Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy versus Skin-Sparing Mastectomy: Does Saving the Nipple Impact Short- and Long-Term Patient Satisfaction?

Positive Nipple Margins in Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: Management of Nipples Containing Cancer or Atypia

BACKGROUND

Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is an oncologically safe approach for breast cancer treatment and prevention; however, there are little long-term data to guide management for patients whose nipple margins contain tumor or atypia.

METHODS

NSM patients with tumor or atypia in their nipple margin were identified from a prospectively maintained, single-institution database of consecutive NSMs. Patient and tumor characteristics, treatment, recurrence, and survival data were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 3158 NSMs were performed from June 2007 to August 2019. Nipple margins contained tumor in 117 (3.7%) NSMs and atypia only in 164 (5.2%) NSMs. Among 117 nipple margins that contained tumor, 34 (29%) margins contained invasive cancer, 80 (68%) contained ductal carcinoma in situ only, and 3 (3%) contained lymphatic vessel invasion only. Management included nipple-only excision in 67 (57%) breasts, nipple-areola complex excision in 35 (30%) breasts, and no excision in 15 (13%) breasts. Only 23 (24%) excised nipples contained residual tumor. At 67 months median follow-up, there were 2 (1.8%) recurrences in areolar or peri-areolar skin, both in patients with nipple-only excision. Among 164 nipple margins containing only atypia, 154 (94%) nipples were retained. At 60 months median follow-up, no patient with atypia alone had a nipple or areola recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Nipple excision is effective management for nipple margins containing tumor. No intervention is required for nipple margins containing only atypia. Our results support broad eligibility for NSM with careful nipple margin assessment.

Minimal Scar Autologous Breast Reconstruction with Skin-sparing Mastectomy

A skin paddle severely impairs the appearance of the reconstructed breast. We have established a new technique called "minimal scar autologous breast reconstruction" involving delayed nipple reconstruction using a local flap designed on the skin paddle and simultaneous resection of the residual skin paddle.

METHODS

We analyzed 20 patients with unilateral breast cancer who underwent skin-sparing mastectomy followed by immediate breast reconstruction using a free flap (deep inferior epigastric perforator flap in 13 patients and profunda artery perforator flap in seven). Approximately 1 year after primary reconstruction, nipple reconstruction using an arrow flap designed on the skin paddle and resection of the residual skin paddle were performed. Several months later, medical areola tattooing was performed. Bilateral breast symmetry scores, obtained from the distances between anatomic landmarks, were compared before and after breast reconstruction.

RESULTS

Postoperative complications such as necrosis of the reconstructed nipple were not observed after two-stage reconstruction, and all procedures including total resection of the skin paddle, nipple reconstruction, and medical tattooing were performed successfully in all cases. Aesthetic outcomes were excellent: comparison of symmetry scores showed no significant differences in any parameters between before surgery and after reconstruction of the nipple-areola complex.

CONCLUSIONS

We have established step-by-step strategies for mastectomy, autologous breast reconstruction, and then nipple reconstruction, keeping in mind that the skin paddle would later be totally resected in nipple reconstruction, and thereby achieved breast reconstruction with markedly reduced postoperative scarring compared with conventional autologous breast reconstruction.

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.

Satisfaction with Long-Term Aesthetic and 10 Years Oncologic Outcome following Risk-Reducing Mastectomy and Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction with or without Nipple Preservation

Incidence of bilateral risk-reducing mastectomies (RRMs) is increasing. The aim of this study was to compare satisfaction, aesthetic and oncological outcomes in women undergoing RRM with implant-based reconstruction comparing nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) with skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) (sacrificing the nipple +/− nipple reconstruction). Women who had undergone bilateral RRM between 1997 and 2016 were invited. Aesthetic outcome and nipple symmetry were evaluated using standardized anthropometric measurements. The oncological outcome was assessed at last documented follow up. Ninety-three women (186 breasts) participated, 60 (64.5%) had NSM, 33 (35.5%) SSM. Median time between surgery and participation was 98.4 months (IQR: 61.7−133.9). Of the women, 23/33 (69.7%) who had SSM underwent nipple reconstruction. Nipple projection was shorter in the reconstructed SSM group than the maintained NSM group (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in overall symmetry (p = 0.670), satisfaction regarding nipple preservation (p = 0.257) or overall nipple satisfaction (p = 0.074). There were no diagnoses of breast cancer at a median follow up of 129 months (IQR: 65−160.6). Women who undergo nipple-sparing RRM maintain long-term nipple symmetry. Nipple projection was less maintained after nipple reconstruction. Although satisfaction with the nipples was higher in the NSM group, this did not reach statistical significance. No breast cancers developed after RRM with long-term follow up.

Sexual Well-Being After Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: Does Preservation of the Nipple Matter?

INTRODUCTION

The primary aim of this study was to evaluate patient-reported outcome measures in patients undergoing mastectomy with and without breast reconstruction (immediate or delayed) with and without nipple preservation.

METHODS

All female patients undergoing mastectomy between 2011 and 2015 at Mayo Clinic Rochester were identified and were mailed the BREAST-Q survey. Breast satisfaction, psychosocial well-being, and sexual well-being were evaluated and compared by surgery type using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests for univariate analysis and linear regression for multivariable analysis adjusting for potential confounders.

RESULTS

Of 1547 patients, 771 completed the BREAST-Q survey (response rate 50%). Of these 771 respondents, 237 (31%) did not have reconstruction, 198 (26%) had nipple-sparing mastectomy with reconstruction (NSM), and 336 (44%) had skin-sparing mastectomy with reconstruction (SSM) ± nipple-areolar complex (NAC) reconstruction (via surgery ± tattoo). Patients with breast reconstruction had consistently higher BREAST-Q scores versus those without. Comparing NSM with all SSMs, there was no difference in satisfaction with breasts (mean 71.8 vs. 70.2, p = 0.21) or psychosocial well-being (mean 81.9 vs. 81.3, p = 0.47); however, sexual well-being was significantly higher in the NSM group on univariate (mean 64.5 vs. 58.0, p = 0.002) and multivariable (β = -4.69, p = 0.03) analysis. Sexual well-being scores were similar for NSM and the SSM subgroups with any type of NAC reconstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that NSM positively impacts patient sexual well-being after breast reconstruction compared with SSM, particularly SSM without nipple reconstruction or tattoo. SSM with any type of NAC reconstruction achieved similar satisfaction and sexual well-being to those undergoing NSM.