Dataset Information

Equivalent survival after nipple-sparing compared to non-nipple-sparing mastectomy: data from California, 1988-2013.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:Nipple-sparing mastectomy, which may improve cosmesis, body image, and sexual function in comparison to non-nipple-sparing mastectomy, is increasingly used to treat early-stage breast cancer; however, long-term survival data are lacking. We evaluated survival after nipple-sparing mastectomy versus non-nipple-sparing mastectomy in a population-based cancer registry. METHODS:We conducted an observational study using the California Cancer Registry, considering all stage 0-III breast cancers diagnosed in California from 1988 to 2013. We compared breast cancer-specific and overall survival time after nipple-sparing versus non-nipple-sparing mastectomy, using multivariable analysis. RESULTS:Among 157,592 stage 0-III female breast cancer patients treated with unilateral mastectomy from 1988-2013, 993 (0.6 %) were reported as having nipple-sparing and 156,599 (99.4 %) non-nipple-sparing mastectomies; median follow-up was 7.9 years. The proportion of mastectomies that were nipple-sparing increased over time (1988, 0.2 %; 2013, 5.1 %) and with neighborhood socioeconomic status, and decreased with age and stage. On multivariable analysis, nipple-sparing mastectomy was associated with a lower risk of breast cancer-specific mortality compared to non-nipple-sparing mastectomy [hazard ratio (HR) 0.71, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.51-0.98]. However, when restricting to diagnoses 1996 or later and adjusting for a larger set of covariates, risk was attenuated (HR 0.86, 95 % CI 0.52-1.42). CONCLUSIONS:Among California breast cancer patients diagnosed from 1988-2013, nipple-sparing mastectomy was not associated with worse survival than non-nipple-sparing mastectomy. These results may inform the decisions of patients and doctors deliberating between these surgical approaches for breast cancer treatment.

SUBMITTER: Kurian AW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5759961 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Equivalent survival after nipple-sparing compared to non-nipple-sparing mastectomy: data from California, 1988-2013.

Kurian Allison W AW Canchola Alison J AJ Gomez Scarlett L SL Clarke Christina A CA

Breast cancer research and treatment 20160924 2

<h4>Purpose</h4>Nipple-sparing mastectomy, which may improve cosmesis, body image, and sexual function in comparison to non-nipple-sparing mastectomy, is increasingly used to treat early-stage breast cancer; however, long-term survival data are lacking. We evaluated survival after nipple-sparing mastectomy versus non-nipple-sparing mastectomy in a population-based cancer registry.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted an observational study using the California Cancer Registry, considering all stage 0-III ...[more]

PMID: 27665587

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe emphasis on aesthetic outcomes and quality of life (QoL) has motivated surgeons to develop skin-sparing or nipple-sparing mastectomy (SSM/ NSM) for breast cancer treatment or prevention. During the same operation, a so-called immediate breast reconstruction is performed. The breast can be reconstructed by positioning of a breast implant above (prepectoral) or below (subpectoral) the pectoralis major muscle or by using the patients' own tissue (autologous reconstruction). The optimal positioning of the implant prepectoral or subpectoral is currently not clear. Subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is still standard care in many countries, but prepectoral IBBR is increasingly performed. This heterogeneity in breast reconstruction practice is calling for randomised clinical trials (RCTs) to guide treatment decisions.Methods and analysisInternational, pragmatic, multicentre, randomised, superiority trial. The primary objective of this trial is to test whether prepectoral IBBR provides better QoL with respect to long-term (24 months) physical well-being (chest) compared with subpectoral IBBR for patients undergoing SSM or NSM for prevention or treatment of breast cancer. Secondary objectives will compare prepectoral versus subpectoral IBBR in terms of safety, QoL and patient satisfaction, aesthetic outcomes and burden on patients. Total number of patients to be included: 372 (186 per arm).Ethics and disseminationThis study will be conducted in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approval has been obtained for the lead investigator's site by the Ethics Committee 'Ethikkommission Nordwest- und Zentralschweiz' (2020-00256, 26 March 2020). The results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, independent of the results, following the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials standards for RCTs and good publication practice. Metadata describing the type, size and content of the datasets will be shared along with the study protocol and case report forms on public repositories adhering to the FAIR (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reuse) principles.Trial registration numberNCT04293146.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Nipple-sparing mastectomy offers several advantages for women seeking postmastectomy breast reconstruction, but compromised skin and nipple perfusion may lead to skin and nipple necrosis. It is unclear whether the incisional approach contributes to these complications; therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the impact of incision type on outcomes in patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy. METHODS:This is a prospective cohort study of patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy with prosthetic breast reconstruction through an inframammary fold versus a lateral radial incision. Skin and nipple perfusion as represented by fluorescence intensity, mammometric parameters, patient-reported outcomes, and clinical outcomes were analyzed and compared for the two cohorts, and multivariable logistic regression models were performed to evaluate the effects of covariates on outcomes. RESULTS:Seventy-nine patients were studied: 55 in the inframammary fold cohort and 24 in the lateral radial cohort. The inframammary fold group had significantly less fluorescence intensity to the inferior (21.9 percent versus 36.9 percent; p = 0.001) and lateral portions of breast skin (23.1 percent versus 40.7 percent; p = 0.003) after reconstruction. Decreased fluorescence intensity was associated with smoking, decreased mean arterial pressure, and greater specimen weight. Postreconstruction breast volumes were increased over preoperative volumes in the inframammary fold group (38.3 percent) versus the lateral radial (31.2 percent) group; however, patients with a lateral radial incision had a greater increase in satisfaction with their breasts and psychosocial well-being. CONCLUSIONS:There are significant differences in patient-reported outcomes and final breast volumes based on the incisional approach to nipple-sparing mastectomy. These data can be used to guide providers and counsel patients considering nipple-sparing mastectomy with prosthetic reconstruction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Therapeutic, II.

Dataset Information

Equivalent survival after nipple-sparing compared to non-nipple-sparing mastectomy: data from California, 1988-2013.

Publications

Equivalent survival after nipple-sparing compared to non-nipple-sparing mastectomy: data from California, 1988-2013.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure