Journal List > J Breast Cancer > v.19(1) > 1036642

Park, Han, Yoo, Lee, Jin, Chang, Minn, and Noh: Oncologic Safety of Immediate Breast Reconstruction for Invasive Breast Cancer Patients: A Matched Case Control Study

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to compare locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS) and disease-free survival (DFS) between patients undergoing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) and those undergoing mastectomy alone.

Methods

A retrospective review of patients who underwent mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction for resectable invasive breast cancer between 2002 and 2010 at a single center was conducted. These cases were matched to patients who underwent mastectomy alone in the same time period, performed by 1:2 matching. Matching control variables included age, tumor size, axillary lymph node metastasis, and estrogen receptor status. Overall, 189 patients were identified in the IBR group, and 362 patients were matched to this group.

Results

In the IBR group, 75 patients (39.7%) underwent conventional total mastectomy, 78 (41.3%) underwent skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM), and 36 (19.0%) underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM). The IBR group was significantly younger than the control group (41.9 and 45.1 years, respectively) (p=0.032), in spite of matching between three age groups. The DFS rates were similar between the IBR group and mastectomy alone group, at 92.0% and 89.9%, respectively, at 5-year follow-up (log-rank test, p=0.496). The 5-year LRFS was 96.2% in the IBR group and 96.4% in the mastectomy alone group (log-rank test, p=0.704), similar to data from previous reports. Subgroup analyses for SSM or NSM patients showed no differences in LRFS and DFS between the two groups. Additionally, in stage III patients, IBR did not cause an increase in recurrence.

Conclusion

IBR after mastectomy, including both SSM and NSM, had no negative impact on recurrence or patient survival, even in patients with advanced disease.

INTRODUCTION

Immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) has become a common and widely used procedure for patients with breast cancer [1]. Owing to its excellent esthetic outcomes, IBR has gained popularity and is used in an increasing proportion of patients [23]. This changing trend has also been demonstrated in Korea, where there has been an almost 3-fold increase in breast reconstruction cases over the last 10 years [4]. Moreover, beginning in April 2015, IBR is now reimbursed by the insurance system for breast cancer patients in Korea, which is expected to result in greater availability and demand in the clinic.
To obtain better cosmetic results, skin-preserving surgical techniques, such as skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) and nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM), are preferred for breast surgery when IBR is performed. However, these procedures may compromise the completeness of mastectomy, and concerns have been raised about their oncologic safety. Due to these concerns, numerous groups have reported long-term follow-up results, demonstrating comparable or even better survival in patients who underwent immediate breast reconstruction compared to those who underwent conventional mastectomy alone [123567]. However, many of these reports lack an appropriate matched case-control group and compare survival rates with those reported in previous studies. Additionally, many of the survival rate reports are from cohorts that included patients with in situ cancer, resulting in a relatively high survival rate [5689].
In this study, we examined the oncologic safety of IBR in patients with invasive breast cancer, by comparing the survival outcomes of patients who underwent mastectomy and IBR (IBR group) with those of a matched control group who underwent mastectomy alone (mastectomy alone group).

METHODS

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board in Seoul National University Hospital (IRB number: 1507-097-689). Informed consent was obtained from the participants for inclusion in the study. All breast cancer patients who underwent mastectomy and IBR (IBR group) between 2002 and 2010 at Seoul National University Hospital (SNUH), Republic of Korea, were retrospectively reviewed. Only patients with newly diagnosed resectable invasive breast cancer were included. Patients with in situ carcinoma or metastatic breast cancer were excluded. Additionally, patients with a history of breast cancer or risk-reducing prophylactic mastectomy were also excluded.
Each case from the IBR group was matched to two control cases based on matching variables. The matched control cases from the mastectomy alone group were patients with invasive breast cancer who underwent conventional mastectomy without immediate reconstruction or with delayed reconstruction at SNUH between 2002 and 2010. Matching control variables included age (<35 years, ≥35 and <50 years, and ≥50 years), tumor size (≤2 cm, >2 and ≤5 cm, and >5 cm), axillary lymph node metastasis (negative or positive), estrogen receptor (ER) status (<10% [negative] or ≥10% [positive]), and type of primary treatment (surgery or neoadjuvant chemotherapy). For patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy, clinical tumor size and axillary lymph node status were used for matching.
Clinicopathological data were obtained from SNUH Breast Cancer Center database, which is a prospectively maintained web-based database [10]. Recurrence event data were collected via review of the SNUH electronic medical records, and survival data were acquired from the Korean National Statistical Office database.
SSM involves resection of the whole breast parenchyma along with the nipple-areola complex (NAC). Resection of the skin above the tumor was performed, with only the healthy breast skin envelope being left behind. NSM is a modification of SSM that has the benefits of SSM along with preservation of the nipple-areolar skin. NSM was performed when no evidence of NAC involvement was found clinically or on breast imaging studies, including breast MRI. To confirm the lack of cancer in the preserved nipple-areolar skin, breast tissue shaving under the nipple was performed for intraoperative frozen biopsy to confirm that there was no tumor involvement or atypical cells. The degree of skin removal in the IBR group was comparable or smaller compared to that in the mastectomy alone group.
Mastectomies were performed by a team of general surgeons and followed by immediate reconstruction by a team of plastic surgeons. Reconstructive procedures were performed with transverse rectus abdominis flaps, tissue expander insertion, implant insertion, or latissimus dorsi flaps.
Local recurrence was defined as tumor spread found within the ipsilateral anterior chest wall (skin, subcutaneous tissue, and muscle). Regional recurrence was defined as a relapse in the ipsilateral axillary, internal mammary, supraclavicular, or infraclavicular lymph nodes. Distant metastasis was defined as recurrence in all other areas. Locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS) was determined as the time from the date of mastectomy to the date of findings of radiologic or biopsy-proven locoregional recurrence. Disease-free survival (DFS) was determined as the time from the date of mastectomy to the date of any incidence of local, regional, or distant recurrence. Patients without any events were censored at the date of their last out-patient clinic visit. Overall survival (OS) was determined from the date of mastectomy to the date of death or last out-patient clinic visit.
The chi-square test and t-test were used to compare clinicopathological variables between the study groups and matched controls. The Kaplan-Meier survival model and the log-rank test were used to calculate LRFS, DFS, and OS. For all analyses, a p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics/PC software package version 22 (IBM Corp., Armonk, USA).

RESULTS

Between 2002 and 2010, 189 patients underwent mastectomy and IBR for invasive breast cancer. A total of 362 patients who underwent conventional mastectomy were matched with hose patients based on age, tumor size, axillary lymph node status, ER status, and type of primary treatment. Thus, a total of 551 patients were included in the final analysis. The characteristics of the 551 patients are presented in Table 1. The mean (±standard deviation) age at the time of diagnosis was 41.98 years (±80.8) in the IBR group and 45.10 (±81.8) years in the mastectomy alone group. Despite controlled matching by age, the IBR group was significantly younger than the mastectomy alone group (p=0.032).
T stage, N stage, and American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage were not significantly different between the IBR group and mastectomy alone group. In both groups, 11.2% of patients underwent surgery for stage III disease. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was performed as the primary therapy in five patients (2.6%) in the IBR group and 18 patients (5.0%) in the mastectomy alone group (p=0.141). All neoadjuvant chemotherapy patients were clinically stage III. ER status, progester one receptor status, tumor grade, and Ki-67 did not differ between the two groups. However, the IBR group patients had significantly more tumors with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) amplification (29.1% vs. 17.4%, p=0.005). The majority of reconstructions were free transverse rectus abdominis flaps (151, 79.9%). Other patients underwent tissue expander insertion, implant surgery (37, 19.6%), or latissimus dorsi flap reconstruction (1, 0.5%). Of the 189 patients in the IBR group, 75 patients (39.7%) underwent conventional total mastectomy, 78 (41.3%) underwent SSM, and 36 (19.0%) underwent NSM.
The median follow-up durations were 65.6 months (range, 10–132 months) for the IBR group and 81.1 months (range, 1–154 months) for the mastectomy alone group (p < 0.001). The overall 5-year survival rates were 97.9% in the IBR group and 97.5% in the mastectomy alone group (p=0.912). During follow-up, 18 patients (9.5%) in the IBR group and 52 patients (14.4%) in the mastectomy alone group experienced recurrence. The characteristics of patients with recurrence in the IBR group are shown in Table 2. There was no significant difference in DFS between the IBR group and mastectomy alone group (5-year DFS, 92.0% and 89.9%, respectively; log-rank test, p=0.496) (Figure 1A). The 5-year LRFS rates were 96.2% and 96.4% for the IBR group and mastectomy alone group, respectively (log-rank test, p=0.704) (Figure 1B). For local recurrence, five patients had recurrences on the chest wall, and two had recurrences on the skin or nipple. All local recurrences were identified by physical examination or routine breast sonography imaging.
We also performed a separate survival analysis for the SSM or NSM group. Between the SSM or NSM group (n=114) and their matched control group (n=191), no significant difference in DFS was found (p=0.791) (Figure 2A). Locoregional recurrence also did not differ between the SSM or NSM group and the matched control group (5-year LRFS, 96.4% and 96.1%, respectively, p=0.552) (Figure 2B). The preoperative distances between the tumor and nipple in the NSM group and control group were 22.5 mm (range, 1–40 mm) and 18.6 mm (range, 1–60 mm), respectively (p=0.186).
Patients with advanced breast cancer (AJCC stage III), including patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy, were also analyzed as a subgroup. The 5-year DFS rates were not different, at 72.1% and 66.6% in the IBR group and its matched control group, respectively (log-rank test, p=0.473) (Figure 3A). Also, no significant difference in LRFS was found between the two groups (5-year LRFS, 90.9% and 92.7%, respectively; log-rank test, p=0.785) (Figure 3B).

DISCUSSION

Asian women tend to have smaller and denser breasts compared to those of Western women, which increases patient and surgeons' interests in IBR. Also, the peak incident age in Korea is much younger compared to Western countries, with a median age of 47 to 51 years old [4]. As a result of this younger patient group, obtaining acceptable cosmetic results along and oncologic safety are important issues in treating breast cancer patients. However, there are fewer reports on the oncologic safety of IBR in Asia compared to Western countries, and these studies also lack a variable-based matched control group [11112]. In this retrospective study, we performed a matched case-control study, adjusting for factors related to survival outcomes in order to reduce selection bias of patients undergoing mastectomy and IBR. We demonstrated the oncologic safety of IBR after curative surgery for invasive breast cancer patients, reporting no differences in OS, DFS, and LRFS between the two groups, regardless of the type of mastectomy or cancer stage.
We have demonstrated comparable oncologic safety in a subgroup of patients who underwent SSM or NSM. Previous studies have reported that the remaining extra skin after SSM contains residual breast tissue in almost 60% of cases [313]. However, the average weight of the residual breast tissue in SSM was found to be a mere 0.02% of the total removed tissue [314]. Additionally, Doddi et al. [15] indicated that locoregional recurrence after IBR cannot be affected by inadequate excision alone, but it is more affected by other prognostic factors. Many previous reports found similar results to those in our study, demonstrating no difference between SSM or NSM and conventional mastectomies [89111216].
The oncologic safety of IBR in advanced-stage disease or after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is still debatable. Most studies showed no increase in recurrence rates of advanced-stage tumors [17181920]. However, Mallon et al. [21] reported a significant increase in the locoregional recurrence rate of patients with non-endocrine responsive breast cancer undergoing IBR after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and Murthy and Chamberlain [22] reported a relatively high distant metastasis rate after total SSM in patients with locally advanced disease. In our study, there were no differences in DFS and LRFS between advanced-stage breast cancer patients who underwent mastectomy and IBR compared to those who underwent mastectomy alone, consistent with the results of the majority of previous reports.
Another concern about IBR is that it can interfere with local recurrence detection [123]. Many patients hesitate to proceed with IBR due to anxiety over the possibility of missing a local recurrence diagnosis due to the reconstructed breast. However, most local recurrences in a reconstructed breast occur at the skin level, allowing detection by physical examination [10132425]. Additionally, support from imaging modalities can allow tumor recurrence detection prior to clinical presentation [26]. In our study, all local recurrences were detected by physical examination or breast sonography.
Despite controlled matching within three age groups, patients who underwent IBR were younger than patients in the mastectomy alone group (median age, 41.98 vs. 45.10 years, p=0.032). This difference has been repeatedly demonstrated in almost all previous studies [7]. Although breast reconstruction must be offered despite age, surgeons have a tendency to propose it to younger patients or to patients without other comorbidities. Additionally, younger patients are more likely to seek breast reconstruction to achieve better cosmetic results.
The retrospective nature of our study is a major limitation. To overcome it, we have performed a matched case-control study analysis, but accurate evaluation of oncologic safety is still limited. Moreover, we did not include all prognostic factors among the matching variables. We excluded such prognostic factors as tumor grade, HER2 status, and Ki-67. Many cases were missing these data, and thus, including them would have led to a decrease in the number of matched control cases and analysis efficiency. However due to this exclusion, patients in the IBR group had more tumors with HER2 amplification (29.1% vs. 17.4%, p=0.005). In spite of this difference, no difference in survival was observed between the two groups. Another limitation is the length of time over which we drew our patient cohort. Any changes in therapeutic strategies or regimens in this long period could influence the final results related to oncologic safety comparisons. Finally, the median follow-up duration of the IBR group was significantly shorter than that of the mastectomy alone group (65.62 months vs. 81.12 months, respectively; p < 0.001), exposing the possibility of a length of time bias.
In conclusion, mastectomy and IBR had no negative impact on recurrence or patient survival, even in patients who underwent SSM or NSM and patients with advanced breast cancer. Locoregional recurrence rates were acceptable for patients who underwent skin-sparing procedures or had advanced-stage disease. Therefore, patients can continue to have IBR without worrying about increased recurrence or late detection of locoregional recurrence.

Figures and Tables

Figure 1

Recurrence-free survival in all patients. (A) Disease-free survival in the immediate reconstruction group (n=189) and the mastectomy alone group (n=362). (B) Locoregional recurrence-free survival in the immediate reconstruction group (n=189) and the mastectomy alone group (n=362).

IBR=immediate breast reconstruction.
jbc-19-68-g001
Figure 2

Recurrence-free survival in skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) or nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) group. (A) Disease-free survival in the immediate reconstruction group with SSM or NSM group (n=114) and a matched control group (n=191). (B) Locoregional recurrence-free survival in the immediate reconstruction group undergoing either SSM or NSM (n=114) and a matched control group (n=191).

IBR=immediate breast reconstruction.
jbc-19-68-g002
Figure 3

Recurrence-free survival in patients with stage III cancer. (A) Disease-free survival in the immediate reconstruction group with stage III cancer (n=22) and a matched control group (n=43). (B) Locoregional recurrence-free survival in the immediate reconstruction group with stage III cancer (n=22) and a matched control group (n=43).

IBR=immediate breast reconstruction.
jbc-19-68-g003
Table 1

Patients' characteristics

jbc-19-68-i001
Characteristic Study group (n = 189) No. (%) Control group (n = 362) No. (%) p-value
Age (yr) 0.029
 < 35 43 (22.8) 50 (13.8)
 35–50 116 (61.4) 246 (68.0)
 ≥ 50 30 (15.9) 66 (18.2)
Tumor stage 0.798
 T1 121 (64.0) 216 (59.7)
 T2 52 (27.5) 113 (31.2)
 T3 13 (6.9) 27 (7.5)
 T4 3 (1.6) 6 (1.7)
Lymph node status 0.864
 N0 130 (68.8) 241 (66.6)
 N1 43 (22.8) 86 (23.8)
 N2 9 (4.8) 23 (6.4)
 N3 7 (3.7) 12 (3.3)
AJCC stage 0.531
 I 101 (53.4) 176 (48.6)
 II 66 (34.9) 143 (39.5)
 III 22 (11.6) 43 (11.9)
ER status 0.846
 Positive 129 (68.3) 251 (69.3)
 Negative 60 (31.7) 111 (30.7)
PR status 0.528
 Positive 100 (52.9) 203 (56.1)
 Negative 89 (47.1) 159 (43.9)
HER2 status 0.005
 Not amplified 113 (59.8) 261 (72.1)
 Amplified 55 (29.1) 63 (17.4)
 Equivocal 21 (11.1) 38 (10.5)
Histologic grade 0.159
 Grades 1, 2 10 (5.3) 29 (8.0)
 Grade 3 168 (88.9) 321 (88.7)
 N/A or unknown 11 (5.8) 12 (3.3)
Ki-67 (%) 0.308
 < 10 151 (79.9) 281 (77.6)
 ≥ 10 38 (20.1) 81 (22.4)
Type of primary treatment 0.195
 Surgery 344 (95.0) 187 (97.4)
 Chemotherapy 18 (5.0) 5 (2.6)
Type of reconstruction N/A
 TRAM 151 (79.9) N/A
 TEI 37 (19.6) N/A
 LD flap 1 (0.5) N/A
Type of mastectomy N/A
 TM 75 (39.7) 362 (100.0)
 SSM 78 (41.3)
 NSM 36 (19.0)
Adjuvant chemotherapy 0.613
 Yes 136 (72.0) 253 (69.9)
 No 53 (28.0) 109 (30.1)
Adjuvant radiotherapy 0.152
 Yes 19 (10.1) 52 (14.4)
 No 170 (89.9) 310 (85.6)

AJCC=American Joint Committee on Cancer; ER=estrogen receptor; PR=progesterone receptor; HER2=human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; N/A=not available; TRAM=transverse rectus abdominis musculo-cutaneous; TEI=tissue expander insertion; LD=latissimus dorsi; TM=total mastectomy; SSM=skin-sparing mastectomy; NSM=nipple-sparing mastectomy.

Table 2

Characteristics of the 18 cases of local recurrence, regional recurrence, distant metastasis in the reconstruction group

jbc-19-68-i002
Case Age (yr) Mastectomy Reconstruction Stage ER PR HER2 NeoCTx CTx RTx Local Regional Distant 1st event Expire
1 44 Modified radical TRAM pT2N3M0, IIIC + + + - + - - - Bone Distant only Alive
2 32 Modified radical TRAM pT2N0M0, IIA - - + - - - - - Bone, lung Distant only Alive
3 29 Modified radical TEI pT2N0M0, IIA + + - - + - - - Lung Distant only Alive
4 28 Modified radical TEI pT2N2M0, IIIA + + + - - - Chest wall Axilla Mediastinum Synchronous Alive
5 48 Modified radical TRAM pT1N1M0, IIA + - - - + - - - Bone, liver Distant only Alive
6 39 Modified radical TRAM pT2N1M0, IIB + - - - + - Chest wall - Bone, lung, liver Local first Alive
7 36 Modified radical TEI pT2N0M0, IIA + + - - + - Chest wall Supraclavicular LN Bone, liver Synchronous Expire
8 46 Skin-sparing TRAM pT1N0M0, IA + - Unknown - + - Chest wall Supraclavicular LN Lung Synchronous Alive
9 32 Skin-sparing TRAM pT2N1M0, IIB + + - - + - - - Lung Distant only Alive
10 41 Skin-sparing TEI pT2N1M0, IIB - + - - + - - - Bone Distant only Alive
11 33 Skin-sparing TRAM pT1N3M0, IIIC + - - - + + - - Bone Distant only Expire
12 43 Skin-sparing TRAM pT1N3M0, IIIC + + - - + + - - Bone Distant only Alive
13 41 Skin-sparing TRAM pT3N0M0, IIIB - - - - + + Chest wall Supraclavicular LN, ipsilateral axill Bone, lung Regional first Expire
14 49 Nipple-sparing TRAM pT1N0M0, IA - - + - - - Skin, nipple - - Local only Alive
15 42 Nipple-sparing TRAM pT1N0M0, IA - - - - + - Skin, nipple Subclavicular LN Bone, lung, liver Local first Alive
16 51 Nipple-sparing TRAM pT1N1M0, IIA - - + - + - - Supraclavicular LN Bone, lung Synchronous Alive
17 46 Nipple-sparing TRAM pT2N2M0, IIIA - - - - + - - Supraclavicular LN Liver Synchronous Expire
18 34 Nipple-sparing TRAM cT4N3M0, IIIC - - + + + - - - Bone, liver Distant only Alive

ER=estrogen receptor; PR=progesterone receptor; HER2=human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; NeoCTx=neoadjuvant chemotherapy; CTx=adjuvant chemotherapy; RTx=adjuvant radiotherapy; TRAM=transverse rectus abdominis musculo-cutaneous; TEI=tissue expander insertion; LN=lymph node.

Notes

This research was supported by a grant of the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (grant number: HI14C3405).

CONFLICT OF INTEREST The authors declare that they have no competing of interests.

References

1. Liang TJ, Wang BW, Liu SI, Yeh MH, Chen YC, Chen JS, et al. Recurrence after skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap reconstruction for invasive breast cancer. World J Surg Oncol. 2013; 11:194.
crossref
2. Drucker-Zertuche M, Robles-Vidal C. A 7 year experience with immediate breast reconstruction after skin sparing mastectomy for cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2007; 33:140–146.
crossref
3. van Mierlo DR, Lopez Penha TR, Schipper RJ, Martens MH, Serroyen J, Lobbes MB, et al. No increase of local recurrence rate in breast cancer patients treated with skin-sparing mastectomy followed by immediate breast reconstruction. Breast. 2013; 22:1166–1170.
crossref
4. Kim Z, Min SY, Yoon CS, Jung KW, Ko BS, Kang E, et al. The basic facts of Korean breast cancer in 2012: results from a nationwide survey and breast cancer registry database. J Breast Cancer. 2015; 18:103–111.
crossref
5. Romics L Jr, Chew BK, Weiler-Mithoff E, Doughty JC, Brown IM, Stallard S, et al. Ten-year follow-up of skin-sparing mastectomy followed by immediate breast reconstruction. Br J Surg. 2012; 99:799–806.
crossref
6. Adam H, Bygdeson M, de Boniface J. The oncological safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy: a Swedish matched cohort study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014; 40:1209–1215.
crossref
7. Yang X, Zhu C, Gu Y. The prognosis of breast cancer patients after mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2015; 10:e0125655.
crossref
8. Reddy S, Colakoglu S, Curtis MS, Yueh JH, Ogunleye A, Tobias AM, et al. Breast cancer recurrence following postmastectomy reconstruction compared to mastectomy with no reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2011; 66:466–471.
crossref
9. 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; 249:461–468.
crossref
10. Moon HG, Han W, Noh DY. Comparable survival between pN0 breast cancer patients undergoing sentinel node biopsy and extensive axillary dissection: a report from the Korean Breast Cancer Society. J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28:1692–1699.
crossref
11. Ota D, Fukuuchi A, Iwahira Y, Kato T, Takeuchi M, Okamoto J, et al. Clinical outcome of reconstruction with tissue expanders for patients with breast cancer and mastectomy. Clin Breast Cancer. 2014; 14:339–345.
crossref
12. Lee TJ, Hur WJ, Kim EK, Ahn SH. Outcome of management of local recurrence after immediate transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap breast reconstruction. Arch Plast Surg. 2012; 39:376–383.
crossref
13. Torresan RZ, dos Santos CC, Okamura H, Alvarenga M. Evaluation of residual glandular tissue after skin-sparing mastectomies. Ann Surg Oncol. 2005; 12:1037–1044.
crossref
14. Barton FE Jr, English JM, Kingsley WB, Fietz M. Glandular excision in total glandular mastectomy and modified radical mastectomy: a comparison. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1991; 88:389–392.
crossref
15. Doddi S, Singhal T, Kasem A, Desai A. A single institution experience with skin sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2011; 93:382–384.
crossref
16. Eriksen C, Frisell J, Wickman M, Lidbrink E, Krawiec K, Sandelin K. Immediate reconstruction with implants in women with invasive breast cancer does not affect oncological safety in a matched cohort study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011; 127:439–446.
crossref
17. Patel RT, Webster DJ, Mansel RE, Hughes LE. Is immediate postmastectomy reconstruction safe in the long-term? Eur J Surg Oncol. 1993; 19:372–375.
18. Patterson SG, Teller P, Iyengar R, Carlson GW, Gabram-Mendola SG, Losken A, et al. Locoregional recurrence after mastectomy with immediate transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flap reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012; 19:2679–2684.
crossref
19. Newman LA, Kuerer HM, Hunt KK, Kroll SS, Ames FC, Ross MI, et al. Presentation, treatment, and outcome of local recurrence afterskin-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol. 1998; 5:620–626.
crossref
20. Pinel-Giroux FM, El Khoury MM, Trop I, Bernier C, David J, Lalonde L. Breast reconstruction: review of surgical methods and spectrum of imaging findings. Radiographics. 2013; 33:435–453.
crossref
21. Mallon P, Feron JG, Couturaud B, Fitoussi A, Lemasurier P, Guihard T, et al. The role of nipple-sparing mastectomy in breast cancer: a comprehensive review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013; 131:969–984.
22. Murthy V, Chamberlain RS. Defining a place for nipple sparing mastectomy in modern breast care: an evidence based review. Breast J. 2013; 19:571–581.
crossref
23. Spear SL, Hannan CM, Willey SC, Cocilovo C. Nipple-sparing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009; 123:1665–1673.
crossref
24. Ponzone R, Maggiorotto F, Carabalona S, Rivolin A, Pisacane A, Kubatzki F, et al. MRI and intraoperative pathology to predict nipple-areola complex (NAC) involvement in patients undergoing NAC-sparing mastectomy. Eur J Cancer. 2015; 51:1882–1889.
crossref
25. Gouy S, Rouzier R, Missana MC, Atallah D, Youssef O, Barreau-Pouhaer L. Immediate reconstruction after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: effect on adjuvant treatment starting and survival. Ann Surg Oncol. 2005; 12:161–166.
crossref
26. Prabhu R, Godette K, Carlson G, Losken A, Gabram S, Fasola C, et al. The impact of skin-sparing mastectomy with immediate reconstruction in patients with Stage III breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and postmastectomy radiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 82:e587–e593.
crossref
TOOLS
Similar articles