BACKGROUND: Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is increasingly performed for breast cancer (BC) treatment. To ensure local control with this procedure, it is important to obtain clear surgical margins. Here, we aimed to estimate the confidence in intraoperative evaluation of the retroareolar margin (IERM) and the necessity of removing the intra-nipple ducts. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we evaluated 224 BC (infiltrating carcinoma 178, ductal carcinoma in situ 46) patients, who underwent NSM. IERM was determined via cytology and frozen sections. Following gland removal, the intra-nipple ducts were excised and embedded in paraffin for analysis. The retroareolar tissue was also paraffin-embedded and reanalyzed for definitive evaluation of retroareolar margins (DERM). The IERM predictive capacity in relation to DERM and the frequency of intra-nipple duct involvement were estimated. RESULTS: IERM classified the sub-nipple areolar complex area as cancer-free in 219 cases (97.8%). The condition of clear retroareolar margin was confirmed by DERM in 216 cases (98.6%). The IERM accuracy was estimated as 98.6%. Ductal carcinoma in situ was detected in intra-nipple ducts using paraffin sections in 1.8% of the cases, despite clear IERM (4/219). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, IERM affords high accuracy and its results are suitable to manage the nipple-areolar complex. Nevertheless, some patients may retain residual disease in the intra-nipple ducts; thus, these ducts should ideally be removed during NSM. 2020 Gland Surgery. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is increasingly performed for breast cancer (BC) treatment. To ensure local control with this procedure, it is important to obtain clear surgical margins. Here, we aimed to estimate the confidence in intraoperative evaluation of the retroareolar margin (IERM) and the necessity of removing the intra-nipple ducts. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we evaluated 224 BC (infiltrating carcinoma 178, ductal carcinoma in situ 46) patients, who underwent NSM. IERM was determined via cytology and frozen sections. Following gland removal, the intra-nipple ducts were excised and embedded in paraffin for analysis. The retroareolar tissue was also paraffin-embedded and reanalyzed for definitive evaluation of retroareolar margins (DERM). The IERM predictive capacity in relation to DERM and the frequency of intra-nipple duct involvement were estimated. RESULTS: IERM classified the sub-nipple areolar complex area as cancer-free in 219 cases (97.8%). The condition of clear retroareolar margin was confirmed by DERM in 216 cases (98.6%). The IERM accuracy was estimated as 98.6%. Ductal carcinoma in situ was detected in intra-nipple ducts using paraffin sections in 1.8% of the cases, despite clear IERM (4/219). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, IERM affords high accuracy and its results are suitable to manage the nipple-areolar complex. Nevertheless, some patients may retain residual disease in the intra-nipple ducts; thus, these ducts should ideally be removed during NSM. 2020 Gland Surgery. All rights reserved.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer (BC); nipple ducts; nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM); surgical margins
Authors: Dominic Amara; Anne Warren Peled; Frederick Wang; Cheryl A Ewing; Michael Alvarado; Laura J Esserman Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-05-29 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Alfredo Carlos Simões Dornellas de Barros; Heloísa Andrade Carvalho; Felipe Eduardo Martins Andrade; Cristiane da Costa Bandeira Abrahão Nimir; Marcelo Moura Costa Sampaio; Fabiana Baroni Makdissi; Max Senna Mano Journal: Sao Paulo Med J Date: 2019-10-31 Impact factor: 1.044
Authors: Alex J Bartholomew; Ornela A Dervishaj; Michael Sosin; Lauren T Kerivan; Shawndeep S Tung; Diana L Caragacianu; Shawna C Willey; Eleni A Tousimis Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2019-05-23 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Whitney A Young; Amy C Degnim; Tanya L Hoskin; James W Jakub; Minh-Doan Nguyen; Nho V Tran; Christin A Harless; Oscar J Manrique; Judy C Boughey; Tina J Hieken Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2019-07-24 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Jordan D Frey; Ara A Salibian; Jiyon Lee; Kristin Harris; Deborah M Axelrod; Amber A Guth; Richard L Shapiro; Freya R Schnabel; Nolan S Karp; Mihye Choi Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Barbara L Smith; Rong Tang; Upahvan Rai; Jennifer K Plichta; Amy S Colwell; Michele A Gadd; Michelle C Specht; William G Austen; Suzanne B Coopey Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2017-07-17 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Gustavo Nader Marta; Philip Poortmans; Alfredo C de Barros; José Roberto Filassi; Ruffo Freitas Junior; Riccardo A Audisio; Max Senna Mano; Sarkis Meterissian; Sarah M DeSnyder; Thomas A Buchholz; Tarek Hijal Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2017-09-19 Impact factor: 4.424