Open Access

Oncological safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy in young patients with breast cancer compared with conventional mastectomy

  • Authors:
    • Jiapeng Huang
    • Qinguo Mo
    • Yaqiang Zhuang
    • Qinghong Qin
    • Zhen Huang
    • Junyang Mo
    • Qixing Tan
    • Bin Lian
    • Yiming Cao
    • Shuting Qin
    • Changyuan Wei
  • View Affiliations

  • Published online on: January 31, 2018     https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2018.7913
  • Pages: 4813-4820
  • Copyright: © Huang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: HTML 0 views | PDF 0 views     Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations

Abstract

Although nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is being used more frequently, the oncological safety of NSM remains unclear, particularly in young patients (<35 years). The aim of the present study was to compare the rates of local recurrence (LR), disease‑free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in young patients with breast cancer who had undergone NSM or conventional mastectomy (CM). The clinicopathological data of young patients with stage 0‑IIB breast cancer who had undergone NSM (163 cases) or CM (194 cases) between 2007 and 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. The log‑rank test was used to analyze the differences in the LR, DFS and OS rates between the two groups and multivariate analysis was used to analyze the patient prognostic factors for DFS. The median follow‑up time was 49 months. Patients who had undergone CM were more likely to exhibit stage II disease (68.4 vs. 58.3%; P=0.015) and positive lymph nodes (45.9 vs. 33.1%; P=0.014). In the NSM group, LR occurred in 7 (4.3%) cases, systemic recurrence in 15 (9.2%) cases and mortality in 9 (5.5%) cases. In the CM group, LR occurred in 6 (3.1%) cases, systemic recurrence in 27 (13.9%) cases and mortality in 15 (7.7%) cases. There were no statistical differences in the LR, DFS and OS rates between the two groups (P>0.05). Following adjustment for clinical stage, the LR and DFS rates between the two groups exhibited no significant differences. Analysis of the prognostic factors demonstrated that clinical stage, lymph node status, estrogen and progesterone receptor status and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status were associated with DFS (P<0.05). NSM is safe for young patients with early‑stage breast cancer and provides patients with an improved cosmetic outcome. Furthermore, nipple‑areola complex preservation does not increase the risk of recurrence.

References

1 

Halsted WS: I. The results of radical operations for the cure of carcinoma of the breast. Ann Surg. 46:1–19. 1907. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

2 

Madden JL: Modified radical mastectomy. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 121:1221–1230. 1965.PubMed/NCBI

3 

Clarke M, Collins R, Darby S, Davies C, Elphinstone P, Evans V, Godwin J, Gray R, Hicks C, James S, et al: Effects of radiotherapy and of differences in the extent of surgery for early breast cancer on local recurrence and 15-year survival: An overview of the randomised trials. Lancet. 366:2087–2106. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

4 

Fisher B, Anderson S, Redmond CK, Wolmark N, Wickerham DL and Cronin WM: Reanalysis and results after 12 years of follow-up in a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy with lumpectomy with or without irradiation in the treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 333:1456–1461. 1995. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

5 

Voogd AC, Nielsen M, Peterse JL, Blichert-Toft M, Bartelink H, Overgaard M, van Tienhoven G, Andersen KW, Sylvester RJ and van Dongen JA; Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group, ; Breast Cancer Cooperative Group of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, : Differences in risk factors for local and distant recurrence after breast-conserving therapy or mastectomy for stage I and II breast cancer: Pooled results of two large European randomized trials. J Clin Oncol. 19:1688–1697. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

6 

Toth BA and Lappert P: Modified skin incisions for mastectomy: The need for plastic surgical input in preoperative planning. Plast Reconstr Surg. 87:1048–1053. 1991. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

7 

Lanitis S, Tekkis PP, Sgourakis G, Dimopoulos N, Al Mufti R and Hadjiminas DJ: Comparison of skin-sparing mastectomy versus non-skin-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer: A meta-analysis of observational studies. Ann Surg. 251:632–639. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

8 

Yi M, Kronowitz SJ, Meric-Bernstam F, Feig BW, Symmans WF, Lucci A, Ross MI, Babiera GV, Kuerer HM and Hunt KK: Local, regional, and systemic recurrence rates in patients undergoing skin-sparing mastectomy compared with conventional mastectomy. Cancer. 117:916–924. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

9 

Petit JY, Veronesi U, Orecchia R, Rey P, Didier F, Giraldo A, Luini A, De Lorenzi F, Rietjens M, Garusi C, et al: The nipple-sparing mastectomy: Early results of a feasibility study of a new application of perioperative radiotherapy (ELIOT) in the treatment of breast cancer when mastectomy is indicated. Tumori. 89:288–291. 2003.PubMed/NCBI

10 

Hinton CP, Doyle PJ, Blamey RW, Davies CJ, Holliday HW and Elston CW: Subcutaneous mastectomy for primary operable breast cancer. Br J Surg. 71:469–472. 1984. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

11 

Cense HA, Rutgers EJ, Lopes Cardozo M and Van Lanschot JJ: Nipple-sparing mastectomy in breast cancer: A viable option? Eur J Surg Oncol. 27:1–526. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar

12 

Simmons RM, Brennan M, Christos P, King V and Osborne M: Analysis of nipple/areolar involvement with mastectomy: Can the areola be preserved? Ann Surg Oncol. 9:165–168. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

13 

Laronga C, Kemp B, Johnston D, Robb GL and Singletary SE: The incidence of occult nipple-areola complex involvement in breast cancer patients receiving a skin-sparing mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 6:609–613. 1999. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

14 

Brachtel EF, Rusby JE, Michaelson JS, Chen LL, Muzikansky A, Smith BL and Koerner FC: Occult nipple involvement in breast cancer: Clinicopathologic findings in 316 consecutive mastectomy specimens. J Clin Oncol. 27:4948–4954. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

15 

Gerber B, Krause A, Dieterich M, Kundt G and 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. 249:461–468. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

16 

Adam H, Bygdeson M and de Boniface J: The oncological safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy-a Swedish matched cohort study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 40:1209–1215. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

17 

Ou KW, Yu JC, Ho MH, Chiu WK, Ou KL, Chen TM and Chen SG: Oncological safety and outcomes of nipple-sparing mastectomy with breast reconstruction: A single-centered experience in Taiwan. Ann Plast Surg. 74 Suppl 2:S127–S131. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

18 

Seki T, Jinno H, Okabayashi K, Murata T, Matsumoto A, Takahashi M, Hayashida T and Kitagawa Y: Comparison of oncological safety between nipple sparing mastectomy and total mastectomy using propensity score matching. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 97:291–297. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

19 

Headon HL, Kasem A and Mokbel K: The oncological safety of Nipple-sparing mastectomy: A systematic review of the literature with a pooled analysis of 12,358 procedures. Arch Plast Surg. 43:328–338. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

20 

Chung WB, Yi JE, Jin JY, Choi YS, Park CS, Park WC, Song BJ and Youn HJ: Early cardiac function monitoring for detection of subclinical Doxorubicin cardiotoxicity in young adult patients with breast cancer. J Breast Cancer. 16:178–183. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

21 

Anders CK, Hsu DS, Broadwater G, Acharya CR, Foekens JA, Zhang Y, Wang Y, Marcom PK, Marks JR, Febbo PG, et al: Young age at diagnosis correlates with worse prognosis and defines a subset of breast cancers with shared patterns of gene expression. J Clin Oncol. 26:3324–3330. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

22 

Fredholm H, Magnusson K, Lindstrom LS, Garmo H, Fält SE, Lindman H, Bergh J, Holmberg L, Pontén F, Frisell J and Fredriksson I: Long-term outcome in young women with breast cancer: A population-based study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 160:131–143. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

23 

Bharat A, Aft RL, Gao F and Margenthaler JA: Patient and tumor characteristics associated with increased mortality in young women (< or =40 years) with breast cancer. J Surg Oncol. 100:248–251. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

24 

Fredholm H, Eaker S, Frisell J, Holmberg L, Fredriksson I and Lindman H: Breast cancer in young women: Poor survival despite intensive treatment. PLoS One. 4:e76952009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

25 

Gnerlich JL, Deshpande AD, Jeffe DB, Sweet A, White N and Margenthaler JA: Elevated breast cancer mortality in women younger than age 40 years compared with older women is attributed to poorer survival in early-stage disease. J Am Coll Surg. 208:341–347. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

26 

Kroman N, Holtveg H, Wohlfahrt J, Jensen MB, Mouridsen HT, Blichert-Toft M and Melbye M: Effect of breast-conserving therapy versus radical mastectomy on prognosis for young women with breast carcinoma. Cancer. 100:688–693. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

27 

Bantema-Joppe EJ, de Munck L, Visser O, Willemse PH, Langendijk JA, Siesling S and Maduro JH: Early-stage young breast cancer patients: Impact of local treatment on survival. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 81:e553–e559. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

28 

Amin MB, Edge SB, Greene FL, et al: American Joint committee on cancer (AJCC)AJCC cancer staging manual. 8th. New York: Springer; 2017, View Article : Google Scholar

29 

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), . Clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Breast cancer, version, 2007–2016. simplehttps://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/default.aspx#breast

30 

Rits IA: Declaration of helsinki. Recommendations guidings doctors in clinical research. World Med J. 11:2811964.PubMed/NCBI

31 

Kinoshita S, Nojima K, Takeishi M, Imawari Y, Kyoda S, Hirano A, Akiba T, Kobayashi S, Takeyama H, Uchida K and Morikawa T: Retrospective comparison of non-skin-sparing mastectomy and skin-sparing mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction. Int J Surg Oncol. 2011:8765202011.PubMed/NCBI

32 

Burdge EC, Yuen J, Hardee M, Gadgil PV, Das C, Henry-Tillman R, Ochoa D, Korourian S and Suzanne Klimberg V: Nipple skin-sparing mastectomy is feasible for advanced disease. Ann Surg Oncol. 20:3294–3302. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

33 

Benediktsson KP and 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. 34:143–148. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

34 

Shimo A, Tsugawa K, Tsuchiya S, Yoshie R, Tsuchiya K, Uejima T, Kojima Y, Shimo A, Hayami R, Nishikawa T, et al: Oncologic outcomes and technical considerations of nipple-sparing mastectomies in breast cancer: Experience of 425 cases from a single institution. Breast Cancer. 23:851–860. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

35 

Orzalesi L, Casella D, Santi C, Cecconi L, Murgo R, Rinaldi S, Regolo L, Amanti C, Roncella M, Serra M, et al: Nipple sparing mastectomy: Surgical and oncological outcomes from a national multicentric registry with 913 patients (1006 cases) over a six year period. Breast. 25:75–81. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

36 

Morrison DH, Rahardja D, King E, Peng Y and Sarode VR: Tumour biomarker expression relative to age and molecular subtypes of invasive breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 107:382–387. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

37 

Tang LC, Jin X, Yang HY, He M, Chang H, Shao ZM and Di GH: Luminal B subtype: A key factor for the worse prognosis of young breast cancer patients in China. BMC Cancer. 15:2012015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

38 

Lund MJ, Butler EN, Hair BY, Ward KC, Andrews JH, Oprea-Ilies G, Bayakly AR, O'Regan RM, Vertino PM and Eley JW: Age/race differences in HER2 testing and in incidence rates for breast cancer triple subtypes: A population-based study and first report. Cancer. 116:2549–2559. 2010.PubMed/NCBI

39 

Colleoni M, Rotmensz N, Robertson C, Orlando L, Viale G, Renne G, Luini A, Veronesi P, Intra M, Orecchia R, et al: Very young women (<35 years) with operable breast cancer: Features of disease at presentation. Ann Oncol. 13:273–279. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

40 

Petit JY, Veronesi U, Orecchia R, Curigliano G, Rey PC, Botteri E, Rotmensz N, Lohsiriwat V, Cassilha Kneubil M and Rietjens M: Risk factors associated with recurrence after nipple-sparing mastectomy for invasive and intraepithelial neoplasia. Ann Oncol. 23:2053–2058. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

41 

Donovan CA, Harit AP, Chung A, Bao J, Giuliano AE and Amersi F: Oncological and surgical outcomes after Nipple-sparing mastectomy: Do incisions matter? Ann Surg Oncol. 23:3226–3231. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

42 

Laporta R, Longo B, Sorotos M, Farcomeni A, Patti C, Mastrangeli MR, Rubino C and Santanelli di Pompeo F: Breast reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy: Clinical outcomes and risk factors related complications. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 51:427–435. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

43 

Salgarello M, Visconti G and Barone-Adesi L: Nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate implant reconstruction: Cosmetic outcomes and technical refinements. Plast Reconstr Surg. 126:1460–1471. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

44 

Yueh JH, Houlihan MJ, Slavin SA, Lee BT, Pories SE and Morris DJ: Nipple-sparing mastectomy: Evaluation of patient satisfaction, aesthetic results, and sensation. Ann Plast Surg. 62:586–590. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

45 

Fobair P, Stewart SL, Chang S, D'Onofrio C, Banks PJ and Bloom JR: Body image and sexual problems in young women with breast cancer. Psycho Oncol. 15:579–594. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar

Related Articles

Journal Cover

April 2018
Volume 15 Issue 4

Print ISSN: 1792-1074
Online ISSN:1792-1082

Sign up for eToc alerts

Recommend to Library

Copy and paste a formatted citation
APA
Huang, J., Mo, Q., Zhuang, Y., Qin, Q., Huang, Z., Mo, J. ... Wei, C. (2018). Oncological safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy in young patients with breast cancer compared with conventional mastectomy. Oncology Letters, 15, 4813-4820. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2018.7913
MLA
Huang, J., Mo, Q., Zhuang, Y., Qin, Q., Huang, Z., Mo, J., Tan, Q., Lian, B., Cao, Y., Qin, S., Wei, C."Oncological safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy in young patients with breast cancer compared with conventional mastectomy". Oncology Letters 15.4 (2018): 4813-4820.
Chicago
Huang, J., Mo, Q., Zhuang, Y., Qin, Q., Huang, Z., Mo, J., Tan, Q., Lian, B., Cao, Y., Qin, S., Wei, C."Oncological safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy in young patients with breast cancer compared with conventional mastectomy". Oncology Letters 15, no. 4 (2018): 4813-4820. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2018.7913