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.
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 cancerpatients without disease in the nipple-areolar complex. Further study is needed to assess long-term aesthetics, patient satisfaction, and oncologic safety.
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
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
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
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
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
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