Favorable Outcome with Close Margins in Patients Undergoing Nipple/Skin Sparing Mastectomy with Immediate Breast Reconstruction: 5-year Follow-up

Year 2018, Volume: 35 Issue: 1, 84 - 92, 01.01.2018

Enver Özkurt Mustafa Tükenmez Erdem Güven Burcu Çelet Özden Gizem Öner Mahmut Müslümanoğlu Abdullah İğci Vahit Özmen Seden Küçücük Neslihan Cabioğlu

Abstract

Background: Implant-based breast reconstruction after mastectomy has recently been reported to be the preferred type of surgery among breast-specific surgeons and plastic surgeons. Aims: To explore the significant clinicopathological factors associated with long-term outcome related to local recurrences of the nipple among patients who underwent immediate breast reconstruction with tissue expander or implant after mastectomy. Study Design: Retrospective cohort.Methods: From January 2007 to January 2013, 51 breast cancer patients who underwent immediate breast reconstruction with tissue expander or implant were retrospectively analysed. Patients’ demographic data, clinicopathological characteristics, and clinical outcome by disease-free survival and disease-specific survival analyses were determined. Results: The median follow-up was 64 (31-114) months. Of the 57 mastectomies, 41 were skin sparing mastectomy (72%) and 16 were nipple-areola sparing mastectomy (28%). Immediate breast reconstruction surgery included tissue expander (n=46, 81%) or implant (n=11, 19%) placement. The molecular subgroups of 47 invasive cancers were as follows: luminal A (n=23, 49%), luminal B (n=16, 34%), non-luminal HER2 (n=5, 10.6), triple negative breast cancer (n=3, 6.4%). The 5-years disease-specific survival, disease-free survival, and locoregional recurrence-free survival rates were 96.8%, 90%, and 97.6% respectively. Patients with luminal A cancer were found to have an improved 5-year disease-free survival time than other (luminal A; 100% vs. non-luminal A; 78%; p=0.028). Of the 14 nipple-areola sparing mastectomy, 13 had a close median tumour distance to nipple-areola complex (<20 mm) with a 5-year locoregional recurrence free survival of 100%. Conclusion: Immediate breast reconstruction with implant or tissue expander can be safely applied in patients undergoing skin sparing mastectomy or nipple-areola sparing mastectomy. Patients with luminal-A type show the most favourable outcome. During the 5-year follow-up period, patients even with close margins (<20 mm) to nipple-areola complex with nipple-areola sparing mastectomy have excellent locoregional and overall survival when treated by contemporary multidisciplinary oncological management.

Keywords

Breast implants, mastectomy, subcutaneous, breast reconstruction, surgical margin, local recurrence

References

• 1. Dragun AE, Huang B, Tucker TC, Spanos WJ. Increasing mastectomy rates among all age groups for early stage breast cancer: a 10-year study of surgical choice. Breast J 2012;18:318-25.
• 2. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. 2011 Reconstructive Breast Procedures. Available at: http://www.plasticsurgery.org/Documents/newsresources/statistics/2011statistics/20011_Stats_Full_Report.pdf.
• 3. Reefy S, Patani N, Anderson A, Burgoyne G, Osman H, Mokbel K. Oncological outcome and patient satisfaction with skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction: a prospective observational study. BMC Cancer 2010;10:171.
• 4. Moyer HR, Ghazi B, Daniel JR, Gasgarth R, Carlson GW. Nipple-sparing mastectomy: technical aspects and aesthetic outcomes. Ann Plast Surg 2012;68:446-50.
• 5. Simmons RM, Fish SK, Gayle L, La Trenta GS, Swistel A, Christos P, et al. Local and distant recurrence rates in skin-sparing mastectomies compared with non-skin-sparing mastectomies. Ann Surg Oncol 1999;6:676-“81.
• 6. Horiguchi J, Iino JHY, Takei H, Koibuchi Y, Iijima K, Ikeda F, et al. A comparative study of subcutaneous mastectomy with radical mastectomy. Anticancer Res 2001; 21:2963-7.
• 7. Tokin C, Weiss A, Wang-Rodriguez J, Blair SL. Oncologic safety of skinsparing and nipple-sparing mastectomy: a discussion and review of the literature. Int J Surg Oncol 2012;2012:921821.
• 8. 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;249:461-8.
• 9. Boneti C, Yuen J, Santiago C, Diaz Z, Robertson Y, Korourian S, et al. Oncologic safety of nipple skin-sparing or total skin-sparing mastectomies with immediate reconstruction. J Am Coll Surg 2011;212:686-93.
• 10. Jensen JA, Orringer JS, Giuliano AE. Nipple-sparing mastectomy in 99 patients with a mean follow-up of 5 years. Ann Surg Oncol 2011;18:1665- 70.
• 11. de Alcantara Filho P, Capko D, Barry JM, Morrow M, Pusic A, Sacchini VS. Nipple-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer and risk-reducing surgery: the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center experience. Ann Surg Oncol 2011;18:3117-22.
• 12. 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;34:143-8.
• 13. Stanec Z, Žic R, Budi S, Stanec S, Milanović R, Vlajčić Z, et al. Skin and nipple-areola complex sparing mastectomy in breast cancer patients: 15- year experience. Ann Plast Surg 2014;73:485-91.
• 14. Eisenberg RE, Chan JS, Swistel AJ, Hoda SA. Pathological evaluation of nipple-sparing mastectomies with emphasis on occult nipple involvement: the Weill-Cornell experience with 325 cases. Breast J 2014;20:15-21.
• 15. 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;209:212-7.
• 16. Fredriksson I, Liljegren G, Arnesson LG, Emdin SO, Palm-Sjövall M, Fornander T, et al. Local recurrence in the breast after conservative surgery a study of prognosis and prognostic factors in 391 women. Eur J Cancer 2002;38:1860-70.
• 17. Albornoz CR, Bach PB, Mehrara BJ, Disa JJ, Pusic AL, McCarthy CM, et al. A paradigm shift in U.S. Breast reconstruction: increasing implant rates. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013;131:15-23.
• 18. Yi M, Kronowitz SJ, Meric-Bernstam F, Feig BW, Symmans WF, Lucci A, et al. Local, regional, and systemic recurrence rates in patients undergoing skin-sparing mastectomy compared with conventional mastectomy. Cancer 2011;117:916-24.
• 19. Lanitis S, Tekkis PP, Sgourakis G, Dimopoulos 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;251:632-9.
• 20. Warren Peled A, Foster RD, Stover AC, Itakura K, Ewing CA, Alvarado M, et al. Outcomes after total skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate reconstruction in 657 breasts. Ann Surg Oncol 2012;19:3402-9.
• 21. Wang F, Peled AW, Garwood E, Fiscalini AS, Sbitany H, Foster RD, et al. Total skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction: an evolution of technique and assessment of outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol 2014;21:3223-30.
• 22. Peled AW, Wang F, Foster RD, Alvarado M, Ewing CA, Sbitany H, et al. Expanding the Indications for Total Skin-Sparing Mastectomy: Is It Safe for Patients with Locally Advanced Disease? Ann Surg Oncol 2016;23:87- 91.
• 23. Chen CM, Disa JJ, Sacchini V, Pusic AL, Mehrara BJ, Garcia-Etienne CA, et al. Nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009;124:1772-80.
• 24. Carlson GW, Styblo TM, Lyles RH, Jones G, Murray DR, Staley CA, et al. The use of skin sparing mastectomy in the treatment of breast cancer: The Emory experience. Surg Oncol 2003;12:265-9.