BACKGROUND: A tumor-to-nipple distance of greater than 2 cm has traditionally been considered a criterion for nipple-sparing mastectomy. This study evaluates whether magnetic resonance imaging and sonographic measurements of tumor-to-nipple distance accurately reflect the risk of nipple involvement by disease. METHODS: All nipple-sparing mastectomy cases with implant-based reconstruction performed by the senior author between July 2006 and December 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Therapeutic cases with preoperative magnetic resonance imaging or sonography were included. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-five cases were included. Preoperative imaging consisted of sonography (n = 169), magnetic resonance imaging (n = 152), or both (n = 126). With sonography, nipple involvement did not differ between nipple-sparing mastectomy candidates and noncandidates using a tumor-to-nipple distance cutoff of 2 cm (10.7 percent versus 10.6 percent; p = 0.988) or 1 cm (9.3 percent versus 15.0 percent; p = 0.307). With magnetic resonance imaging, nipple involvement did not differ between candidates and noncandidates using a cutoff of 2 cm (11.6 percent versus 12.5 percent; p = 0.881) or 1 cm (11.4 percent versus 13.8 percent; p = 0.718). When sonography and magnetic resonance imaging findings were both available and concordant, nipple involvement still did not differ between candidates and noncandidates using a cutoff of 2 cm (8.8 percent versus 11.8 percent; p = 0.711) or 1 cm (7.6 percent versus 14.3 percent; p = 0.535). CONCLUSION: A tumor-to-nipple distance as small as 1 cm, as measured by sonography or magnetic resonance imaging, should not be considered a contraindication to nipple-sparing mastectomy. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, II.
BACKGROUND: A tumor-to-nipple distance of greater than 2 cm has traditionally been considered a criterion for nipple-sparing mastectomy. This study evaluates whether magnetic resonance imaging and sonographic measurements of tumor-to-nipple distance accurately reflect the risk of nipple involvement by disease. METHODS: All nipple-sparing mastectomy cases with implant-based reconstruction performed by the senior author between July 2006 and December 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Therapeutic cases with preoperative magnetic resonance imaging or sonography were included. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-five cases were included. Preoperative imaging consisted of sonography (n = 169), magnetic resonance imaging (n = 152), or both (n = 126). With sonography, nipple involvement did not differ between nipple-sparing mastectomy candidates and noncandidates using a tumor-to-nipple distance cutoff of 2 cm (10.7 percent versus 10.6 percent; p = 0.988) or 1 cm (9.3 percent versus 15.0 percent; p = 0.307). With magnetic resonance imaging, nipple involvement did not differ between candidates and noncandidates using a cutoff of 2 cm (11.6 percent versus 12.5 percent; p = 0.881) or 1 cm (11.4 percent versus 13.8 percent; p = 0.718). When sonography and magnetic resonance imaging findings were both available and concordant, nipple involvement still did not differ between candidates and noncandidates using a cutoff of 2 cm (8.8 percent versus 11.8 percent; p = 0.711) or 1 cm (7.6 percent versus 14.3 percent; p = 0.535). CONCLUSION: A tumor-to-nipple distance as small as 1 cm, as measured by sonography or magnetic resonance imaging, should not be considered a contraindication to nipple-sparing mastectomy. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, II.
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 Houvenaeghel; M Bannier; S Rua; J Barrou; M Heinemann; A Van Troy; E Lambaudie; M Cohen Journal: World J Surg Oncol Date: 2019-02-06 Impact factor: 2.754
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
Authors: Emad Alsharif; Jai Min Ryu; Hee Jun Choi; Seok Jin Nam; Seok Won Kim; Jonghan Yu; Byung Joo Chae; Se Kyung Lee; Jeong Eon Lee Journal: J Breast Cancer Date: 2019-10-07 Impact factor: 3.588