Allison W Kurian1,2, Alison J Canchola3, Scarlett L Gomez2,3, Christina A Clarke4,5. 1. Departments of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. 2. Health Research and Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. 3. Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, 2201 Walnut Avenue, Suite 300, Fremont, CA, 94538, USA. 4. Health Research and Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. tina@cpic.org. 5. Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, 2201 Walnut Avenue, Suite 300, Fremont, CA, 94538, USA. tina@cpic.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Nipple-sparing mastectomy, which may improve cosmesis, body image, and sexual function in comparison to non-nipple-sparing mastectomy, is increasingly used to treat early-stage breast cancer; however, long-term survival data are lacking. We evaluated survival after nipple-sparing mastectomy versus non-nipple-sparing mastectomy in a population-based cancer registry. METHODS: We conducted an observational study using the California Cancer Registry, considering all stage 0-III breast cancers diagnosed in California from 1988 to 2013. We compared breast cancer-specific and overall survival time after nipple-sparing versus non-nipple-sparing mastectomy, using multivariable analysis. RESULTS: Among 157,592 stage 0-III female breast cancer patients treated with unilateral mastectomy from 1988-2013, 993 (0.6 %) were reported as having nipple-sparing and 156,599 (99.4 %) non-nipple-sparing mastectomies; median follow-up was 7.9 years. The proportion of mastectomies that were nipple-sparing increased over time (1988, 0.2 %; 2013, 5.1 %) and with neighborhood socioeconomic status, and decreased with age and stage. On multivariable analysis, nipple-sparing mastectomy was associated with a lower risk of breast cancer-specific mortality compared to non-nipple-sparing mastectomy [hazard ratio (HR) 0.71, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.51-0.98]. However, when restricting to diagnoses 1996 or later and adjusting for a larger set of covariates, risk was attenuated (HR 0.86, 95 % CI 0.52-1.42). CONCLUSIONS: Among California breast cancer patients diagnosed from 1988-2013, nipple-sparing mastectomy was not associated with worse survival than non-nipple-sparing mastectomy. These results may inform the decisions of patients and doctors deliberating between these surgical approaches for breast cancer treatment.
PURPOSE: Nipple-sparing mastectomy, which may improve cosmesis, body image, and sexual function in comparison to non-nipple-sparing mastectomy, is increasingly used to treat early-stage breast cancer; however, long-term survival data are lacking. We evaluated survival after nipple-sparing mastectomy versus non-nipple-sparing mastectomy in a population-based cancer registry. METHODS: We conducted an observational study using the California Cancer Registry, considering all stage 0-III breast cancers diagnosed in California from 1988 to 2013. We compared breast cancer-specific and overall survival time after nipple-sparing versus non-nipple-sparing mastectomy, using multivariable analysis. RESULTS: Among 157,592 stage 0-III female breast cancer patients treated with unilateral mastectomy from 1988-2013, 993 (0.6 %) were reported as having nipple-sparing and 156,599 (99.4 %) non-nipple-sparing mastectomies; median follow-up was 7.9 years. The proportion of mastectomies that were nipple-sparing increased over time (1988, 0.2 %; 2013, 5.1 %) and with neighborhood socioeconomic status, and decreased with age and stage. On multivariable analysis, nipple-sparing mastectomy was associated with a lower risk of breast cancer-specific mortality compared to non-nipple-sparing mastectomy [hazard ratio (HR) 0.71, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.51-0.98]. However, when restricting to diagnoses 1996 or later and adjusting for a larger set of covariates, risk was attenuated (HR 0.86, 95 % CI 0.52-1.42). CONCLUSIONS: Among California breast cancer patients diagnosed from 1988-2013, nipple-sparing mastectomy was not associated with worse survival than non-nipple-sparing mastectomy. These results may inform the decisions of patients and doctors deliberating between these surgical approaches for breast cancer treatment.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Mastectomy; Nipple-sparing; Skin-sparing; Survival
Authors: Katharine Yao; Erik Liederbach; Rong Tang; Lan Lei; Tomasz Czechura; Mark Sisco; Michael Howard; Peter J Hulick; Scott Weissman; David J Winchester; Suzanne B Coopey; Barbara L Smith Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2014-07-15 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Susan M Domchek; Tara M Friebel; Christian F Singer; D Gareth Evans; Henry T Lynch; Claudine Isaacs; Judy E Garber; Susan L Neuhausen; Ellen Matloff; Rosalind Eeles; Gabriella Pichert; Laura Van t'veer; Nadine Tung; Jeffrey N Weitzel; Fergus J Couch; Wendy S Rubinstein; Patricia A Ganz; Mary B Daly; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Gail Tomlinson; Joellen Schildkraut; Joanne L Blum; Timothy R Rebbeck Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-09-01 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Kelly A Metcalfe; Tulin D Cil; John L Semple; Lucy Dong Xuan Li; Shaghayegh Bagher; Toni Zhong; Sophia Virani; Steven Narod; Tuya Pal Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-07-25 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Rajini Katipamula; Amy C Degnim; Tanya Hoskin; Judy C Boughey; Charles Loprinzi; Clive S Grant; Kathleen R Brandt; Sandhya Pruthi; Christopher G Chute; Janet E Olson; Fergus J Couch; James N Ingle; Matthew P Goetz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-07-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Bernard Fisher; Stewart Anderson; John Bryant; Richard G Margolese; Melvin Deutsch; Edwin R Fisher; Jong-Hyeon Jeong; Norman Wolmark Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-10-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: T Seki; H Jinno; K Okabayashi; T Murata; A Matsumoto; M Takahashi; T Hayashida; Y Kitagawa Journal: Ann R Coll Surg Engl Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 1.891