Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Typ-2-Diabetes und Adipositas Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Fachpsychotherapie Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende Patientenratgeber
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Erschienen in:

09.01.2021 | Breast Oncology

Oncologic Safety of Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy in Patients with Breast Cancer and Tumor-to-Nipple Distance ≤ 1 cm: A Matched Cohort Study

verfasst von: Zhen-Yu Wu, MD, PhD, Hee Jeong Kim, MD, PhD, Jongwon Lee, MD, PhD, Il Yong Chung, MD, Jisun Kim, MD, PhD, Sae-Byul Lee, MD, PhD, Byung-Ho Son, MD, PhD, Jing Han, MD, Hyun Ho Han, MD, PhD, Jin-Sup Eom, MD, PhD, Sung-Bae Kim, MD, PhD, Kyung Hae Jung, MD, PhD, Gyungyub Gong, MD, PhD, Hak Hee Kim, MD, PhD, Sei-Hyun Ahn, MD, PhD, BeomSeok Ko, MD, PhD

Erschienen in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Ausgabe 8/2021

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

A short tumor-to-nipple distance (TND) is reported as a strong predictor of nipple-areola complex (NAC) involvement. Eligibility for nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) remains controversial, especially regarding TND. In this study, we compared long-term oncologic outcomes after NSM between patients with a TND ≤ 1 cm and those with a TND > 1 cm.

Methods

Overall, 1369 patients with primary breast cancer who underwent NSM with immediate reconstruction from March 2003 to December 2015 were included for analysis. After propensity score matching, 495 patients with a TND ≤ 1 cm (group A) and 495 patients with a TND > 1 cm (group B) on imaging were selected to compare long-term oncologic outcomes.

Results

After matching, the median follow-up periods for surviving patients were 109 months and 112 months for groups A and B, respectively. There were no significant differences between groups with respect to the 5-year cumulative local recurrence (8.1% vs. 6.3%; p = 0.268), NAC recurrence (5.1% vs. 2.8%; p = 0.072), regional recurrence (2.0% vs. 3.6%; p = 0.125), or distant recurrence (5.9% vs. 4.8%; p = 0.480) rates. Furthermore, no significant differences were observed between the groups with respect to the 10-year local recurrence-free survival (87.1% vs. 90.7%; p = 0.164) or disease-free survival (77.9% vs. 81.6%; p = 0.222) rates.

Conclusions

A preoperative TND ≤ 1 cm on imaging should not be contraindicated to NSM as long as there is no involvement of NAC clinically or on imaging and if retroareolar margins are confirmed to be negative for tumor cells.
Literatur
1.
Wong SM, Chun YS, Sagara Y, et al. National patterns of breast reconstruction and nipple-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer, 2005–2015. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26:3194–3203.CrossRef
2.
Bailey CR, Ogbuagu O, Baltodano PA, et al. Quality-of-life outcomes improve with nipple-sparing mastectomy and breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140:219–226.CrossRef
3.
Romanoff A, Zabor EC, Stempel M, et al. A comparison of patient-reported outcomes after nipple-sparing mastectomy and conventional mastectomy with reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25:2909–2916.CrossRef
4.
Galimberti V, Vicini E, Corso G, et al. Nipple-sparing and skin-sparing mastectomy: review of aims, oncological safety and contraindications. Breast. 2017;34 Suppl 1:S82–S84.CrossRef
5.
Wu ZY, Kim HJ, Lee J, et al. Recurrence outcomes after nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction in patients with pure ductal carcinoma in situ. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020;27:1627–1635.CrossRef
6.
Dent BL, Miller JA, Eden DJ, et al. Tumor-to-nipple distance as a predictor of nipple involvement: expanding the inclusion criteria for nipple-sparing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140:1e–8e.CrossRef
7.
Balci FL, Kara H, Dulgeroglu O, et al. Oncologic safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy in patients with short tumor-nipple distance. Breast J. 2019;25:612–618.CrossRef
8.
Alsharif E, Ryu JM, Choi HJ, et al. Oncologic outcomes of nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction in patients with tumor-nipple distance less than 2.0 cm. J Breast Cancer. 2019;22:613–623.CrossRef
9.
Fregatti P, Gipponi M, Zoppoli G, et al. Tumor-to-nipple distance should not preclude nipple-sparing mastectomy in breast cancer patients. Personal experience and literature review. Anticancer Res. 2020;40:3543–3550.CrossRef
10.
Krajewski AC, Boughey JC, Degnim AC, et al. Expanded indications and improved outcomes for nipple-sparing mastectomy over time. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:3317–3323.CrossRef
11.
De La Cruz L, Moody AM, Tappy EE, et al. Overall survival, disease-free survival, local recurrence, and nipple-areolar recurrence in the setting of nipple-sparing mastectomy: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:3241–3249.CrossRef
12.
Wu ZY, Kim HJ, Lee JW, et al. Breast cancer recurrence in the nipple-areola complex after nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction for invasive breast cancer. JAMA Surg. 2019;154:1030–7.CrossRef
13.
Adam H, Bygdeson M, de Boniface J. The oncological safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy: a Swedish matched cohort study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;40:1209–1215.CrossRef
14.
Galimberti V, Morigi C, Bagnardi V, et al. Oncological outcomes of nipple-sparing mastectomy: a single-center experience of 1989 patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25:3849–3857.CrossRef
15.
Gerber B, Krause A, Dieterich M, et al. The oncological safety of skin sparing mastectomy with conservation of the nipple-areola complex and autologous reconstruction: an extended follow-up study. Ann Surg. 2009;249:461–8.CrossRef
16.
Weber WP, Haug M, Kurzeder C, et al. Oncoplastic breast consortium consensus conference on nipple-sparing mastectomy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;172:523–537.CrossRef
17.
Brachtel EF, Rusby JE, Michaelson JS, et al. Occult nipple involvement in breast cancer: clinicopathologic findings in 316 consecutive mastectomy specimens. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:4948–4954.CrossRef
18.
Zhang H, Li Y, Moran MS, et al. Predictive factors of nipple involvement in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;151:239–249.CrossRef
19.
D’Alonzo M, Martincich L, Biglia N, et al. Clinical and radiological predictors of nipple-areola complex involvement in breast cancer patients. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48:2311–2318.CrossRef
20.
Petit JY, Veronesi U, Rey P, et al. Nipple-sparing mastectomy: risk of nipple-areolar recurrences in a series of 579 cases. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;114:97–101.CrossRef
21.
Ponzone R, Maggiorotto F, Carabalona S, et al. MRI and intraoperative pathology to predict nipple-areola complex (NAC) involvement in patients undergoing NAC-sparing mastectomy. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51:1882–9.CrossRef
22.
Frey JD, Salibian AA, Lee J, et al. Oncologic trends, outcomes, and risk factors for locoregional recurrence: an analysis of tumor-to-nipple distance and critical factors in therapeutic nipple-sparing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143:1575–1585.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Oncologic Safety of Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy in Patients with Breast Cancer and Tumor-to-Nipple Distance ≤ 1 cm: A Matched Cohort Study
verfasst von
Zhen-Yu Wu, MD, PhD
Hee Jeong Kim, MD, PhD
Jongwon Lee, MD, PhD
Il Yong Chung, MD
Jisun Kim, MD, PhD
Sae-Byul Lee, MD, PhD
Byung-Ho Son, MD, PhD
Jing Han, MD
Hyun Ho Han, MD, PhD
Jin-Sup Eom, MD, PhD
Sung-Bae Kim, MD, PhD
Kyung Hae Jung, MD, PhD
Gyungyub Gong, MD, PhD
Hak Hee Kim, MD, PhD
Sei-Hyun Ahn, MD, PhD
BeomSeok Ko, MD, PhD
Publikationsdatum
09.01.2021
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Ausgabe 8/2021
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Elektronische ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-09427-0

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 8/2021

ASO Author Reflections: Pretherapeutic Naples Prognostic Score in Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer

  • ASO Author Reflections

Early Recurrence Following Resection of Distal Cholangiocarcinoma: A New Tool for the Toolbox

  • Hepatobiliary Tumors

ASO Author Reflections: Gastric Cancer with Peritoneal Metastasis: Are Some Patients Surgical Candidates?

  • ASO Author Reflections

The Impact of Pretherapeutic Naples Prognostic Score on Survival in Patients with Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer

  • Thoracic Oncology

ASO Author Reflections: Total Thyroidectomy Versus Lobectomy for Differentiated Thyroid Cancer

  • ASO Author Reflections

The Role of Mastectomy in De Novo Stage IV Inflammatory Breast Cancer

  • Breast Oncology

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

Appendektomie erhält Remission bei Colitis ulcerosa

Wird der Wurmfortsatz bei Personen mit Colitis ulcerosa entfernt, ist die Rückfallrate um ein Drittel geringer als unter konservativer Behandlung. Auch die Lebensqualität verbessert sich und der Bedarf an Medikamenten nimmt ab.

Op.-Entscheidung bei Divertikulitis: Lebensqualität zählt!

Soll man Menschen, die schon mehrfach schmerzhafte Divertikulitisepisoden durchgemacht haben, eine Op. anbieten? Ein Team aus Helsinki rät, dies von der Lebensqualität abhängig zu machen.

Akute Cholezystitis bei multimorbiden Älteren: Operation nicht sofort ausschließen!

Bei älteren, multimorbiden Menschen mit akuter Cholezystitis wird eine Operation häufig nicht erwogen. Eine Studie aus Philadelphia zeigt nun jedoch, dass auch diese Patientinnen und Patienten von einer chirurgischen Therapie profitieren können.

Was geschehen muss, damit Prähabilitation in die Leitlinien kommt

Eine Prähabilitation vor einem viszeralchirurgischen Eingriff ist Experten zufolge äußerst sinnvoll, dennoch wird sie in Leitlinien derzeit nicht empfohlen. Beim DCK erklärte Prof. Tim Vilz aus Bonn, woran das liegt und was benötigt wird, um die Situation zu ändern.

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen
Bildnachweise