Top

Published in:

01-04-2014 | Original Article

Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Immediate Reconstruction in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: A Critical Assessment With 41 Patients

Authors: Franck Marie Leclère, Juliette Panet-Spallina, Frédéric Kolb, Jean-Rémi Garbay, Chafika Mazouni, Alexandre Leduey, Nicolas Leymarie, Françoise Rimareix

Published in: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery | Issue 2/2014

Abstract

Background

Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is increasingly popular for the treatment of select breast cancers and prophylactic mastectomy. This study aimed to analyze the authors’ 11-year experience with NSM and breast reconstruction in cases of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) with an emphasis on indications, complications, and cancer recurrence rate.

Methods

Between January 2000 and December 2010, 41 NSMs were performed in 41 women for DCIS. The mean age of the women was 49.7 ± 8.7 years (range, 33–66 years). The indications for NSM were tumor size greater than 3 cm (18 cases), multifocal tumor (16 cases), and tumor recurrence (7 cases). In all cases, the tumor was located more than 2 cm from the nipple–areola complex (NAC), as shown by preoperative radiologic imaging. Histologic results, secondary NAC resection, complications, and cancer recurrence rates were recorded.

Results

The NAC was lost in seven cases (17 %) due to postoperative necrosis. In another 10 patients (25 %), the NAC was secondarily removed due to proximity of the tumor to the resection margin. Five patients were lost to follow-up evaluation (12 %). The authors report the long-term follow-up data for the remaining 19 patients (46 %). In this group, they observed one local recurrence (5.3 %) and one case of ovarian cancer.

Conclusion

Despite the low locoregional recurrence rate for DCIS, NSM remains controversial because of the nipple necrosis observed and the irradical tumor excisions. Given the ethical impossibility of conducting randomized controlled studies to compare NSM with conventional or skin-sparing mastectomy in DCIS, only long-term follow-up evaluations can demonstrate the safety of NSM.

Level of Evidence IV

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

Zurrida S, Bassi F, Arnone P, Martella S, Del Castillo A, Ribeiro Martini R et al (2011) The changing face of mastectomy (from mutilation to aid to breast reconstruction). Int J Surg Oncol. doi:10.1155/2011/980158 PubMedCentralPubMed

Kroll SS, Khoo A, Singletary SE, Ames FC, Wang BG, Reece GP et al (1999) Local recurrence risk after skin-sparing and conventional mastectomy: a 6-year follow-up. Plast Reconstr Surg 104:421–425PubMedCrossRef

Singletary SE, Robb GL (2003) Oncologic safety of skin-sparing mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 10:95–97PubMedCrossRef

Gerber B, Krause A, Reimer T, Müller H, Küchenmeister I, Makovitzky J et al (2003) Skin-sparing mastectomy with conservation of the nipple–areola complex and autologous reconstruction is an oncologically safe procedure. Ann Surg 238:120–127PubMedCentralPubMed

Ewing C, Hwang ES, Alvarado M, Hwang ES, Alvarado M, Foster RD et al (2009) Total skin-sparing mastectomy: complications and local recurrence rates in 2 cohorts of patients. Ann Surg 249:26–32PubMedCrossRef

Ziogas D, Roukos DH, Zografos GC (2010) Nipple-sparing mastectomy: overcoming oncological outcomes challenges. Ann Surg Oncol 17:323–324PubMedCrossRef

Freeman BS (1962) Subcutaneous mastectomy for benign breast lesions with immediate or delayed prosthetic replacement. Plast Reconstr Surg 30:676–682CrossRef

Margulies AG, Hochberg J, Kepple J, Henry-Tillman RS, Westbrook K, Klimberg VS (2005) Total skin-sparing mastectomy without preservation of the nipple–areolar complex. Am J Surg 190:907–912PubMedCrossRef

Crowe JP Jr, Kim JA, Yetman R, Banbury J, Patrick RJ, Baynes D (2004) Nipple-sparing mastectomy: technique and results of 54 procedures. Arch Surg 139:148–150PubMedCrossRef

10.

Caruso F, Ferrara M, Castiglione G, Trombetta G, De Meo L, Catanuto G (2006) Nipple-sparing subcutaneous mastectomy: sixty-six months follow-up. Eur J Surg Oncol 32:937–940PubMedCrossRef

11.

Jensen JA, Orringer JS, Giuliano AE (2011) Nipple-sparing mastectomy in 99 patients with a mean follow-up of 5 years. Ann Surg Oncol 18:1665–1670PubMedCrossRef

12.

Sacchini V, Pinotti JA, Barros A, Luini A, Pluchinotta A, Pinotti M et al (2006) Nipple-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer and risk reduction: oncologic or technical problem? J Am Coll Surg 203:704–714PubMedCrossRef

13.

Simmons RM, Brennan M, Christos P, King V, Osborne M (2002) Analysis of nipple/areolar involvement with mastectomy: can the areola be preserved? Ann Surg Oncol 9:165–168PubMedCrossRef

14.

Cense HA, Rutgers EJ, Lopes Cardozo M, Van Lanschot JJ (2001) Nipple-sparing mastectomy in breast cancer: a viable option? Eur J Surg Oncol 27:521–526PubMedCrossRef

15.

Crile G Jr, Esselstyn CB Jr, Hermann RE Jr, Hoerr SO Jr (1973) Partial mastectomy for carcinoma of the breast. Surg Gynecol Obstet 136:929–932PubMed

16.

Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L, Greco M, Saccozzi R, Luini A et al (2002) Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347:1227–1232PubMedCrossRef

17.

Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J et al (2002) Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347:1233–1241PubMedCrossRef

18.

Garcia-Etienne CA, Borgen PI (2006) Update on the Indications for nipple-sparing mastectomy. J Support Oncol 4:225–230PubMed

19.

Roukos DH (2009) Genomewide association studies: how predictable is a person’s cancer risk? Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 9:389–392PubMedCrossRef

20.

Roukos DH (2009) Twenty-one-gene assay: challenges and promises in translating personal genomics and whole-genome scans into personalized treatment of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 27:1337–1338PubMedCrossRef

21.

Roukos DH (2009) Breast cancer outcomes: the crucial role of the breast surgeon in the era of personal genetics and systems biology. Ann Surg 249:1067–1068PubMedCrossRef

22.

Ziogas D, Roukos DH (2009) Genetics and personal genomics for personalized breast cancer surgery: progress and challenges in research and clinical practice. Ann Surg Oncol 16:1771–1782PubMedCrossRef

23.

Algaithy ZK, Petit JY, Loshsiriwat V, Maisonneuve P, Rey PC, Baros N et al (2012) Nipple-sparing mastectomy: can we predict the factors predicting to necrosis? EJSO 38:125–129PubMedCrossRef

Title: Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Immediate Reconstruction in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: A Critical Assessment With 41 Patients
Authors: Franck Marie Leclère
Juliette Panet-Spallina
Frédéric Kolb
Jean-Rémi Garbay
Chafika Mazouni
Alexandre Leduey
Nicolas Leymarie
Françoise Rimareix
Publication date: 01-04-2014
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery / Issue 2/2014
Print ISSN: 0364-216X
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5241
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-013-0236-8

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Immediate Reconstruction in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: A Critical Assessment With 41 Patients

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Level of Evidence IV

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Level of Evidence IV

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2014

One-Stage Breast Reconstruction Using the Inferior Dermal Flap, Implant, and Free Nipple Graft

Nasal Tip Suspending Transfixion Suture

Are Grafts Necessary in Rhinoplasty? Cartilage Flaps with Cartilage-Saving Rhinoplasty Concept

A Simple Method to Inset and Position Polyurethane-Covered Breast Implants

Announcements

Patient Courage Leads Us to Wonder: Should We Perform Face-Lifts on Patients Taking Coumadin?