James W Jakub1, Anne Warren Peled2, Richard J Gray3, Rachel A Greenup4, John V Kiluk5, Virgilio Sacchini6, Sarah A McLaughlin7, Julia C Tchou8, Robert A Vierkant9, Amy C Degnim1, Shawna Willey10. 1. Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 2. Department of Surgery, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco. 3. Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona. 4. Department of Surgery, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. 5. Department of Surgery, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida. 6. Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 7. Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida. 8. Department of Surgery, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, Philadelphia. 9. Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 10. Department of Surgery, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC.
Abstract
Importance: Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) offers superior cosmetic outcomes and has been gaining wide acceptance; however, its role among patients with BRCA mutations remains controversial. Objective: To report on the oncologic safety of NSM and provide evidence-based data to patients and health care professionals regarding preservation of the nipple-areolar complex during a risk-reducing mastectomy in a population with BRCA mutations. Design, Setting, and Participants: We retrospectively reviewed the outcomes of 9 institutions' experience with prophylactic NSM from 1968 to 2013 in a cohort of patients with BRCA mutations. Patients with breast cancer were included if they underwent contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy; however, only the prophylactic side was considered in the analysis. Patients found to have an occult primary breast cancer at the time of risk-reducing mastectomy, those having variant(s) of unknown significance, and those undergoing free nipple grafts were excluded. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was development of a new breast cancer after risk-reducing NSM. Three reference data sources were used to model the expected number of events, and this was compared with our observed number of events. Results: A total of 548 risk-reducing NSMs in 346 patients were performed at 9 institutions. The median age at NSM was 41 years (interquartile range, 34.5-47.5 years). Bilateral prophylactic NSMs were performed in 202 patients (58.4%), and 144 patients (41.6%) underwent a unilateral risk-reducing NSM secondary to cancer in the contralateral breast. Overall, 201 patients with BRCA1 mutations and 145 with BRCA2 mutations were included. With median and mean follow-up of 34 and 56 months, respectively, no ipsilateral breast cancers occurred after prophylactic NSM. Breast cancer did not develop in any patients undergoing bilateral risk-reducing NSMs. Using risk models for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, approximately 22 new primary breast cancers were expected without prophylactic NSM. Prophylactic NSM resulted in a significant reduction in breast cancer events (test of observed vs expected events, P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Nipple-sparing mastectomies are highly preventive against breast cancer in a BRCA population. Although the follow-up remains relatively short, NSM should be offered as a breast cancer risk-reducing strategy to appropriate patients with BRCA mutations.
Importance: Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) offers superior cosmetic outcomes and has been gaining wide acceptance; however, its role among patients with BRCA mutations remains controversial. Objective: To report on the oncologic safety of NSM and provide evidence-based data to patients and health care professionals regarding preservation of the nipple-areolar complex during a risk-reducing mastectomy in a population with BRCA mutations. Design, Setting, and Participants: We retrospectively reviewed the outcomes of 9 institutions' experience with prophylactic NSM from 1968 to 2013 in a cohort of patients with BRCA mutations. Patients with breast cancer were included if they underwent contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy; however, only the prophylactic side was considered in the analysis. Patients found to have an occult primary breast cancer at the time of risk-reducing mastectomy, those having variant(s) of unknown significance, and those undergoing free nipple grafts were excluded. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was development of a new breast cancer after risk-reducing NSM. Three reference data sources were used to model the expected number of events, and this was compared with our observed number of events. Results: A total of 548 risk-reducing NSMs in 346 patients were performed at 9 institutions. The median age at NSM was 41 years (interquartile range, 34.5-47.5 years). Bilateral prophylactic NSMs were performed in 202 patients (58.4%), and 144 patients (41.6%) underwent a unilateral risk-reducing NSM secondary to cancer in the contralateral breast. Overall, 201 patients with BRCA1 mutations and 145 with BRCA2 mutations were included. With median and mean follow-up of 34 and 56 months, respectively, no ipsilateral breast cancers occurred after prophylactic NSM. Breast cancer did not develop in any patients undergoing bilateral risk-reducing NSMs. Using risk models for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, approximately 22 new primary breast cancers were expected without prophylactic NSM. Prophylactic NSM resulted in a significant reduction in breast cancer events (test of observed vs expected events, P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Nipple-sparing mastectomies are highly preventive against breast cancer in a BRCA population. Although the follow-up remains relatively short, NSM should be offered as a breast cancer risk-reducing strategy to appropriate patients with BRCA mutations.
Authors: Shoshana M Rosenberg; Kathryn J Ruddy; Rulla M Tamimi; Shari Gelber; Lidia Schapira; Steven Come; Virginia F Borges; Bryce Larsen; Judy E Garber; Ann H Partridge Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2016-06-01 Impact factor: 31.777
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: Carol Reynolds; Jennifer A Davidson; Noralane M Lindor; Katrina N Glazebrook; James W Jakub; Amy C Degnim; Nicole P Sandhu; Molly F Walsh; Lynn C Hartmann; Judy C Boughey Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-09-27 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: Nasim Mavaddat; Susan Peock; Debra Frost; Steve Ellis; Radka Platte; Elena Fineberg; D Gareth Evans; Louise Izatt; Rosalind A Eeles; Julian Adlard; Rosemarie Davidson; Diana Eccles; Trevor Cole; Jackie Cook; Carole Brewer; Marc Tischkowitz; Fiona Douglas; Shirley Hodgson; Lisa Walker; Mary E Porteous; Patrick J Morrison; Lucy E Side; M John Kennedy; Catherine Houghton; Alan Donaldson; Mark T Rogers; Huw Dorkins; Zosia Miedzybrodzka; Helen Gregory; Jacqueline Eason; Julian Barwell; Emma McCann; Alex Murray; Antonis C Antoniou; Douglas F Easton Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2013-04-29 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Adam C Krajewski; Judy C Boughey; Amy C Degnim; James W Jakub; Steven R Jacobson; Tanya L Hoskin; Tina J Hieken Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-07-23 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Mieke Kriege; Cecile T M Brekelmans; Carla Boetes; Peter E Besnard; Harmine M Zonderland; Inge Marie Obdeijn; Radu A Manoliu; Theo Kok; Hans Peterse; Madeleine M A Tilanus-Linthorst; Sara H Muller; Sybren Meijer; Jan C Oosterwijk; Louk V A M Beex; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Harry J de Koning; Emiel J T Rutgers; Jan G M Klijn Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-07-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: B A M Heemskerk-Gerritsen; M B E Menke-Pluijmers; A Jager; M M A Tilanus-Linthorst; L B Koppert; I M A Obdeijn; C H M van Deurzen; J M Collée; C Seynaeve; M J Hooning Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2013-04-10 Impact factor: 32.976
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