Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Overall Survival, Disease-Free Survival, Local Recurrence, and Nipple–Areolar Recurrence in the Setting of Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

  • Breast Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is an increasingly common procedure; however, concerns exist regarding its oncological safety due to the potential for residual breast tissue to harbor occult malignancy or future cancer.

Methods

A systematic literature review was performed. Studies with internal comparison arms evaluating therapeutic NSM versus skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) and/or modified radical mastectomy (MRM) were included in a meta-analysis of overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and local recurrence (LR). Studies lacking comparison arms were only included in the systematic review to evaluate mean OS, DFS, LR, and nipple–areolar recurrence (NAR).

Results

The search yielded 851 articles. Twenty studies with 5594 patients met selection criteria. The meta-analysis included eight studies with comparison arms. Seven studies that compared OS found a 3.4 % risk difference between NSM and MRM/SSM, five studies that compared DFS found a 9.6 % risk difference between NSM and MRM/SSM, and eight studies that compared LR found a 0.4 % risk difference between NSM and MRM/SSM. Risk differences for all outcomes were not statistically significant. The systematic review included all 20 studies and evaluated OS, DFS, LR, and NAR. Studies with follow-up intervals of <3 years, 3–5 years, and >5 years had mean OS of 97.2, 97.9, and 86.8 %; DFS of 93.1, 92.3, and 76.1 %; LR of 5.4, 1.4, and 11.4 %; and NAR of 2.1, 1.0, and 3.4 %, respectively.

Conclusions

This study did not detect adverse oncologic outcomes of NSM in carefully selected women with early-stage breast cancer. Use of prospective data registries, notably the Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy Registry, will add clarity to this important clinical question.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. American Cancer Society. Cancer facts and figures 2015. http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@editorial/documents/document/acspc-044552.pdf. Accessed 22 Feb 2015.

  2. Laronga C, Lewis JD, Smith PD. The changing face of mastectomy: an oncologic and cosmetic perspective. Cancer Control. 2012;19(4):286–94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Agarwal S, Agarwal S, Neumayer L, Agarwal JP. Therapeutic nipple-sparing mastectomy: trends based on a national cancer database. Am J Surg. 2014;208(1):93–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lanitis S, Tekkis PP, Sgourakis G, Dimopoulous N, Al Mufti R, Hadjiminas DJ. Comparison of skin-sparing mastectomy versus non-skin-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Ann Surg. 2010;251(4):632–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mallon P, Feron JG, Couturaud B, et al. The role of nipple-sparing mastectomy in breast cancer: a comprehensive review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131(5):969–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Guidelines For Patients®. Version 1.2014. Stages I and II breast cancer. http://www.nccn.org/patients/guidelines/stage_i_ii_breast/files/assets/common/downloads/files/stage_I_II_breast.pdf. Accessed 22 Feb 2015.

  7. 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(10):1209–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Boneti C, Yuen, J Santiago C, et al. Oncologic safety of nipple skin-sparing or total skin-sparing mastectomies with immediate reconstruction. J Am Coll Surg. 2011;212:686–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Burdge EC, Yuen J, Hardee M, et al. Nipple skin-sparing mastectomy is feasible for advanced disease. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(10):3294–302.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gerber B, Krause A, Dieterich M, Kundt G, Reimer T. 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(3):461–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kim HJ, Park EH, Lim WS, et al. Nipple areola skin-sparing mastectomy with immediate transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap reconstruction is an oncologically safe procedure: a single center study. Ann Surg. 2010;251(3):493–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Poruk KE, Ying J, Chidester JR, Olson JR, Matsen CB, Neumayer L, et al. Breast cancer recurrence after nipple-sparing mastectomy: one institution’s experience. Am J Surg. 2015;209(1):212–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sakurai T, Zhang N, Suzuma T, Umemura T, Yoshimura G, Sakurai T, et al. Long-term follow-up of nipple-sparing mastectomy without radiotherapy: a single center study at a Japanese institution. Med Oncol. 2013;30(1):481.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Shi A, Wu D, Li X, et al. Subcutaneous nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction. Breast Care (Basel). 2012;7(2):131–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Alperovich M, Tanna N, Samra F, et al. Nipple-sparing mastectomy in patients with a history of reduction mammaplasty or mastopexy: how safe is it? Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131(5):962–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Benediktsson KP, Perbeck L. Survival in breast cancer after nipple-sparing subcutaneous mastectomy and immediate reconstruction with implants: a prospective trial with 13 years median follow-up in 216 patients. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2008;34(2):143–148.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Caruso F, Ferrara M, Castiglione G, Trombetta G, De Meo L, Catanuto G, et al. Nipple sparing subcutaneous mastectomy: sixty-six months follow-up. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2006:32;937–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Crowe JP, Patrick RJ, Yetman RJ, Djohan R. Nipple-sparing mastectomy update: one hundred forty-nine procedures and clinical outcomes. Arch Surg. 2008;143(11):1106–10; discussion 1110.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Jensen JA, Orringer JS, Giuliano AE. Nipple-sparing mastectomy in 99 patients with a mean follow-up of 5 years. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(6):1665–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Nava MB, Ottolenghi J, Pennati A, et al. Skin/nipple sparing mastectomies and implant-based breast reconstruction in patients with large and ptotic breast: oncological and reconstructive results. Breast. 2012;21(3):267–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Paepke S, Schmid R, Fleckner S, et al. Subcutaneous mastectomy with conservation of the nipple–areolar skin. Ann Surg. 2009;250: 288–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sacchini V, Pinotti JA, Barros AC, et al. Nipple-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer and risk reduction: oncologic or technical problem? J Am Coll Surg. 2006;203:704–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sood S, Elder E, French J. Nipple-sparing mastectomy with implant reconstruction: the Westmead experience. ANZ J Surg. 2015;85(5):363–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sookhan N, Boughey JC, Walsh MF. Nipple-sparing mastectomy: initial experience at a tertiary center. Am J Surg. 2008;196(4):575–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Tancredi A, Ciuffreda L, Petito L, Natale F, Murgo R. Nipple-areola-complex sparing mastectomy: five years of experience in a single centre. Updates Surg. 2013;65(4):289–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Voltura AM, Tsangaris TN, Rosson GD, et al. Nipple-sparing mastectomy: critical assessment of 51 procedures and implications for selection criteria. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15(12):3396–401.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Gilliland MD, Barton RM, Copeland EM III. The implications of local recurrence of breast cancer as the first site of therapeutic failure. Ann Surg. 1983;197:284–87.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Donegan WL, Perez-Mesa CM, Watson FR. A biostatistical study of locally recurrent breast carcinoma. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1966;122:529–540.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Moran MS, Schnitt SJ, Giuliano AE, et al. Society of Surgical Oncology–American Society for Radiation Oncology Consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stages I and II invasive breast cancer. Int J Radiation Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;88(3):553–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Gerber B, Krause A, Reimer T, et al. Skin-sparing mastectomy with conservation of the nipple-areola complex and autologous reconstruction is an oncologically safe procedure. Ann Surg. 2003;238(1):120–7.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration. http://handbook.cochrane.org. Accessed 22 Feb 2015.

Download references

Acknowledgment

This manuscript includes preliminary data presented at the 16th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Breast Surgeons, and incorporates additional analyses that have undergone peer review. The authors would like to thank Dr. Beth-Ann Lesnikoski for reviewing our initial abstract presented at the meeting.

Author Contribution

Lucy De La Cruz conceptualized and designed the project. Eric Hecht, Stephanie Blankenship, Alison Moody, and Erryn Tappy drafted the initial manuscript. All authors reviewed, revised, and approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Disclosures

No external funding was secured for this study. Lucy De La Cruz, Alison M. Moody, Erryn E. Tappy, Stephanie A. Blankenship, and Eric M. Hecht have no financial relationships or conflicts of interest to disclose that are relevant to this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA

    Lucy De La Cruz MD

  2. University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA

    Alison M. Moody, Erryn E. Tappy & Stephanie A. Blankenship MS

  3. Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA

    Eric M. Hecht MD, MSPH

Authors
  1. Lucy De La Cruz MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alison M. Moody
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Erryn E. Tappy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stephanie A. Blankenship MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Eric M. Hecht MD, MSPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lucy De La Cruz MD.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 85 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

De La Cruz, L., Moody, A.M., Tappy, E.E. 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 22, 3241–3249 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4739-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4739-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation