higher percentages after NSM than SSM (p = .181).

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence and percentage of RFGT found on MRI indicate a considerable remaining postoperative breast cancer risk in some women.

Preservation of the nipple-areola complex in skin-sparing mastectomy for early breast cancer

PURPOSE

Skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) enables a radical cure of breast cancer while overcoming the cosmetic issues related to surgery. We review our experience of performing SSMs and assess whether preservation of the nipple-areola complex (NAC) could have been an option for some patients who underwent SSM.

METHODS

The subjects of this retrospective study were women who underwent SSM that utilized four incision types; namely, the so-called tennis racket incision, a periareolar and midaxillary incision, an areola-sparing and midaxillary incision, and a small transverse elliptical incision. We assessed whether preservation of the NAC would have been an option in SSM, based on histologic examination of three serial cut surfaces of the specimen around the nipple, ruling out the option when evidence of the malignant lesion/s was found in at least one of the following locations: in the nipple, within a 1-cm radius from the base of the nipple, or within 1 cm from the surface of the NAC.

RESULTS

We performed 193 SSMs. The cumulative 10-year local disease-free survival rate was 98%, with 89% of patients reporting levels of satisfaction with the reconstructed breast, of excellent, very good, or good. We evaluated that 70 of the 193 procedures could have been performed as nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM).

CONCLUSIONS

The outcomes of SSM in this series were excellent and NSM might have been an option for about one-third of the patients.