Evaluation of Local Oncologic Safety in Nipple-Areola Complex-sparing Mastectomy After Primary Chemotherapy: A Propensity Score-matched Study

Prediction of nipple involvement in breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: Should we rely on breast MRI to preserve the nipple?

BACKGROUND

Indications for nipple sparing mastectomy (NSM) is extending to post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) setting. Eligibility for NSM with an optimum tumor-nipple distance (TND) after NAC is unclear. We examined predictive factors for nipple tumor involvement in patients undergoing total mastectomy following NAC.

METHODS

Clinical and pathological data from prospectively collected medical records of women with invasive breast carcinoma, who were undergone NAC and total mastectomy with sentinel lymph node biopsy and/or axillary lymph node dissection were analyzed. PreNAC and postNAC magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) views were examined and a cut-off TND value for predicting the negative nipple tumor status was determined.

RESULTS

Among 180 women, the final mastectomy specimen analysis revealed that 12 (7%) had nipple involvement as invasive carcinoma. Patients with nipple involvement had more postNAC multifocal/multicentric tumors (p: 0.03), larger tumors on preNAC and postNAC images (p: 0.002 and p < 0.001), shorter median TNDs on preNAC and postNAC images (7 mm-IQR 1.5-14, p: 0.005 and 8.5 mm-IQR 3-15.5, p < 0.001, respectively), more nipple retraction on preNAC and postNAC images (p: 0.007 and p: 0.006) and more nipple areola complex skin thickening (> 2mm) on preNAC and postNAC images (p < 0.001 and p: 0.01). The best likelihood ratios (LR) belonged to the postNAC positivity of the < 20 mm TND, with a + LR of 3.40, and - LR of 0.11 for nipple involvement. PreNAC positivity of the < 20 mm TND also had a similar - LR of 0.14.

CONCLUSION

A TND-cut-off  ≥ 2 cm on preNAC and postNAC MRI was shown to be highly predictive of negative nipple tumor involvement.

Oncological safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

the use of nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) in local advanced breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NQT) is increasing, despite few studies on the subject. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the safety of NSM after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

METHODS

for this systematic review we searched MEDLINE; Cochrane; Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO); Embase and Scopus. A literature search of all original studies including randomized controlled trials, cohort studies and case-control studies comparing women undergoing NSM after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer was undertaken. Outcomes were locoregional recurrence (LRR), nipple recurrence and distant recurrence (DR). Data analysis was undertaken to explore the safety of NSM after NQT. The quality of the evidence was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. This study is registered on PROSPERO, number CRD42021276778.

FINDINGS

a total of 437 articles were identified. Four articles were included with 1466 patients all of which had a high to serious risk of overall bias. Local recurrence in the NSM after the NQT group ranged from zero to 9.8%. Nippleareolar complex (NAC) recurrence ranged from zero to 2.1%. The distant recurrence rate ranged from 6.5% to 16%. Due to the lack of pattern among the control groups, it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis.

INTERPRETATION

this review provides information for decision making in performing NSM after NQT. Despite the low rates of local recurrence and patients should be counseled about limited oncological information.

A systematic review of oncological outcomes after nipple-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer

Nipple-sparing mastectomy is an alternative to skin-sparing mastectomy in select patients. Increasing evidence supports its use in the setting of breast cancer, however concerns still exist regarding oncological safety. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate long-term oncological outcomes of patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer. A systematic review of the literature was performed to evaluate oncological outcomes in patients with breast cancer who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy. Five major databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane) were searched. The review included all original articles published in English reporting long-term oncological outcomes. 2334 studies were identified. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 17 retrospective studies involving 7107 patients were included. The indication for nipple-sparing mastectomy was invasive carcinoma in 6069 patients (85.4%) and in situ disease in 1038 (14.6%). Median follow up was 48 months (range 25-94). The weighted mean rates of local recurrence and recurrence involving the nipple-areola complex were 5.4% (0.9-11.9) and 1.3% (0-4.9), respectively. The weighted mean distant failure rate was 4.8% (1.5-23.0). Therapeutic nipple-sparing mastectomy is oncologically safe in select patients with breast cancer.

Innovative Standards in Surgery of the Breast after Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy

BACKGROUND

The goal of neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) in breast cancer is to downstage tumors and downgrade treatment. Indications are constantly evolving. These changes raise practical questions for planning of surgery after NST.

SUMMARY

In this review we discuss current evolving aspects of surgery of the breast after NST. Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) eligibility increases after NST - both neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and neoadjuvant endocrine therapy. Adequate margin width in NST and upfront surgery are similar - "no tumor on ink" for invasive cancer. Oncoplastic breast surgery after NST is feasible - both for BCS and mastectomy with reconstruction. There is increasing interest in the possibility of omitting surgery in patients with a complete response to NAC. Several trials are being conducted in aim of achieving acceptable prediction of pathological complete response, by combination of imaging and percutaneous biopsy of the tumor bed, as well as assessing the safety of such an approach.

KEY MESSAGES

Surgery of the breast after NST should be determined not only according to biologic and anatomic parameters at diagnosis, but is dynamic, and must be tailored according to the response to therapy. The omission of surgery in exceptional responders after NAC is being explored.

Factors Predicting Locoregional Recurrence After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Nipple-Sparing/Skin-Sparing Mastectomy With Immediate Breast Reconstruction

Background

Few data are available on the risk factors of locoregional recurrence (LRR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) in breast cancer. Herein, we evaluated the factors predicting LRR in a large series of patients who underwent either nipple- (NSM) or skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) with IBR after NACT.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 609 breast cancer patients who underwent NACT and NSM/SSM with IBR between February 2010 and June 2017. Factors associated with an increased risk of LRR were analyzed by univariate (chi-square or Fisher's exact test) and multivariate (Cox proportional hazard regression model) analyses.

Results

During a median follow-up of 63 months, LRR as the first event occurred in 73 patients, and the 5-year cumulative LRR rate was 10.8%. Multivariate analysis revealed post-NACT Ki67 ≥ 10% [hazard ratio (HR), 2.208; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.295-3.765; P = 0.004], high tumor grade (HR, 1.738; 95% CI, 1.038-2.908; P = 0.035), and presence of lymphovascular invasion (LVI) (HR, 1.725; 95% CI, 1.039-2.864; P = 0.035) as independently associated with increased LRR risk. The 10-year LRR rate was 8.5% for patients with none of the three associated risk factors, 11.6% with one factor, 25.1% with two factors, and 33.7% with all three factors (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Post-NACT Ki67 ≥ 10%, high tumor grade, and presence of LVI are independently associated with an increased risk of developing LRR after NACT and NSM/SSM with IBR. Future prospective trials are warranted to decrease the risk of LRR in patients with associated risk factors.

Is Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy Indicated after Previous Breast Surgery? A Series of 387 Institutional Cases

BACKGROUND

Previous breast surgery does not represent an absolute contraindication for nipple-sparing mastectomy, although it may negatively interfere with surgical outcomes. The aim of the authors' study was to confirm the feasibility of nipple-sparing mastectomy after previous breast surgery, focusing on skin incisions and risk factors, complications, and oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively identified 368 patients who underwent 387 nipple-sparing mastectomies and reconstruction after previous surgery (quadrantectomy, breast resection, augmentation and reduction mammaplasty, mastopexy) at the European Institute of Oncology from January of 2003 to November of 2017. Patterns of skin incisions (i.e., radial, hemiperiareolar, periareolar, vertical pattern, inframammary fold, Wise-pattern, and round-block) for primary surgery and for mastectomy, type of reconstruction, and radiotherapy have been recorded. The authors collected data regarding early and late complications and further operations (implant change, fat grafting) performed within 2 years to improve cosmetic outcomes. Oncologic follow-up has been reported for in-breast recurrences.

RESULTS

Complete and partial nipple-areola complex necrosis occurred, respectively, in 2.8 percent and in 5.4 percent of cases. The authors recorded 5.4 percent failures resulting in implant removal. The analysis of risk factors for complications or for the need for further operations showed no significant association with skin incision for first surgery and mastectomy, use of the same skin incision, previous radiotherapy, or type of primary surgery. Five-year overall survival and disease-free survival were 99.1 and 93.8 percent, respectively. No nipple recurrence was recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors' results confirm that nipple-sparing mastectomy can be a safe surgical procedure after previous breast surgery. Surgical planning should be tailored to each patient.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Breast Reconstruction and Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: Technical Modifications and Their Outcomes Over Time at an Academic Breast Center

BACKGROUND

Superior aesthetic outcomes can be achieved with mastectomy techniques that maximize breast envelope preservation and maintain the nipple-areolar complex. This is the impetus for the popularization of the nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM). Nipple-sparing mastectomy is a challenging procedure due to potential ischemia of the mastectomy flap (which includes the nipple-areolar complex) and the risk of incomplete oncologic resection. We review our experience with NSM, identify technique modifications used over time, and evaluate reconstructive outcomes of NSM and its modifications.

METHODS

A retrospective review of consecutive patients with NSM and breast reconstruction over an 8-year period was completed.

RESULTS

Fifty-five patients underwent 95 NSMs. Indications included invasive and in situ cancer, atypical ductal hyperplasia, and risk reduction. In the first 4 years of experience, the most frequently used NSM incision was radial (lateral) whereas use of a variety of incision patterns was noted in the second 4 years. Overall NSM and breast reconstruction complication rate for the entire study period was 50.9% and included a full-thickness mastectomy skin flap necrosis/nipple necrosis rate of 8.4%. In situ cancer of the nipple was identified in 3.2% of the patients, and 1 patient had locoregional recurrence. Overall complication rate was lower in the second 4 years of experience with NSM and reconstruction. One third of the patients underwent intraoperative fluorescent angiography (FA) to assess mastectomy skin perfusion before reconstruction start. Of the patients who had FA due to perfusion concerns, more than 70% of studies demonstrated poor perfusion and 83.3% of these patients had reconstruction delayed based on these results. Immediate, implant-based reconstruction was performed most commonly. An average of 2.66 procedures were required to achieve reconstruction completion, and 92.4% of the patients who sought reconstruction achieved completion.

CONCLUSIONS

At our institution, NSM use is increasing, NSM incision pattern types used are expanding, and complication rates are decreasing. Immediate, implant-based reconstruction is most commonly used in combination with NSM at our institution. Fluorescent angiography is used to assess mastectomy skin perfusion and likely limits mastectomy complication effects on reconstruction. Despite the occurrence of complications, most patients will complete the breast reconstruction process.

Long-term Oncologic Outcomes of Immediate Breast Reconstruction vs Conventional Mastectomy Alone for Breast Cancer in the Setting of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy

Importance

An increasing number of patients with breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) undergo immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) with nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) or skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) as surgical treatment. However, the oncologic efficacy and safety of this treatment sequencing strategy is unclear.

Objective

To compare the long-term oncologic outcomes of IBR with NSM/SSM and conventional mastectomy (CM) alone for breast cancer in the NACT setting.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A retrospective, propensity score-matched case-control study was conducted at Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. A total of 1266 patients with breast cancer who underwent NACT followed by mastectomy with or without breast reconstruction between January 1, 2010, and November 30, 2016, were included. Data analysis was performed from July 1, 2019, to January 24, 2020. After propensity score matching, 323 patients who underwent IBR with NSM/SSM and 323 who underwent CM alone were selected for comparison of long-term oncologic outcomes.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The 5-year local recurrence-free survival, disease-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, and overall survival rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank tests. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were estimated using the Cox proportional hazards regression model.

Results

After matching, the median follow-up periods were 67 (range, 17-125) months for the IBR group and 68 (range, 17-126) months for the CM-alone group. Median age of the women in the IBR group was 42 (range, 23-72) years; median age of those in the CM-alone group was 46 (range, 30-75) years. No significant differences were observed between the IBR and CM-alone groups in local recurrence (3.7% vs 3.4%; P = .83), regional recurrence (7.1% vs 5.3%; P = .33), or distant metastasis (17.3% vs 18.6%; P = .68) rates. There was also no significant difference between the IBR and CM-alone groups in 5-year local recurrence-free survival (95.6% vs 96.7%; HR, 1.124; 95% CI, 0.495-2.549; P = .78), disease-free survival (76.5% vs 79.9%; HR, 1.089; 95% CI, 0.790-1.500; P = .60), distant metastasis-free survival (82.5% vs 82.5%; HR, 0.941; 95% CI, 0.654-1.355; P = .74), or overall survival (92.0% vs 89.3%; HR, 0.847; 95% CI, 0.530-1.353; P = .49) rates.

Conclusions and Relevance

The long-term oncologic outcomes of IBR with NSM/SSM for breast cancer in this study appeared to be comparable to those of CM alone after NACT, suggesting the feasibility of IBR with NSM/SSM in the NACT setting.

Locoregional recurrence following nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction: Patterns and prognostic significance

INTRODUCTION

There are limited available data on the prognostic implications of locoregional recurrence (LRR) after nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) and immediate reconstruction. In this study, we investigated the patterns and prognosis associated with LRR following this treatment approach for breast cancer.

METHODS

A total of 1696 patients with primary breast cancer who underwent NSM with immediate reconstruction from March 2003 to December 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. Post-recurrence disease-free survival (DFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Univariate and multivariate analyses using the Cox proportional hazards model were performed to evaluate the prognostic factors associated with the DFS and DMFS.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up period of 84 months, we identified 172 patients (10.1%) with an LRR as the first event. The 5-year post-recurrence DFS rates for the nipple-areola complex recurrence (NCR), skin or subcutaneous recurrence/chest wall recurrence (SCR/CWR), and regional recurrence (RR) groups were 89.1%, 73%, and 59.4%, respectively (P = 0.009), and the 5-year post-recurrence DMFS rates for the NCR, SCR/CWR, and RR groups were 96%, 82.8%, and 59.7%, respectively (P < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, a time to LRR ≤2 years (P = 0.016) and the site of LRR (P = 0.022) were significantly associated with the post-recurrence DFS.

CONCLUSIONS

NCR is more likely to be detected as a non-invasive recurrence and is associated with more favorable overall outcomes than other LRR types. The interval to LRR and its site of onset seem to be associated with the prognostic outcomes.

A Propensity Score-matched Analysis of Long-term Oncologic Outcomes After Nipple-sparing Versus Conventional Mastectomy for Locally Advanced Breast Cancer

OBJECTIVES

To compare the long-term oncologic outcomes of nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) with those of conventional mastectomy (CM) in patients with locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

NSM has been increasingly implemented in patients with breast cancer. However, oncologic efficacy of NSM in patients with LABC has not been sufficiently demonstrated.

METHODS

The study group comprised 850 patients with clinical stage IIB to IIIC breast cancer who underwent NACT followed by either NSM and immediate breast reconstruction or CM alone. After propensity score-matching, 418 patients were included in the analysis. Local recurrence-free survival, disease-free survival (DFS), distant metastasis-free survival, and overall survival (OS) rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank tests between the NSM and CM groups.

RESULTS

After matching, the mean follow-up period was 70 ± 25 months for the NSM group and 74 ± 27 months for the CM group (P = 0.181). There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of 6-year local recurrence-free survival (91.6% vs. 95.8%; P = 0.239), DFS (70.5% vs. 73.4%; P = 0.583), distant metastasis-free survival (79.8% vs. 77.4%; P = 0.320), or OS (87.6% vs. 84.8%; P = 0.465) rates. Additionally, we identified 30 patients in the NSM group who initially presented with tumor extension in the subareolar area; the nipple-areola complex was successfully preserved after NACT, and no recurrence at the nipple was observed in these patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In this matched control study, we demonstrated comparable long-term oncologic outcomes between NSM with immediate reconstruction and CM alone after NACT for LABC. In patients who had tumors extending to the subareolar area before NACT, NSM can be tried if tumor involvement of the nipple-areola complex appears resolved on imaging studies after chemotherapy.

Evolution and time trends of nipple-sparing mastectomy: a single-center experience

Nipple Sparing Mastectomy (NSM) requires the entire breast tissue to be removed, maintaining the nipple-areola complex, and represents nowadays the gold standard of the demolitive breast surgery. Although it represents the evolution of conservative breast surgery, NSM presents some limitations in the selection of women candidates for treatment, and still there are no real guidelines regarding its indications, but simply objective data to address the choice. How the breast surgery approach to demolitive and conservative surgery has changed over time? We evaluated throughout the years (from 2009 up to 2018) the time trend of NSM at our institution and analysed the main differences between patients undergone NSM and other mastectomies and/or breast conserving surgery in terms of cancer size, multicentricity and biological profile. We found 781 NSMs, 1261 other mastectomies and 5621 breast conservative surgeries. Among NSMs, 39.6% were reconstructed with tissue expander and 58.1% with definitive prosthesis. From 2009 to 2018 we found a general increase of NSM rate (from 21.3% of all mastectomies in 2009 to 67.3% in 2018) and a decrease of total mastectomies (from 78.7% of all mastectomies in 2009 to 32.7% in 2018). In line with the literature data, our data confirm that in the recent years NSM represents the gold standard for radical breast surgery. Undisputed in prophylaxis, NSM is continuously acquiring more support in being used as first line treatment for locally advanced disease.

Surgical and Oncologic Outcomes of Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy for a Cohort of Breast Cancer Patients, Including Cases with High-Risk Features

BACKGROUND

Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) remains controversial in patients with high-risk breast cancer. The objective of this study was to assess surgical and oncologic outcomes of NSM and to evaluate associations of outcomes with high-risk features.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of all NSM cases performed for breast cancer at 2 academic cancer centers between January 2013 and August 2018.

RESULTS

Of the 175 patients who underwent NSM, 13 (7.4%) had locally advanced breast cancer (LABC), 52 (29.2%) had previous neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 21 (12.0%) had previous radiation therapy, 40 (22.8%) received postmastectomy radiation, 27 (15.4%) had de-epithelialized skin reduction, and 13 (7.4%) had free nipple grafting. The median duration of follow-up was 24 months. Nipple necrosis (4 cases; 2.2%) was associated with previous radiation (9.5%; P = .018), skin reduction (11.1%; P = .001), and nipple grafting (15.4%; P = .001). The nipple-areolar complex margin (NAC) was involved with invasive disease in 1 case. Local recurrence occurred in 8 cases (4.6%), with 1 in-NAC recurrence. Overall survival was 98.3%, and disease-free survival (DFS) was 88.6%. LABC was associated with worse DFS (hazard ratio, 4.28; P = .011), with all 4 recurrences being distant.

CONCLUSIONS

Previous radiation, skin reduction, and nipple grafting are associated with an increased risk of NAC necrosis. None of these should be considered absolute contraindications, but patients should be counseled appropriately. Although LABC is associated with worse DFS, relapses are systemic. Longer follow-up is needed to establish oncologic safety in unselected breast cancer patients.

Oncologic Outcomes of Nipple-sparing Mastectomy and Immediate Reconstruction After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the oncologic outcomes and risk factors for locoregional recurrence (LRR) and nipple-areola complex recurrence (NR) in a large series of breast cancer patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) and immediate reconstruction after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The use of NSM and immediate reconstruction in breast cancer patients receiving NACT is increasing. However, the oncologic safety of this approach is unclear.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 310 breast cancer patients (319 breasts) who underwent NACT and NSM between February 2010 and November 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. Clinical and pathologic factors associated with increased risks of LRR and NR were analyzed using univariate (Chi-square or Fisher exact test) and multivariate (Cox proportional hazard regression model) analyses.

RESULTS

During a mean follow-up of 63 ± 22 months, 38 cases had LRR as the first event, including 6 cases of NR as the first event. The 5-year cumulative LRR and NR rates were 11.0% and 1.9%, respectively. In univariate analysis, clinical T stage, pathologic nodal status, histologic grade, lymphovascular invasion, and post-NACT Ki67 status were associated with increased LRR risk, and post-NACT Ki67 status was the only significant risk factor for NR. In multivariate analysis, post-NACT Ki67 ≥10% (hazard ratio, 4.245; 95% confidence interval, 1.865-9.663; P = 0.001) was an independent risk factor for LRR.

CONCLUSIONS

NSM and immediate reconstruction seem to be oncologically safe with acceptable LRR and NR rates for appropriately selected breast cancer patients treated with NACT. Post-NACT Ki67 ≥10% was associated with increased risk of LRR or NR, and therefore, necessitates cautious follow-up.

Direct-to-implant breast reconstruction after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: A safe option?

INTRODUCTION

Immediate reconstruction (IBR) after mastectomy in patients who have received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) remains controversial. The aim of this study is to analyze and compare oncological results as well as complication and reoperation rates in patients undergoing NACT and a control group.

METHODS

Retrospective observational case-control study of patients with breast cancer who underwent bilateral mastectomy and direct-to-implant IBR (BMIBR) from 2000-2016. The group that received NACT was matched 1:5 to patients without NACT (Control group). We evaluated differences between groups using the χ² or Fisher test (qualitative variables), Mann-Whitney U or Student's t-test (quantitative variables). The survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank test (SPSS 22.0).

RESULTS

The study included a total of 171 patients with BMIBR: 62 patients (36.3%) after NACT and 109 patients (63.7%) in the control group without NACT. Median follow-up was 52.0 (IQR: 23.0-94.0) months. In both groups, the indication for BMIBR was patient choice (32.7%). There were no statistically significant differences between groups in terms of complication rate (24.2% in the NACT group and 19.3% in the control group [P=.44]), but differences in oncological results were found. Patients in the NACT Group had three times more risk of recurrence at a given time than patients in the control group (3.009 [1.349-6.713]) according to the univariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Direct-to-implant IBR after skin-sparing mastectomy is a viable option for breast cancer patients undergoing NACT.

Effectiveness and Safety of Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction in Locally Advanced Breast Carcinoma: A Matched Case-Control Study

Background

Immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is rarely performed in patients with locally advanced breast carcinoma (LABC). It has not been considered the best indication, and the literature is scarce about this subject.

Patients and Methods

A retrospective matched case-control study was performed in patients with LABC submitted to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT). Forty-eight patients undergoing immediate IBBR were matched with 96 patients undergoing conventional mastectomy. Patients were matched according to 2 models based on prognostic characteristics prior to NCT and response to NCT. Local recurrence and disease-free survival were compared between the groups. In the IBBR group, local complications were evaluated.

Results

In all, 196 patients were evaluated. The mean tumour size of IBBR patients was 5.8 cm. 83.3% (180/196) of the patients had clinical stage III. At a mean follow-up of 74.7 months, the local recurrence rate was 6.2% (3/48), 15.6% (15/96) and 13.7% (13/95) in the IBBR, model 1 and model 2 groups, respectively (p > 0.05). Disease-free survival was higher in the IBBR group than in the model 1 group (mean 88.8 vs. 73.7 months; p = 0.05). In the group submitted to IBBR, 14.6% (7/48) of patients presented loss of prosthesis and 48.8% (20/41) developed capsular contracture.

Conclusion

Immediate IBBR may be a safe and effective surgical procedure in selected patients with LABC.

Breast cancer robotic nipple sparing mastectomy: evaluation of several surgical procedures and learning curve

BACKGROUND

Few studies of robotic nipple sparing mastectomy (NSM) were reported. We report feasibility of robotic NSM and determine standard surgical procedure and learning curve threefold.

METHODS

A cohort of patients with robotic NSM for breast cancer was analyzed. Complications and post-operative hospitalization stay were reported. The same technic was used for all patients except for skin and nipple areolar complex (NAC) dissection. Differences between three surgical procedures of NAC dissection were analyzed: group 1, dissection with robotic scissors using coagulation; group 2, dissection with robotic scissors without coagulation; and group 3, dissection with non-robotic scissors and then robotic dissection. We explored possible effect of learning curve among patients from group 1 with the same surgical procedure.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven NSM with immediate breast reconstruction for breast cancers, 22 invasive and 5 in situ, were performed, with robotic latissimus dorsi-flap (RLDF) only in 17 cases, RLDF and breast implant in 6 cases, and implant alone in 4 cases. Repartition according to 3 surgical procedure groups was 16, 5, and 6 patients. Mean time of surgery and anesthesia decrease according to groups 1 to 3. Among 16 patients from group 1, time of surgery and anesthesia decreased with learning curve. Post-operative hospitalization decreased from group 1 to 3. We reported a total of 11 complications, with significant difference between groups (10 for group 1). Skin complications were higher for group 1 in comparison with groups 2-3 (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Robotic NSM can be performed with a brief learning. Standardized technique is proposed with non-robotic scissors superficial dissection and then dissection with robot.

Surgical Management of Breast Cancer Treated with Neoadjuvant Therapy

Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) allows downstaging in some cases of breast cancer. By consequence, it may enable a more conservative surgical approach or make surgery possible in cases ineligible for surgery before NAT. In this article, we review the evidence and management recommendations for optimal surgical treatment in this setting.

Overview of indications for nipple sparing mastectomy

The introduction of more targeted systemic therapies, better screening modalities with earlier diagnosis and dramatically improved reconstructive techniques has allowed more minimally invasive approaches to breast surgery. The recent introduction of nipple sparing mastectomy (NSM) has dramatically improved the cosmetic outcomes and quality of life (QoL) for patients undergoing mastectomy. This technique involves preservation of both the skin envelope including the nipple areolar complex commonly through a barely visible inframammary skin incision followed by immediate breast reconstruction. An ideal candidate includes women with small breasts, absence of ptosis, low BMI and not actively smoking. High risk patients include those with radiation treatment, active smokers, macromastia, high BMI >30 kg/m², grade 2 or 3 ptosis and active smokers. There are several new techniques to approach complex high risk patients which have expanded the candidates for NSM.