The Oncologic Safety of Skin Sparing Mastectomy with or without Conservation of the Nipple-areolar Complex: 5 Years Follow up Results

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.

Systematic review of therapeutic nipple-sparing versus skin-sparing mastectomy

Background

The use of nipple‐sparing mastectomy (NSM) is increasing, despite unproven oncological safety in the therapeutic setting. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the safety and efficacy of NSM compared with skin‐sparing mastectomy (SSM).

Methods

A literature search of all original studies including RCTs, cohort studies and case–control studies comparing women undergoing therapeutic NSM or SSM for breast cancer was undertaken. Primary outcomes were oncological outcomes; secondary outcomes were clinical, aesthetic, patient‐reported and quality‐of‐life outcomes. Data analysis was undertaken to explore the relationship between NSM and SSM, and preselected outcomes. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochrane tests.

Results

A total of 690 articles were identified, of which 14 were included. There was no statistically significant difference in 5‐year disease‐free survival and mortality for NSM and SSM groups, where data were available. Local recurrence rates were also similar for NSM and SSM (3·9 versus 3·3 per cent respectively; P = 0·45). NSM had a partial or complete nipple necrosis rate of 15·0 per cent, and a higher complication rate than SSM (22·6 versus 14·0 per cent respectively). The higher overall complication rate was due to the rate of nipple necrosis in the NSM group (15·0 per cent).

Conclusion

In carefully selected cases, NSM is a viable choice for women with breast cancer who need to have a mastectomy. More research is needed to help further refine which surgical approaches to NSM optimize outcomes.

Oncologic Outcomes after Immediate Breast Reconstruction Following Total Mastectomy in Patients with Breast Cancer: A Matched Case-Control Study

Purpose

The use of immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) following total mastectomy (TM) has increased markedly in patients with breast cancer. As the indications for IBR have been broadened and more breast-conserving surgery-eligible patients are undergoing IBR, comparing the oncologic safety between TM only and IBR following TM becomes more difficult. This study aimed to analyze the oncologic outcomes between TM only and IBR following TM via a matched case-control methodology.

Methods

A retrospective review was conducted to identify all patients who underwent TM between 2008 and 2014. We excluded patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy, including palliative chemotherapy, and had a follow-up duration <12 months, inflammatory breast cancer, or incomplete data. We divided the remaining patients into two groups: those who underwent TM only (control group) and those who underwent IBR following TM (study group). The groups were propensity score-matched. Matched variables included age, pathologic stage, estrogen or progesterone receptor status, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status, and year of operation.

Results

After matching, 878 patients were enrolled in the control group and 580 patients in the study group. The median follow-up duration was 43.4 months (range, 11–100 months) for the control group and 41.3 months (range, 12–100 months) for the study group (p=1.000). The mean age was 47.3±8.46 years for the control group and 43.9±7.14 years for the study group (p>0.050). Matching was considered successful for the matching variables and other factors, such as family history, histology, multiplicity, and lymphovascular invasion. There were no significant differences in overall survival (log-rank p=0.454), disease-free survival (log-rank p=0.186), local recurrence-free survival (log-rank p=0.114), or distant metastasis-free survival rates (logrank p=0.537) between the two groups.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that IBR following TM is a feasible treatment option for patients with breast cancer.