Mark Sisco1, Alexandra M Kyrillos2, Brittany R Lapin3, Chihsiung E Wang3, Katharine A Yao2. 1. Division of Plastic Surgery, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Northbrook, IL, 60062, USA. msisco@northshore.org. 2. Division of Surgical Oncology, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL, 60201, USA. 3. Center for Biomedical Research Informatics, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL, 60201, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: For many women, nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) provides aesthetic and quality-of-life outcomes superior to skin-sparing mastectomy. Accumulating data suggest that NSM provides similar oncologic outcomes in select breast cancer patients. This study sought to determine national trends in NSM use. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Data Base, 6254 women with breast cancer who underwent NSM between 2010 and 2013 were identified. NSM rates were determined relative to the number of patients who received a mastectomy with reconstruction (n = 114,849). Associations between patient, tumor, and facility characteristics and NSM were assessed using logistic regression. RESULTS: The rate of NSM increased from 2.9 to 8.0 % between 2010 and 2013. NSM was most commonly performed in academic (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.43, p < 0.001) and high-volume (OR 1.59, p < 0.001) breast centers. There was up to a 5.8-fold variation in its delivery between geographic census regions (p < 0.001). Of 1231 hospitals, only 491 (39.9 %) reported performing at least one NSM during the study period. Half of all NSMs were performed by the top 6 % (n = 30) of NSM-performing centers. NSM was associated with small tumor size (p < 0.001), lower tumor grades (p < 0.05), and negative nodal status (p < 0.001). However, half of NSM patients had at least one tumor characteristic that diverged from current (2016) NCCN recommendations for the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The use of therapeutic NSM is increasing dramatically in the United States, despite recommendations that the procedure be used with caution. As NSM becomes increasingly common, efforts are needed to monitor its long-term oncologic outcomes and to ensure equitable access to it.
PURPOSE: For many women, nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) provides aesthetic and quality-of-life outcomes superior to skin-sparing mastectomy. Accumulating data suggest that NSM provides similar oncologic outcomes in select breast cancerpatients. This study sought to determine national trends in NSM use. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Data Base, 6254 women with breast cancer who underwent NSM between 2010 and 2013 were identified. NSM rates were determined relative to the number of patients who received a mastectomy with reconstruction (n = 114,849). Associations between patient, tumor, and facility characteristics and NSM were assessed using logistic regression. RESULTS: The rate of NSM increased from 2.9 to 8.0 % between 2010 and 2013. NSM was most commonly performed in academic (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.43, p < 0.001) and high-volume (OR 1.59, p < 0.001) breast centers. There was up to a 5.8-fold variation in its delivery between geographic census regions (p < 0.001). Of 1231 hospitals, only 491 (39.9 %) reported performing at least one NSM during the study period. Half of all NSMs were performed by the top 6 % (n = 30) of NSM-performing centers. NSM was associated with small tumor size (p < 0.001), lower tumor grades (p < 0.05), and negative nodal status (p < 0.001). However, half of NSM patients had at least one tumor characteristic that diverged from current (2016) NCCN recommendations for the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The use of therapeutic NSM is increasing dramatically in the United States, despite recommendations that the procedure be used with caution. As NSM becomes increasingly common, efforts are needed to monitor its long-term oncologic outcomes and to ensure equitable access to it.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Breast reconstruction; Mastectomy; Mastectomy, subcutaneous
Authors: Kate V Meriwether; Ethan M Balk; Danielle D Antosh; Cedric K Olivera; Shunaha Kim-Fine; Miles Murphy; Cara L Grimes; Ambereen Sleemi; Ruchira Singh; Alexis A Dieter; Catrina C Crisp; David D Rahn Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2019-02-11 Impact factor: 2.894
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: Walter P Weber; Martin Haug; Christian Kurzeder; Vesna Bjelic-Radisic; Rupert Koller; Roland Reitsamer; Florian Fitzal; Jorge Biazus; Fabricio Brenelli; Cicero Urban; Régis Resende Paulinelli; Jens-Uwe Blohmer; Jörg Heil; Jürgen Hoffmann; Zoltan Matrai; Giuseppe Catanuto; Viviana Galimberti; Oreste Gentilini; Mitchel Barry; Tal Hadar; Tanir M Allweis; Oded Olsha; Maria João Cardoso; Pedro F Gouveia; Isabel T Rubio; Jana de Boniface; Tor Svensjö; Susanne Bucher; Peter Dubsky; Jian Farhadi; Mathias K Fehr; Ilario Fulco; Ursula Ganz-Blättler; Andreas Günthert; Yves Harder; Nik Hauser; Elisabeth A Kappos; Michael Knauer; Julia Landin; Robert Mechera; Francesco Meani; Giacomo Montagna; Mathilde Ritter; Ramon Saccilotto; Fabienne D Schwab; Daniel Steffens; Christoph Tausch; Jasmin Zeindler; Savas D Soysal; Visnu Lohsiriwat; Tibor Kovacs; Anne Tansley; Lynda Wyld; Laszlo Romics; Mahmoud El-Tamer; Andrea L Pusic; Virgilio Sacchini; Michael Gnant Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2018-09-04 Impact factor: 4.872