Predictors of Nipple Ischemia after Nipple Sparing Mastectomy

Nipple sparing mastectomy (NSM) has become an accepted approach in selected cases of breast cancer and prophylactic mastectomy. Various surgical techniques have been described and nipple ischemia has been a common complication. Potential risk factors for nipple ischemia after NSM are examined. To examine predisposing factors for nipple ischemia after NSM. Prospective evaluation of 71 consecutive NSM in 45 patients from 2009 to 2011 was performed. There were 40 mastectomies for cancer (56.3%), and 31 (43.7%) prophylactic mastectomies. In cases of cancer, the ducts were excised from the undersurface of the nipple. Reconstructive methods included: expander 58, latissimus flap/expander 2, implant 10, and free TRAM flap 1. Various patient and technical factors were examined for impact on nipple ischemia. Partial nipple necrosis occurred in 20 cases (28.2%). Nineteen cases healed uneventfully and one required secondary nipple reconstruction. Operations for cancer (OR 10.54, CI 1.88–59.04, p = 0.007) and periareolar incisions (OR 9.69, CI 1.57–59.77, p = 0.014) predisposed to nipple ischemia. Periareolar incisions and dissection of the nipple ducts for cancer have a higher risk of nipple necrosis after NSM.     

Pathological Evaluation of Nipple‐Sparing Mastectomies with Emphasis on Occult Nipple Involvement: The Weill‐Cornell Experience with 325 Cases

Nipple‐sparing mastectomy (NSM) is an increasingly utilized surgical option in managing breast carcinoma; however, data on malignant involvement of a separately submitted nipple margin are scant. Consecutive NSM, including those performed for therapeutic and prophylactic purposes, over a 4‐year period (2007–2011), were studied. A separately submitted nipple margin was evaluated by permanent H&E preparations and via frozen section evaluation whenever requested. 325 consecutive NSM specimens, 208 (64%) therapeutic‐NSM, and 117 (36%) prophylactic‐NSM were studied. All nipples were clinically unremarkable. 86% (179/208) of nipple margins from therapeutic‐NSM and 100% (117/117) from prophylactic‐NSM showed no histopathologic abnormality. 14% (29/208) of nipple margins from therapeutic‐NSM and no nipple margin from prophylactic‐NSM showed malignancy. Frozen section evaluation was performed in 188/325 NSM (58%) with a sensitivity of 64% and specificity of 99%. Central tumor location and stage N2/N3 lymph node status were significantly associated with nipple margin positivity (χ² ≤ 0.05). Subsequent nipple resection was performed in 69% (20/29) of nipple margin‐positive cases with residual malignancy found in 40% (8/20, including three cases of invasive carcinoma). In a mean follow‐up of 33 months, one invasive carcinoma recurred in the “saved” nipple, 36 months after therapeutic‐NSM. 14% (29/208) of nipple margins in therapeutic‐NSM and no nipple margin (0/117) in prophylactic‐NSM showed malignancy. Central tumor location and N2/N3 stage were significantly associated with nipple margin positivity (χ² ≤ 0.05).     

The Lateral Inframammary Fold Incision for Nipple‐Sparing Mastectomy: Outcomes from Over 50 Immediate Implant‐Based Breast Reconstructions

Nipple‐sparing mastectomy (NSM) as a therapeutic or prophylactic procedure for breast cancer is rapidly gaining popularity as the literature continues to support it safety. The lateral inframammary fold (IMF) approach provides adequate exposure and eliminates visible scars on the anterior surface of the breast, making this incision cosmetically superior to radial or periareolar approaches. We reviewed 55 consecutive NSMs performed through a lateral IMF incision with immediate implant‐based reconstruction, with or without tissue expansion, between June 2008 and June 2011. Prior to incision, breasts were lightly infiltrated with dilute anesthetic solution with epinephrine. Sharp dissection, rather than electrocautery, was used as much as possible to minimize thermal injury to the mastectomy flap. When indicated, acellular dermal matrix was placed as an inferolateral sling. Subsequent fat grafting to correct contour deformities was performed in select patients. Three‐dimensional (3D) photographs assessed changes in volume, antero‐posterior projection, and ptosis. Mean patient age was 46 years, and mean follow‐up time was 12 months. Twelve mastectomies (22%) were therapeutic, and the remaining 43 (78%) were prophylactic. Seven of the nine sentinel lymph node biopsies (including one axillary dissection) (78%) were performed through the lateral IMF incision without the need for a counter‐incision. Acellular dermal matrix was used in 34 (62%) breasts. Average permanent implant volume was 416 cc (range 176–750 cc), and average fat grafting volume was 86 cc (range 10–177 cc). In one patient a positive intraoperative subareolar biopsy necessitated resection of the nipple‐areola complex (NAC), and in two other patients NAC resection was performed at a subsequent procedure based on the final pathology report. Mastectomy flap necrosis, requiring operative debridement, occurred in two breasts (4%), both in the same patient. One of these breasts required a salvage latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flap to complete the reconstruction. Three nipples (6%) required office debridement for partial necrosis and operative reconstruction later. No patient had complete nipple necrosis. No statistically significant differences existed between therapeutic and prophylactic mastectomies for developing partial skin and/or nipple necrosis (p = 0.35). Three episodes (5%) of cellulitis occurred, which responded to antibiotics without the need for explantation. Morphological outcomes using 3D scan measurements showed reconstructed breasts were larger, more projected, and less ptotic than the preoperative breasts (196 versus 248 cc, 80 versus 90 mm, 146 versus 134 mm, p < 0.01 for each parameter). Excellent results can be achieved with immediate implant‐based reconstruction of NSM through a lateral IMF incision. NAC survival is reliable, and complication rates are low. blechmanplasticsurgery.com     

Postoperative Radiation Therapy after Nipple‐Sparing or Skin‐Sparing Mastectomy: A Survey of European,North American,and South American Practices

Skin sparing mastectomy, a surgical procedure sparing a large portion of the overlying skin of the breast, and nipple‐sparing mastectomy, sparing the whole nipple‐areolar complex, are increasingly used, although their oncologic efficacy remains unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the radiation oncologists' opinions regarding the indications of radiation therapy (RT) after skin‐sparing mastectomy and nipple‐sparing mastectomy. Radiation oncology members of four national and international societies were invited to complete a questionnaire comprising of 22 questions to assess their opinions regarding RT indications in the context of skin‐sparing and nipple‐sparing mastectomy. A total of 298 radiation oncologists answered the questionnaire. 90.9% of respondents affirmed that breast cancer is one of their specializations. The majority declared that post‐mastectomy RT is indicated for early‐stage (stages I and II) breast cancer patients who present with risk factors for recurrence after skin‐sparing or nipple‐sparing mastectomy (87.2% and 80.2%, respectively). All suggested risk factors (tumor size, lymph node involvement, extracapsular extension, lymphovascular space invasion, positive surgical margins, triple negative tumor, multicentric tumor, and age) were considered as major elements (important or very important). There is no consensus regarding the necessity of evaluating residual breast tissue or the definition of residual breast tissue after mastectomy. All classic factors were considered as major elements, potentially influencing the decision to advice or not postoperative RT. Many uncertainties remain about the indications for RT after skin‐sparing mastectomy or nipple‐sparing mastectomy.     

Psychosocial and Sexual Well‐Being Following Nipple‐Sparing Mastectomy and Reconstruction

Nipple‐sparing mastectomy (NSM) is considered an oncologically safe option for select patients. As many patients are candidates for nipple‐sparing or skin‐sparing mastectomy (SSM), reliable patient‐reported outcome data are crucial for decision‐making. The objective of this study was to determine whether patient satisfaction and/or health‐related quality of life (HRQOL) were improved by preservation of the nipple with NSM compared to SSM and nipple reconstruction. Subjects were identified from a prospectively maintained database of patients who completed the BREAST‐Q following mastectomy and breast reconstruction between March and October 2011 at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Fifty‐two patients underwent NSM followed by immediate expander‐implant reconstruction. A comparison group consisted of 202 patients who underwent SSM followed by immediate expander‐implant reconstruction and later nipple reconstruction. HRQOL and satisfaction domains as measured by BREAST‐Q scores were compared in multivariate linear regression analyzes that controlled for potential confounding factors. NSM patients reported significantly higher scores in the psychosocial (p = 0.01) and sexual well‐being (p = 0.02) domains compared to SSM patients. There was no significant difference in the BREAST‐Q physical well‐being, satisfaction with breast, or satisfaction with outcome domains between the NSM and SSM groups. NSM is associated with higher psychosocial and sexual well‐being compared to SSM and nipple reconstruction. Preoperative discussion of such HRQOL outcomes with patients may facilitate informed decision‐making and realistic postoperative expectations.     

Nipple‐sparing Mastectomy and Sub‐areolar Biopsy: To Freeze or not to Freeze? Evaluating the Role of Sub‐areolar Intraoperative Frozen Section

Use of nipple‐sparing mastectomy (NSM) for risk‐reduction and therapeutic breast cancer resection is growing. The role for intraoperative frozen section of the nipple‐areolar complex remains controversial. Records of patients undergoing NSM at our institution from 2006 to 2013 were reviewed. Records from 501 nipple‐sparing mastectomies were reviewed (216 therapeutic, 285 prophylactic). Of the 480 breasts with sub‐areolar biopsies, 307 had intraoperative frozen sections and 173 were evaluated with permanent paraffin section only. Among the 307 intraoperative frozen sections, 12 biopsies were positive on permanent paraffin section (3.9% or 12/307). Of the 12 positive permanent biopsies, five were false negative and the remaining seven concordant intraoperatively. Sensitivity and specificity of sub‐areolar frozen section were 0.58 and 1, respectively. Positive sub‐areolar biopsies consisted primarily of ductal carcinoma in situ (62% or 13/21). The nipples or nipple‐areolar complex were resected in a separate procedure following mastectomy (10/21), intraoperatively following frozen section results (7/21) or during second‐stage breast reconstruction (3/21; 1 additional scheduled). Only 30% (6/20) of resected specimens had abnormal residual pathology. Intraoperative frozen section is highly specific and moderately sensitive for the detection of positive sub‐areolar biopsies in NSM. Its use can help guide intraoperative reconstructive planning. The presence of positive sub‐areolar biopsies in both contralateral and high‐risk prophylactic mastectomy specimens emphasizes the need to perform sub‐areolar biopsies in all nipple‐sparing mastectomies.     

Defining a Place for Nipple Sparing Mastectomy in Modern Breast Care: An Evidence Based Review

Abstract: Breast cancer is a diverse disease that requires a fully integrated multidisciplinary approach. Breast surgery has undergone a revolutionary change leading us from the conventional radical mastectomy of the Halstedian era to the current motion of nipple sparing mastectomy (NSM). Despite the lack of randomized controlled trials, the technique of NSM continues to gain popularity as a prophylactic procedure in high risk patients. The current indications for NSM, if any, in the treatment of early invasive breast cancer remains uncertain and requires rigorous scientific scrutiny. This article aims to critically review the indications and limitations of NSM, discuss evidence based intra‐operative protocols and to discuss ways in which radiation therapy may be incorporated in treatment planning following NSM. A comprehensive search of the scientific literature was carried out using PubMed to access all publications related to nipple sparing mastectomy. The search focused specifically on technique, current management, safety, and complications of these procedures. Keywords searched included “Nipple sparing mastectomy,”“breast conserving surgery,”“Nipple areola complex preservation” and “skin sparing mastectomy.” NSM offers an opportunity to preserve native breast envelope without mutilation of nipple‐areola complex (NAC), and avoids multiple surgical procedures required for reconstruction. NSM may be a reasonable alternative for prophylactic and select breast cancer patients without NAC involvement; however, oncological safety of NSM has not yet been fully demonstrated. Best available evidence suggests that patients should be selected based on study of breast duct anatomy by breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging, mammographic distance between tumor and nipple and obligatory intra‐operative frozen section from retro‐areolar tissue. Additional factors such as tumor size, axillary lymph node status, lymphovascular invasion and degree of intraductal component are also being used to either include or exclude NSM candidates based on institutional protocols. Heterogeneity of patients selected for NSM is great and the lack of standardization of preoperative investigations, intra‐operative technique and pathologic sampling of retro‐areola tissues mandates a multi‐institutional prospective study to define and validate a role for NSM in invasive breast cancer and DCIS. Nipple necrosis or sloughing is an important problem after NSM which can be greatly reduced using alternative skin incisions. Even if the nipple survives, an insensate nipple and lack of sexual function is common and requires preoperative counseling and discussion. Finally the relation and timing of intra‐operative versus adjuvant breast radiation and tailoring of dosage and delivery methods has not been fully explored. Although NSM reduces the psychological trauma associated with nipple loss, the oncologic safety as well as functional and aesthetic outcomes needs additional investigation.     

3D areola dermopigmentation (nipple‐areola complex)

Surgical techniques for reconstructing the nipple‐areola complex (NAC) pose disadvantages such as areola necrosis, loss of nipple projection, depression or local necrosis, temporary leave from professional activities due to convalescence, and operational costs, all of which are factors that may discourage patients from undergoing them. In this context, dermopigmentation stands out as an emerging nonsurgical option. It is an inexpensive outpatient procedure that mimics the nipple‐areola complex by means of defining the areolar contour, Montgomery's tubercles, and a variety of colors that allow for individualization and contralateral symmetry. In this pioneering study, we propose to validate the 3D dermopigmentation technique as a preferential technique in the NAC reconstruction process. We selected 30 women with previous breast cancer who underwent conservative breast surgeries or mastectomy with NAC removal more than 6 months prior to their participating in our study. We employed the dermopigmentation technique, which we evaluated with the aid of questionnaires intended for patients, doctors, and tattooists. Among specialists, results were considered good and excellent with regard to overall esthetics (76.07%) and color (72.5%); whereas among patients, results were considered good and excellent with regard to overall satisfaction (95%) and color (100%); no adverse events were observed. Three‐dimensional dermopigmentation proved to be a promising nonsurgical technique for nipple‐areola complex reconstruction.     

Nipple‐sparing mastectomy as treatment for patients with ductal carcinoma in situ: A 10‐year follow‐up study

The objective was to determine the 10‐year oncological safety of nipple‐sparing mastectomy (NSM) in patients diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). The use of NSM preserves the nipple‐areola complex (NAC). As residual fibroglandular breast tissue can remain behind the spared NAC, its use for patient with breast cancer is controversial. The oncologic outcomes and complication rates after performing NSM compared to other techniques are still under debate and a concern when treating patients with breast cancer. We retrospectively reviewed 69 consecutive NSM patients diagnosed with DCIS during 1984‐2016 at the Valencia Institute of Oncology, Valencia, Spain. 13 of 82 reviewed cases were excluded from the analysis owing to the presence of invasive tumor in the final pathologic report. All 69 patients who underwent NSM due to DCIS were included and analyzed. The indications were as follows: unfavorable correlation between tumor size and breast size in 53 patients, 10 patients with multifocal or multicentric tumors and breast cancer recurrence after breast‐conserving surgery in six patients. The reconstruction was performed using a prosthetic implant: saline‐filled implant 33 (47.8%) or tissue expander 36 (52.2%). No frozen section was performed in the patients included in our study. The presence of DCIS was confirmed in 60 patients and in the other nine patients we found no tumor in the mastectomy specimen (removed due to excisional biopsy procedure). High risk features were: tumor grade 3 in 27 (39.2%) cases and comedonecrosis in 32 (46.4%) cases. In 27 patients surgical axillary staging was performed and no residual disease in the axilla was observed. After a mean follow‐up period of 142.6 ± 70.7 months no nipple necrosis was observed. In 15 patients (21.7%) an additional surgical procedure was performed. 48 patients (69.6%) did not receive any adjuvant treatment. Adjuvant hormone therapy was given to 20 patients (29%) and one patients received radiation therapy (1.4%). Eight patients showed a local relapse (11.6%). One patient developed a recurrence within the nipple‐areola region presented as Paget's disease (1.4%). One patient presented a thorax wall relapse after 42 months of disease‐free survival and died because of metastatic dissemination of the tumor. The DFS rate was 88.4% and the overall survival rate was 98.6%. In patients with DCIS that are not candidates to breast‐conserving therapy, NSM is a realistic option of treatment. No case of nipple necrosis was observed. A low rate of nipple relapse (1.4%) and a good survival rate (98.5%) were observed after a median follow‐up of 142.6 months.     

Prophylactic nipple‐sparing mastectomy in young previvors: Examining decision‐making,reconstructive outcomes,and patient satisfaction in BRCA+ patients under 30

Bilateral prophylactic mastectomies (BPM) in young previvors with high‐risk mutations are rising; however, little data on management, therapy timing, and outcomes exist. BRCA+ patients under 30 undergoing BPM from 2006 to 2018 were reviewed. Twenty‐two patients aged 23‐29 underwent mastectomy 4.2 years after genetic diagnosis. Twelve patients completed surveys, most often citing personal decisions (50%) for undergoing mastectomy and plastic surgeons’ recommendations (83.3%) for reconstruction. About 73% of patients completely understood risks/benefits of mastectomy and 63.6% of reconstruction. Patients reported high BREAST‐Q Satisfaction and Well‐Being scores. Continued educational resource development will optimize shared decision‐making in the reconstructive process.     

Robotic da Vinci Xi‐assisted nipple‐sparing mastectomy: First clinical report

Nipple‐sparing mastectomy (NSM) is increasingly popular for the treatment of selected breast cancers and prophylactic mastectomy. Surgical scarring and esthetic outcomes are important patient‐related cosmetic considerations. Today, the concept of minimally invasive surgery has become popular, especially using robotic surgery. The authors report the first case of NSM using the latest version of the da Vinci Xi surgical system (Xi). The final incision used to remove the entire mammary gland was located behind the axillary line. In this position, hidden by the arm of the patient, the incision was not visible and was compatible with immediate breast reconstruction.     

An Analysis of Complication Risk Factors in 641 Nipple Reconstructions

Nipple‐areola reconstruction represents the completion of the breast restorative process and is associated with significant positive psychological implications. While factors such as medical comorbidities, smoking status, and radiation therapy have been shown to be associated with an increase in complications following breast reconstruction, their impact on nipple reconstruction remains largely unaddressed in the literature. An IRB‐approved, retrospective review of 472 patients who underwent nipple reconstruction at Wake Forest University over a 15‐year period was completed. Demographic and surgical characteristics were assessed including age, body mass index, medical comorbidities, smoking status, need for radiation, breast reconstruction type, and nipple flap used. Four hundred and seventy‐two patients with 641 nipple reconstructions were included with an average follow‐up of 56.5 months. Radiation prior to nipple reconstruction was required in 146 breasts (22.8%). Overall, postoperative nipple projection problems occurred in 7.6% of reconstructions with a 4.1% rate of other complications, including nipple necrosis, tip loss, wound infection and wound breakdown. Implant‐based reconstruction and radiation were associated with significantly more nipple projection problems (p = 0.009 and 0.05, respectively). Higher rates of complications and nipple projection problems were seen with skate flap reconstruction compared to a star flap (p = 0.046 and 0.001, respectively). Implant‐based breast reconstruction and radiotherapy are associated with higher rates of nipple reconstruction problems. Identification of patient and surgical variables associated with increased risk of poor outcomes preoperatively could help in patient counseling and selection of the most appropriate method of breast and nipple reconstruction.     

Reducing the Risk of Nipple Necrosis: Technical Observations in 340 Nipple‐sparing Mastectomies

Optimizing cosmesis is a common goal of breast surgery. In support of immediate breast reconstruction, nipple‐sparing techniques have evolved. There is still a lack of agreement on the optimal technique and skin flap necrosis can be problematic. In this study, we review our experience with 340 NSM. Between March 2006 and February 2011, 340 NSMs were performed. Mammography, ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging were reviewed. Patient demographics and surgical techniques were reviewed. Anatomic observations were made and supported by breast images. A total of 340 NSMs in 231 patients by a single surgeon (AJS) were reviewed. Risk reduction was the indication for surgery in 59% with 50 patients (21.6%) testing positive for a BRCA1/2 gene mutation. There were two flap losses and 14 hematomas. Complete nipple necrosis occurred in three cases (0.8%) and partial loss in six patients. Recommendations are made to reduce the risk of nipple necrosis included the following: (a) preserving major perforating vessels (b) elevating skin flaps in the plane between the subcutaneous fat and the breast glandular tissue (c) the use of incisions that do not devascularize the nipple‐areola complex. Nipple‐sparing mastectomy can be performed with an acceptably low risk of nipple necrosis. Attention to detail including preserving major perforating vessels, elevating skin flaps in the appropriate plane and careful attention to incision planning are all required for a consistently good cosmetic outcome.     

Mastectomy flap necrosis after nipple‐sparing mastectomy and immediate implant‐based reconstruction: An evaluation of tumescence and sharp dissection technique on surgical outcomes

Nipple‐sparing mastectomy (NSM) with immediate implant‐based reconstruction has better esthetic outcomes and improved patient satisfaction, in addition to being oncologically safe. A known complication of NSM is skin flap necrosis. The use of tumescence and sharp dissection may decrease this complication compared to the standard NSM technique using electrocautery. This is a retrospective review of patients who underwent a NSM between 2014 and 2017 at a regional cancer center. Tumescence with sharp dissection was compared to electrocautery. The primary outcome was skin flap necrosis. The secondary outcomes were operative time and management of the complication. A total of 62 patients underwent a NSM with 116 breasts being operated on. Full‐thickness necrosis occurred more frequently in the standard electrocautery group (12.8%) compared to the tumescence and sharp dissection group (1.3%; P = 0.02). Partial‐thickness necrosis also occurred more frequently in the standard group (33.3%) compared to the sharp dissection group (13.0%; P = 0.01). The operative time was significantly shorter in the sharp dissection group with the mean (SD) time being 183.5 (48.9) minutes compared to the standard electrocautery group at 202.9 (33.8) minutes (P = 0.03). NSM using tumescence and sharp dissection have a lower rate of the complications of partial‐ and full‐thickness necrosis. Shorter operative time was also seen with the tumescent technique.