BACKGROUND: Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is an increasingly common procedure; however, concerns exist regarding its oncological safety due to the potential for residual breast tissue to harbor occult malignancy or future cancer. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed. Studies with internal comparison arms evaluating therapeutic NSM versus skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) and/or modified radical mastectomy (MRM) were included in a meta-analysis of overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and local recurrence (LR). Studies lacking comparison arms were only included in the systematic review to evaluate mean OS, DFS, LR, and nipple-areolar recurrence (NAR). RESULTS: The search yielded 851 articles. Twenty studies with 5594 patients met selection criteria. The meta-analysis included eight studies with comparison arms. Seven studies that compared OS found a 3.4% risk difference between NSM and MRM/SSM, five studies that compared DFS found a 9.6% risk difference between NSM and MRM/SSM, and eight studies that compared LR found a 0.4% risk difference between NSM and MRM/SSM. Risk differences for all outcomes were not statistically significant. The systematic review included all 20 studies and evaluated OS, DFS, LR, and NAR. Studies with follow-up intervals of <3 years, 3-5 years, and >5 years had mean OS of 97.2, 97.9, and 86.8%; DFS of 93.1, 92.3, and 76.1%; LR of 5.4, 1.4, and 11.4%; and NAR of 2.1, 1.0, and 3.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not detect adverse oncologic outcomes of NSM in carefully selected women with early-stage breast cancer. Use of prospective data registries, notably the Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy Registry, will add clarity to this important clinical question.
BACKGROUND: Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is an increasingly common procedure; however, concerns exist regarding its oncological safety due to the potential for residual breast tissue to harbor occult malignancy or future cancer. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed. Studies with internal comparison arms evaluating therapeutic NSM versus skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) and/or modified radical mastectomy (MRM) were included in a meta-analysis of overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and local recurrence (LR). Studies lacking comparison arms were only included in the systematic review to evaluate mean OS, DFS, LR, and nipple-areolar recurrence (NAR). RESULTS: The search yielded 851 articles. Twenty studies with 5594 patients met selection criteria. The meta-analysis included eight studies with comparison arms. Seven studies that compared OS found a 3.4% risk difference between NSM and MRM/SSM, five studies that compared DFS found a 9.6% risk difference between NSM and MRM/SSM, and eight studies that compared LR found a 0.4% risk difference between NSM and MRM/SSM. Risk differences for all outcomes were not statistically significant. The systematic review included all 20 studies and evaluated OS, DFS, LR, and NAR. Studies with follow-up intervals of <3 years, 3-5 years, and >5 years had mean OS of 97.2, 97.9, and 86.8%; DFS of 93.1, 92.3, and 76.1%; LR of 5.4, 1.4, and 11.4%; and NAR of 2.1, 1.0, and 3.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not detect adverse oncologic outcomes of NSM in carefully selected women with early-stage breast cancer. Use of prospective data registries, notably the Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy Registry, will add clarity to this important clinical question.
Authors: Michael A Howard; Mark Sisco; Katharine Yao; David J Winchester; Ermilo Barrera; Jeremy Warner; Jennifer Jaffe; Peter Hulick; Kristine Kuchta; Andrea L Pusic; Stephen F Sener Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2016-07-08 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Laura S Dominici; Monica Morrow; Elizabeth Mittendorf; Jennifer Bellon; Tari A King Journal: Curr Probl Surg Date: 2016-11-29 Impact factor: 1.909
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: G Curigliano; H J Burstein; E P Winer; M Gnant; P Dubsky; S Loibl; M Colleoni; M M Regan; M Piccart-Gebhart; H-J Senn; B Thürlimann; F André; J Baselga; J Bergh; H Bonnefoi; S Y Brucker; F Cardoso; L Carey; E Ciruelos; J Cuzick; C Denkert; A Di Leo; B Ejlertsen; P Francis; V Galimberti; J Garber; B Gulluoglu; P Goodwin; N Harbeck; D F Hayes; C-S Huang; J Huober; K Hussein; J Jassem; Z Jiang; P Karlsson; M Morrow; R Orecchia; K C Osborne; O Pagani; A H Partridge; K Pritchard; J Ro; E J T Rutgers; F Sedlmayer; V Semiglazov; Z Shao; I Smith; M Toi; A Tutt; G Viale; T Watanabe; T J Whelan; B Xu Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 32.976
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