Literature DB >> 26202567

Expanded Indications and Improved Outcomes for Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy Over Time.

Adam C Krajewski1, Judy C Boughey, Amy C Degnim, James W Jakub, Steven R Jacobson, Tanya L Hoskin, Tina J Hieken.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Demand for nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) has increased. The authors' initial NSM guidelines included risk reduction and cancers 2 cm or smaller located more than 2 cm from the nipple. The relative contraindications included obesity, large and/or ptotic breasts, and prior radiation. This study aimed to evaluate changes over time in NSM indications, surgical approach, and early outcomes.
METHODS: After institutional review board approval, the study identified 354 patients scheduled for 588 NSMs, 341 (96%) of whom underwent 566 NSMs. Changes across time [early (2009-2010), mid (2011-2012), and recent (2013-6/2014)] were assessed using tests for linear trend.
RESULTS: For patients undergoing reconstruction, NSMs increased from 24% (early) to 40% (recent) (p = 0.004). Among the NSM patients, average body mass index, proportion with bra cup sizes of C or larger, and prior radiation increased significantly over time. Performance of NSM for tumors 2 cm or less from the nipple increased from 5 to 18%, and after neoadjuvant therapy, from 8 to 21.5% (p = 0.02). Use of inframammary, radial, and reduction-type incisions increased over time, together with intraoperative laser angiography (both p < 0.0001). Concomitantly, the overall complication rate, complications requiring treatment, and postoperative nipple loss decreased. During a median follow-up period of 19 months, five locoregional recurrences (LRR) were observed, for an estimated 2-year LRR rate of 1.7% [95% confidence interval (CI), 0-3.9%].
CONCLUSIONS: Over time, the indications for NSM expanded in terms of patient characteristics, tumor stage, and prior therapy, whereas the complication rates decreased. Excellent short-term outcomes suggest that NSM is a reasonable approach for many risk-reduction and cancer patients without disease in the nipple-areolar complex. Further study is needed to assess long-term aesthetics, patient satisfaction, and oncologic safety.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26202567     DOI: 10.1245/s10434-015-4737-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol        ISSN: 1068-9265            Impact factor:   5.344


  16 in total

1.  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

2.  Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and its impact on quality of life.

Authors:  Tina J Hieken; Judy C Boughey
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2016-08

Review 3.  Implant Reconstruction in Nipple Sparing Mastectomy.

Authors:  Carrie K Chu; Matthew J Davis; Amjed Abu-Ghname; Sebastian J Winocour; Albert Losken; Grant W Carlson
Journal:  Semin Plast Surg       Date:  2019-10-17       Impact factor: 2.314

4.  Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy is Not Associated with a Delay of Adjuvant Treatment.

Authors:  Emily L Albright; Mary C Schroeder; Kendra Foster; Sonia L Sugg; Lillian M Erdahl; Ronald J Weigel; Ingrid M Lizarraga
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2018-04-18       Impact factor: 5.344

5.  Use of bilateral prophylactic nipple-sparing mastectomy in patients with high risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  M G Valero; T-A Moo; S Muhsen; E C Zabor; M Stempel; A Pusic; M L Gemignani; M Morrow; V Sacchini
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2020-05-20       Impact factor: 6.939

6.  Two-Stage Versus One-Stage Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: Timing of Surgery Prevents Nipple Loss.

Authors:  Tammy Ju; Julia Chandler; Arash Momeni; Geoffrey Gurtner; Jacqueline Tsai; Dung Nguyen; Irene Wapnir
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-07-21       Impact factor: 5.344

7.  Oncologic Safety of Prophylactic Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy in a Population With BRCA Mutations: A Multi-institutional Study.

Authors:  James W Jakub; Anne Warren Peled; Richard J Gray; Rachel A Greenup; John V Kiluk; Virgilio Sacchini; Sarah A McLaughlin; Julia C Tchou; Robert A Vierkant; Amy C Degnim; Shawna Willey
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 14.766

8.  Increase in Utilization of Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy for Breast Cancer: Indications, Complications, and Oncologic Outcomes.

Authors:  Monica G Valero; Shirin Muhsen; Tracy-Ann Moo; Emily C Zabor; Michelle Stempel; Andrea Pusic; Mary L Gemignani; Monica Morrow; Virgilio S Sacchini
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2019-12-10       Impact factor: 5.344

9.  A Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcomes After Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Conventional Mastectomy with Reconstruction.

Authors:  Anya Romanoff; Emily C Zabor; Michelle Stempel; Virgilio Sacchini; Andrea Pusic; Monica Morrow
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2018-07-02       Impact factor: 5.344

10.  Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy with Primary Implant Reconstruction: Surgical and Oncological Outcome of 435 Breast Cancer Patients.

Authors:  Zoran Radovanovic; Milan Ranisavljevic; Dragana Radovanovic; Ferenc Vicko; Tatjana Ivkovic-Kapicl; Nenad Solajic
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2018-06-20       Impact factor: 2.860

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.