Dataset Information

Suggestion for the omission of post-mastectomy chest wall radiation therapy in patients who underwent skin-sparing/nipple-sparing mastectomy.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

Both skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) and nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) have been widely adopted. Although postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) can improve clinical outcomes, it can worsen cosmesis following reconstruction. Therefore, identifying risk factors of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) could help de-escalate PMRT after NSM/SSM in patients with pT1-2 disease.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed patients treated with SSM (N = 400) and NSM (N = 156) in patients with pT1-2N0-1 disease between 2009 and 2016. Seventy-four patients received PMRT with 50-50.4 Gy in 25-28 fractions. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to analyze the prognostic factors of IBTR.

Results

With a median follow-up of 66.2 months, 17 IBTR events were observed, with 5-year IBTR-free rate of 97.2%. Although only one IBTR was observed after PMRT, there was no statistical difference in the 5-year IBTR-free rate (PMRT vs. no PMRT, 98.6% vs. 97.0%, p = 0.360). Multivariable analyses demonstrated that age ≤45 years and lymphovascular invasion (LVI) were adverse features of IBTR. The low-risk group (0 risk factor) showed a better 5-year IBTR-free rate than the high-risk group (≥1 risk factor) (100.0% vs. 95.8%, p = 0.003). In the high-risk group, PMRT slightly improved 5-year IBTR-free rate compared with no PMRT (98.6% vs. 95.2%, p = 0.166). In addition, PMRT increased 5-year cumulative incidence of reconstruction failure (10.0% vs. 2.8%, p = 0.001).

Conclusion

We identified risk factors (age and LVI) related to IBTR following upfront SSM/NSM with pT1-2 disease. As a hypothesis-generating study, de-escalation of PMRT by omitting chest wall irradiation in selective patients could improve reconstruction-related complications without compromising oncologic outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Kim N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9526229 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Suggestion for the omission of post-mastectomy chest wall radiation therapy in patients who underwent skin-sparing/nipple-sparing mastectomy.

Kim Nalee N Park Won W Cho Won Kyung WK Kim Hae Young HY Choi Doo Ho DH Nam Seok Jin SJ Kim Seok Won SW Lee Jeong Eon JE Yu Jonghan J Chae Byung Joo BJ Lee Se Kyung SK Ryu Jai Min JM Mun Goo-Hyun GH Pyon Jai-Kyong JK Jeon Byung-Joon BJ

Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) 20220923

<h4>Aim</h4>Both skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) and nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) have been widely adopted. Although postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) can improve clinical outcomes, it can worsen cosmesis following reconstruction. Therefore, identifying risk factors of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) could help de-escalate PMRT after NSM/SSM in patients with pT1-2 disease.<h4>Methods</h4>We retrospectively reviewed patients treated with SSM (N = 400) and NSM (N = 156) in patien ...[more]

PMID: 36179501

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeNipple areola complex-sparing surgeries, such as nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM), are increasingly used for women with early-stage breast cancer. In the postoperative setting, 2 major indications for postoperative radiation (PORT) with/without regional nodal irradiation (RNI) are: positive margins (margin+) and pathologically involved lymph nodes (pN+). The frequency of these adverse pathologic features and the rate of PORT utilization following NSM for these 2 indications are unknown. We determined the frequency of margin+ and pN+ following NSM compared with nipple-sparing lumpectomy/breast-conserving surgery [BCS] and identified trends in appropriate PORT administration for these standard indications in the NSM setting.Methods and materialsUsing the National Cancer Database (NCDB), women diagnosed with cT1 to cT3,N0M0 invasive carcinoma between 2004 and 2017 who underwent NSM were compared with those who underwent BCS (with nipple preservation). The frequencies of margin+ and pN+ by surgical subtype and use of PORT with/without RNI were assessed by cohort to determine if the type of surgery was associated with radiation delivery. Overall survival between the 2 cohorts was also compared. We performed univariable/multivariable logistic and Cox regression with ORs to control for confounders.ResultsOf 624,075 women included, 611,907 underwent BCS, and 12,168 underwent NSM. The surgical margin+ rate was significantly higher for NSM at 4.5% (n = 544) than for BCS at 3.7% (n = 22,449) (P < .001) and remained significant on multivariable analysis (MVA; OR, 1.13; CI, 1.03-1.25; P = .012). Use of PORT for margins+ was significantly lower by MVA after NSM (OR, 0.07; CI, 0.06-0.09; P < .001). Similarly, pN+ rate was significantly higher for NSM at 22.5% (n = 2740) versus BCS at 13.5% (n = 82,288) (P < .001), retaining significance on MVA (OR, 1.12; CI, 1.06-1.19; P < .001). For pN+ undergoing NSM, PORT with RNI was delivered significantly less often on MVA (OR, 0.73; CI, 0.67-0.81; P < .001). Neither high-risk subgroup had differences in overall survival on MVA.ConclusionsNSM is associated with a higher rate of margin+ and pN+ compared with BCS. Radiation is underused after NSM for these standard indications. Our results highlight the need to further refine patient selection for NSM and the importance of communicating the higher potential for adverse pathologic features (and thus, the potential need for radiation) to patients undergoing NSM.

Project description:ImportanceWhile nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) for breast cancer was only performed using the open method in the past, its frequency using endoscopic and robotic surgical instruments has been increasing rapidly. However, there are limited studies regarding postoperative complications and the benefits and drawbacks of minimal access NSM (M-NSM) compared with conventional NSM (C-NSM).ObjectiveTo examine the differences in postoperative complications between C-NSM and M-NSM.Design, setting, participantsThis was a retrospective multicenter cohort study enrolling 1583 female patients aged 19 years and older with breast cancer who underwent NSM at 21 university hospitals in Korea between January 2018 and December 2020. Those with mastectomy without preserving the nipple-areolar complex (NAC), clinical or pathological malignancy in the NAC, inflammatory breast cancer, breast cancer infiltrating the chest wall or skin, metastatic breast cancer, or insufficient medical records were excluded. Data were analyzed from November 2021 to March 2024.ExposuresM-NSM or C-NSM.Main outcomes and measuresClinicopathological factors and postoperative complications within 3 months of surgery were assessed. Statistical analyses, including logistic regression, were used to identify the factors associated with complications.ResultsThere were 1356 individuals (mean [SD] age, 45.47 [8.56] years) undergoing C-NSM and 227 (mean [SD] age, 45.41 [7.99] years) undergoing M-NSM (35 endoscopy assisted and 192 robot assisted). There was no significant difference between the 2 groups regarding short- and long-term postoperative complications (<30 days: C-NSM, 465 of 1356 [34.29%] vs M-NSM, 73 of 227 [32.16%]; P = .53; <90 days: C-NSM, 525 of 1356 [38.72%] vs M-NSM, 73 of 227 [32.16%]; P = .06). Nipple-areolar complex necrosis was more common in the long term after C-NSM than M-NSM (C-NSM, 91 of 1356 [6.71%] vs M-NSM, 5 of 227 [2.20%]; P = .04). Wound infection occurred more frequently after M-NSM (C-NSM, 58 of 1356 [4.28%] vs M-NSM, 18 of 227 [7.93%]; P = .03). Postoperative seroma occurred more frequently after C-NSM (C-NSM, 193 of 1356 [14.23%] vs M-NSM, 21 of 227 [9.25%]; P = .04). Mild or severe breast ptosis was a significant risk factor for nipple or areolar necrosis (odds ratio [OR], 4.75; 95% CI, 1.66-13.60; P = .004 and OR, 8.78; 95% CI, 1.88-41.02; P = .006, respectively). Conversely, use of a midaxillary, anterior axillary, or axillary incision was associated with a lower risk of necrosis (OR for other incisions, 32.72; 95% CI, 2.11-508.36; P = .01). Necrosis occurred significantly less often in direct-to-implant breast reconstruction compared to other breast reconstructions (OR, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.11-7.34; P = .03).Conclusions and relevanceThe similar complication rates between C-NSM and M-NSM demonstrates that both methods were equally safe, allowing the choice to be guided by patient preferences and specific needs.

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.

Dataset Information

Suggestion for the omission of post-mastectomy chest wall radiation therapy in patients who underwent skin-sparing/nipple-sparing mastectomy.

Aim

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Suggestion for the omission of post-mastectomy chest wall radiation therapy in patients who underwent skin-sparing/nipple-sparing mastectomy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets