M G Valero1, T-A Moo1, S Muhsen1, E C Zabor2, M Stempel1, A Pusic3, M L Gemignani1, M Morrow1, V Sacchini1. 1. Breast Service, Department of Surgery, New York, USA. 2. Biostatistics Service, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA. 3. Division of Plastic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is being performed increasingly for risk reduction in high-risk groups. There are limited data regarding complications and oncological outcomes in women undergoing bilateral prophylactic NSM. This study reviewed institutional experience with prophylactic NSM, and examined the indications, rates of postoperative complications, incidence of occult malignant disease and subsequent breast cancer diagnosis. METHODS: Women who had bilateral prophylactic NSM between 2000 and 2016 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Rates of postoperative complications, incidental breast cancer, recurrence and overall survival were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 192 women underwent 384 prophylactic NSMs. Indications included BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations in 117 patients (60·9 per cent), family history of breast cancer in 35 (18·2 per cent), lobular carcinoma in situ in 29 (15·1 per cent) and other reasons in 11 (5·7 per cent). Immediate breast reconstruction was performed in 191 patients. Of 384 NSMs, 116 breasts (30·2 per cent) had some evidence of skin necrosis at follow-up, which resolved spontaneously in most; only 24 breasts (6·3 per cent) required debridement. Overall, there was at least one complication in 129 breasts (33·6 per cent); 3·6 and 1·6 per cent had incidental findings of ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer respectively. The nipple-areola complex was preserved entirely in 378 mastectomies. After a median follow-up of 36·8 months, there had been no deaths and no new breast cancer diagnoses. CONCLUSION: These findings support the use of prophylactic NSM in high-risk patients. The nipples could be preserved in the majority of patients, postoperative complication rates were low, and, with limited follow-up, there were no new breast cancers.
BACKGROUND: Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is being performed increasingly for risk reduction in high-risk groups. There are limited data regarding complications and oncological outcomes in women undergoing bilateral prophylactic NSM. This study reviewed institutional experience with prophylactic NSM, and examined the indications, rates of postoperative complications, incidence of occult malignant disease and subsequent breast cancer diagnosis. METHODS:Women who had bilateral prophylactic NSM between 2000 and 2016 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Rates of postoperative complications, incidental breast cancer, recurrence and overall survival were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 192 women underwent 384 prophylactic NSMs. Indications included BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations in 117 patients (60·9 per cent), family history of breast cancer in 35 (18·2 per cent), lobular carcinoma in situ in 29 (15·1 per cent) and other reasons in 11 (5·7 per cent). Immediate breast reconstruction was performed in 191 patients. Of 384 NSMs, 116 breasts (30·2 per cent) had some evidence of skin necrosis at follow-up, which resolved spontaneously in most; only 24 breasts (6·3 per cent) required debridement. Overall, there was at least one complication in 129 breasts (33·6 per cent); 3·6 and 1·6 per cent had incidental findings of ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer respectively. The nipple-areola complex was preserved entirely in 378 mastectomies. After a median follow-up of 36·8 months, there had been no deaths and no new breast cancer diagnoses. CONCLUSION: These findings support the use of prophylactic NSM in high-risk patients. The nipples could be preserved in the majority of patients, postoperative complication rates were low, and, with limited follow-up, there were no new breast cancers.
Authors: Michael A Howard; Mark Sisco; Katharine Yao; David J Winchester; Ermilo Barrera; Jeremy Warner; Jennifer Jaffe; Peter Hulick; Kristine Kuchta; Andrea L Pusic; Stephen F Sener Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2016-07-08 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: J Y Petit; U Veronesi; R Orecchia; P Rey; S Martella; F Didier; G Viale; P Veronesi; A Luini; V Galimberti; R Bedolis; M Rietjens; C Garusi; F De Lorenzi; R Bosco; A Manconi; G B Ivaldi; O Youssef Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2009-01-17 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Cindy B Matsen; Babak Mehrara; Anne Eaton; Deborah Capko; Anastasia Berg; Michelle Stempel; Kimberly J Van Zee; Andrea Pusic; Tari A King; Hiram S Cody; Melissa Pilewskie; Peter Cordeiro; Lisa Sclafani; George Plitas; Mary L Gemignani; Joseph Disa; Mahmoud El-Tamer; Monica Morrow Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-07-21 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Suzanne B Coopey; Rong Tang; Lan Lei; Phoebe E Freer; Kari Kansal; Amy S Colwell; Michele A Gadd; Michelle C Specht; William G Austen; Barbara L Smith Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2013-08-22 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Antonio J Esgueva; Iris Noordhoek; Elma Meershoek-Klein Kranenbarg; Martin Espinosa-Bravo; Zoltán Mátrai; Andrii Zhygulin; Arvids Irmejs; Carlos Mavioso; Francesco Meani; Eduardo González; Murat Özdemir; Tanir Allweis; Karol Rogowski; Catarina Rodrigues Dos Santos; Henrique Mora; Riccardo Ponzone; Domenico Samorani; Cornelis van de Velde; Riccardo A Audisio; Isabel T Rubio Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-11-08 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Karin Kast; Julia Häfner; Evelin Schröck; Arne Jahn; Carmen Werner; Cornelia Meisel; Pauline Wimberger Journal: Breast Care (Basel) Date: 2021-06-17 Impact factor: 2.268