Literature DB >> 11712794

A comparative study of subcutaneous mastectomy with radical mastectomy.

J Horiguchi1, H Takei, Y Koibuchi, K Iijima, F Ikeda, R Ochiai, K Uchida, M Yoshida, T Yokoe, Y Morishita.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the results of 133 cases (131 patients) of subcutaneous mastectomy with axillary dissection between 1983 and 1999 and 910 cases of radical mastectomy during the same period. The median follow-up period of the subcutaneous mastectomy group and the radical mastectomy group were 66 months and 81 months, respectively. The age at operation was significantly (p<0.01) younger in the subcutaneous mastectomy group than in the radical mastectomy group and the clinical stage was significantly (p<0.01) earlier. Lymph node metastasis was significantly (p<0.01) higher in the radical mastectomy than in the subcutaneous mastectomy group. There was no difference in ER status between the two groups. There was local recurrence in 5 (3.8%) members of the subcutaneous mastectomy group and in 12 (1.3%) members of the radical mastectomy group. There was no difference in disease-free survival and overall survival between the two groups. Divided into two subgroups by lymph node status, there was no difference in disease-free survival and overall survival between the two groups. Local recurrence occurred more frequently (p<0.05) in the subcutaneous mastectomy group, however, than in the radical mastectomy group when no lymph node metastasis was found. Multivariate analysis using the Cox hazard model showed that operation method and lymph node status were independent prognostic factors for local recurrence, whereas, lymph node status and ER status were independent prognostic factors of disease-free survival. In conclusion, subcutaneous mastectomy presents a risk factor for local recurrence, but the survival rate of the subcutaneous mastectomy group is as favourable as the radical mastectomy group.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11712794

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anticancer Res        ISSN: 0250-7005            Impact factor:   2.480


  5 in total

Review 1.  Nipple-sparing mastectomy--is it worth the risk?

Authors:  Jean-Yves Petit; Umberto Veronesi; Visnu Lohsiriwat; PierCarlo Rey; Giuseppe Curigliano; Stefano Martella; Cristina Garusi; Francesca De Lorenzi; Andrea Manconi; Edoardo Botteri; Florence Didier; Roberto Orecchia; Mario Rietjens
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-10-25       Impact factor: 66.675

2.  Breast Cancer Recurrence in the Nipple-Areola Complex After Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy With Immediate Breast Reconstruction for Invasive Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Zhen-Yu Wu; Hee-Jeong Kim; Jong-Won Lee; Il-Yong Chung; Ji-Sun Kim; Sae-Byul Lee; Byung-Ho Son; Jin-Sup Eom; Sung-Bae Kim; Gyung-Yub Gong; Hak-Hee Kim; Sei-Hyun Ahn; BeomSeok Ko
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2019-11-01       Impact factor: 14.766

3.  Skin-sparing mastectomy with conservation of the nipple-areola complex and autologous reconstruction is an oncologically safe procedure.

Authors:  Bernd Gerber; Annette Krause; Toralf Reimer; Heiner Müller; Ingrid Küchenmeister; Joseph Makovitzky; Günther Kundt; Klaus Friese
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 12.969

Review 4.  Nipple- and areola-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of breast cancer.

Authors:  Bruna S Mota; Rachel Riera; Marcos Desidério Ricci; Jessica Barrett; Tiago B de Castria; Álvaro N Atallah; Jose Luiz B Bevilacqua
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-11-29

5.  Favorable Outcome with Close Margins in Patients Undergoing Nipple/Skin Sparing Mastectomy with Immediate Breast Reconstruction: 5-year Follow-up.

Authors:  Enver Özkurt; Mustafa Tükenmez; Erdem Güven; Burcu Çelet Özden; Gizem Öner; Mahmut Müslümanoğlu; Abdullah İğci; Vahit Özmen; Seden Küçücük; Neslihan Cabioğlu
Journal:  Balkan Med J       Date:  2017-09-29       Impact factor: 2.021

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.