| Literature DB >> 30923569 |
Mohammed Faisal1, Hamada Fathy1, Ahmed M M Gomaa1, Haidi Abd-Elzaher1, Mohamed A H Ahmed2, Mohamed Gamal Sayed1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) has gained much attention by enhancing the aesthetic outcome in breast carcinoma patients. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of malignant affection of the nipple-areola complex (NAC) in breast carcinoma patients and its correlation with prognostic factors for breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study included 137 female patients diagnosed with breast carcinoma at different disease stages who were admitted to our surgical oncology unit at Suez Canal University Hospital from June 15, 2014 to January 25, 2017. We excluded patients with evidence of nipple involvement as ulceration or patients with previous breast surgery with periareolar incisions. This study was designed to test the hypothesis that the NAC can be spared in certain selected patients. All studied participants provided a full history and underwent general and local clinical examinations, pre-operative laboratory tests, and radiological and pathological evaluations.Entities:
Keywords: Breast cancer; NAC; Nipple-sparing mastectomy
Year: 2019 PMID: 30923569 PMCID: PMC6420758 DOI: 10.1186/s13037-019-0191-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Patient Saf Surg ISSN: 1754-9493
Demographic and clinicopathologic data of all patients
| All patients | Patients with NAC | Patients without NAC | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 47.39 ± 8.01 | 50.9 ± 6.8 | 47.1 ± 8.1 | 0.136 a | |
| 32–58 | |||||
| Age subgroups | 30–39 | 35 (25.5) | 2 (16.7) | 33 (26.4) | 0.686 b |
| 40–49 | 37 (27) | 3 (25) | 34 (27.2) | ||
| ≥ 50 | 65 (47.4) | 7 (58.3) | 58 (46.4) | ||
| Tumor size | 2.9 ± 1.16 | 4.18 ± 1.16 | 2.35 ± 1.1 | <0.001 a | |
| Range | 1–6 | ||||
| < 4 cm | 101 (73.7) | 4 (33.3) | 97 (77.6) | 0.003 b | |
| ≥ 4 cm | 36 (26.3) | 8 (66.7) | 28 (22.4) | ||
| Tumor nipple distance | 3.38 ± 0.92 | 1.95 ± 0.72 | 3.52 ± 0.84 | <0.001a | |
| Range | 1.4–6 | ||||
| < 2 cm | 6 (4.4) | 4 (33.3) | 2 (1.6) | <0.001 ɑ | |
| 2 – < 2.5 cm | 11 (8) | 2 (16.7) | 9 (7.2) | ||
| 2.5 - < 3 cm | 4 (2.9) | 3 (25) | 1 (0.8) | ||
| 3 - < 4 cm | 79 (57.7) | 1 (8.3) | 78 (62.4) | ||
| ≥ 4 cm | 37 (27) | 2 (16.7) | 35 (28) | ||
| Tumor site | Upper inner | 22 (16.1) | 1 (8.3) | 21 (16.8) | 0.470 b |
| Upper outer | 26 (19.1) | 2 (16.7) | 24 (19.2) | ||
| Lower inner | 31 (22.6) | 1 (8.3) | 30 (24) | ||
| Lower outer | 7 (5.1) | 1 (8.3) | 6 (4.8) | ||
| Central | 51 (37.2) | 7 (58.3) | 44 (35.2) | ||
| Histologic type | DCIS | 32 (23.4) | 5 (41.7) | 27 (21.6) | 0.033 b |
| IDC | 37 (27) | 5 (41.7) | 32 (25.6) | ||
| LCIS | 43 (31.4) | 1 (8.3) | 42 (33.6) | ||
| ILC | 25 (18.2) | 1 (8.3) | 24 (19.2) | ||
| histologic grade | Grade I | 63 (46) | 2 (16.7) | 61 (48.8) | 0.003 b |
| Grade II | 39 (28.5) | 2 (16.7) | 37 (29.6) | ||
| Grade III | 35 (25.5) | 8 (66.7) | 27 (21.6) | ||
| Lymph node involvement | Positive | 39 (28.5) | 9 (75) | 30 (24) | 0.001b |
| Lymph node numbers | < 4 | 13 (9.5) | 0 (8.3) | 13 (43.3) | <0.001 ɑ |
| 4 - < 10 | 14 (10.2) | 1 (11.1) | 13 (43.3) | ||
| ≥ 10 | 12 (8.8) | 8 (88.9) | 4 (13.3) | ||
| Staging | II | 80 (58.4) | 3 (27.3) | 77 (61.6) | 0.032 b |
| III | 57 (41.6) | 8 (72.7) | 49 (38.9) | ||
| Multifocal tumor | 13 (9.5) | 4 (33.3) | 9 (7.2) | 0.016 b | |
| Multicenteric | 14 (10.2) | 5 (41.7) | 9 (7.2) | 0.003 b | |
| Lymphovascular invasion | 21 (15.3) | 5 (41.7) | 16 (12.8) | 0.020 b | |
| Estrogen receptor status | 13 (9.5) | 6 (50) | 7 (5.6) | <0.001b | |
| Progesterone receptor status | 12 (8.8) | 7 (58.3) | 5 (4) | <0.001b | |
| HER status | 17 (12.4) | 7 (58.3) | 10 (8) | <0.001b | |
a:Mann Whitney test b: Fischer exact test ɑ: Wilcoxon sign test
Fig. 1Invasive ductal carcinoma of no special type surrounding the smooth muscle bundles of the nipple-areola complex (100X) (a). Higher magnification of (a) (200X) (b). Invasive lobular carcinoma surrounding the smooth muscle bundles of the nipple-areola complex (100X) (c). Distribution of the tumour types included in the study in relation to nipple-areola complex involvement (d)
Predictors of NAC involvement
| RR | CI (95%) | Wald | p-value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | upper | |||||
| Age subgroups | < 40 versus > 40 years | 1.99 | 0.391 | 10.14 | 0.687 | 0.407 |
| > 40 versus > 50 years | 1.36 | 0.332 | 5.64 | 0.188 | 0.665 | |
| Tumor size | 6.92 | 1.94 | 24.17 | 8.89 | 0.003 | |
| Tumor nipple distance | < 2 versus > 2 cm | 0.029 | 0.003 | 0.262 | 9.88 | 0.002 |
| < 2.5 versus > 2.5 cm | 0.019 | 0.001 | 0.276 | 8.42 | 0.004 | |
| < 3 versus > 3 cm | 0.257 | 0.032 | 2.08 | 1.61 | 0.203 | |
| < 4 versus > 4 cm | 4.45 | 0.391 | 50.79 | 1.44 | 0.229 | |
| Lymph node metastasis | Metastasis versus no metastasis | 9.5 | 2.41 | 37.37 | 10.37 | <0.001 |
| ≥ 10versus < 10 | 26.00 | 2.45 | 275.82 | 7.31 | 0.007 | |
| Multifocal tumor | Multifocal versus not multifocal | 6.44 | 1.62 | 25.58 | 7.01 | 0.008 |
| Multicenteric | Multicentric versus not multicentric | 9.20 | 2.42 | 34.91 | 10.65 | <0.001 |
| Lymphovascular invasion | Invasion versus noninvasion | 4.86 | 1.37 | 17.18 | 6.04 | 0.014 |
| Estrogen receptor status | ER - versus ER+ | 16.85 | 4.30 | 65.97 | 16.46 | <0.001 |
| Progesterone receptor status | PR - versus PR+ | 33.60 | 7.84 | 143.97 | 22.40 | <0.001 |
| HER status | HER + versus HER - | 16.0 | 4.31 | 60.09 | 17.10 | <0.001 |
| Staging III | Stage III versus II | 4.19 | 1.1 | 16.56 | 4.17 | 0.041 |
| Histologic tumor type | DCIS versus ILC | 0.225 | 0.025 | 2.06 | 1.74 | 0.187 |
| DCIS versus IDC | 0.267 | 0.029 | 2.43 | 1.37 | 0.241 | |
| IDC versus ILC | 1.75 | 0.105 | 29.26 | 0.152 | 0.697 | |
| Histologic grade | Grade III versus grade I | 9.03 | 1.79 | 45.40 | 7.14 | 0.008 |
| Grade III versus grade II | 5.48 | 1.07 | 27.89 | 4.20 | 0.040 | |
Fig. 2ROC curve, cutoff value of tumor nipple distance for detecting NAC