Advertisement

Breast Cancer

, Volume 26, Issue 5, pp 618–627 | Cite as

Oncologic outcomes and radiation safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy with intraoperative radiotherapy for breast cancer

  • Lingxiao Pan
  • Changsheng Ye
  • Lun Chen
  • Wei Tang
  • Xiaoshen Zhang
  • Jin Gao
  • Rui Wu
  • Xigang Ye
  • Weige Tan
  • Minghui WanEmail author
  • Wenbo ZhengEmail author
Original Article
  • 149 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Nipple-sparing mastectomy combined with breast reconstruction helps to optimize the contour of the breast after mastectomy. However, the indications for nipple-sparing mastectomy are still controversial. Local radiation to the nipple–areola complex may play some roles in improving the oncological safety of this procedure.

Methods

From January 2014 to December 2017, 41 consecutive patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy combined with Intrabeam intraoperative radiotherapy to the nipple–areola complex flap and breast reconstruction were enrolled in this prospective study. The prescribed radiation dose at the surface of the spherical applicator was 16 Gy.

Results

In eight cases, carcinomas were in the central portion of the breast. Partial necrosis of the nipple–areola complex occurred in three cases. Over 90% of patients reported “no or poor sensation” of the nipple–areola complex postoperatively. With a median follow-up time of 26 months, no recurrences or metastases were identified; however, breast-cancer mortality occurred in one patient. Pathologic evaluation of paraffin-embedded sections showed ductal carcinoma in situ in the remaining tissues deep to the nipple–areola complex flap in two patients. Although no further treatment was administered to the nipple–areola complexes postoperatively, no recurrences or metastases were identified 20 months and 24 months later, respectively. Optical microscopy and transmission electron microscopy revealed changes in some normal tissues immediately after Intrabeam intraoperative radiotherapy. Karyopyknosis were observed in gland tissues, and the collagenous fibers became sparse and arranged chaotically. As assessed by thermoluminescence, radiation doses at different sites in the nipple–areola complex flap varied considerably and were about 10 Gy at the areola surface. No Intrabeam intraoperative radiotherapy-related acute or chronic radiation injuries of the lung, heart or bone marrow were identified.

Conclusions

Our findings indicate that Intrabeam intraoperative radiotherapy during nipple-sparing mastectomy combined with breast reconstruction is safe and feasible.

Trial registration

The current study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University (registering order 201750). All participants gave their written informed consent.

Keywords

Breast cancer Intraoperative radiotherapy Nipple-sparing mastectomy Radiation injury Dose distribution 

Abbreviations

NSM

Nipple-sparing mastectomy

NAC

Nipple–areola complex

IORT

Intraoperative radiotherapy

EBRT

External beam radiotherapy

RTOG

Radiation Therapy Oncology Group

HE

Hematoxylin and eosin

TEM

Transmission electron microscope

DCIS

Ductal carcinoma in situ

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Medical and Health Technology Project of Guangzhou Municipal Health Bureau (Grant number 20161A010078); the translational medicine and research program of the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University (Grant numbers 201516-gyfyy and 20054002-gyfyy); the Health and Family Planning Technology Project of Guangzhou Municipal Health and Family Planning Bureau (Grant number 20181A011060).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Laronga C, Lewis JD, Smith PD. The changing face of mastectomy: an oncologic and cosmetic perspective. Cancer Control. 2012;19(4):286–94.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Petit JY, Veronesi U, Orecchia R, Curigliano G, Rey PC, Botteri E, et al. Risk factors associated with recurrence after nipple-sparing mastectomy for invasive and intraepithelial neoplasia. Ann Oncol. 2012;23(8):2053–8.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    de Alcantara Filho P, Capko D, Barry JM, Morrow M, Pusic A, Sacchini VS. Nipple-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer and risk-reducing surgery: the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center experience. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(11):3117–22.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Garwood ER, Moore D, Ewing C, Hwang ES, Alvarado M, Foster RD, et al. Total skin-sparing mastectomy: complications and local recurrence rates in 2 cohorts of patients. Ann Surg. 2009;249(1):26–32.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    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(3):461–8.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Benediktsson KP, 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. 2008;34(2):143–8.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Petit JY, Veronesi U, Rey P, Rotmensz N, Botteri E, Rietjens M, et al. Nipple-sparing mastectomy: risk of nipple–areolar recurrences in a series of 579 cases. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;114(1):97–101.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Krajewski AC, Boughey JC, Degnim AC, Jakub JW, Jacobson SR, Hoskin TL, et al. Expanded indications and improved outcomes for nipple-sparing mastectomy over time. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(10):3317–23.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Orzalesi L, Casella D, Santi C, Cecconi L, Murgo R, Rinaldi S, 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. 2016;25:75–81.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moo TA, Pinchinat T, Mays S, Landers A, Christos P, Alabdulkareem H, et al. Oncologic outcomes after nipple-sparing mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(10):3221–5.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Smith BL, Tang R, Rai U, Plichta JK, Colwell AS, Gadd MA, et al. Oncologic safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy in women with breast cancer. J Am Coll Surg. 2017;225(3):361–5.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Colwell AS, Christensen JM. Nipple-sparing mastectomy and direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140:44S–50S. (5S advances in breast reconstruction).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Munhoz AM. Outcome evaluation after 2023 nipple-sparing mastectomies: our experience. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(2):348e-9e.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dent BL, Miller JA, Eden DJ, Swistel A, Talmor M. Tumor-to-nipple distance as a predictor of nipple involvement: expanding the inclusion criteria for nipple-sparing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(1):1e–8e.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Menon RS, van Geel AN. Cancer of the breast with nipple involvement. Br J Cancer. 1989;59(1):81–4.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Verma GR, Kumar A, Joshi K. Nipple involvement in peripheral breast carcinoma: a prospective study. Indian J Cancer. 1997;34(1):1–5.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Laronga C, Kemp B, Johnston D, Robb GL, Singletary SE. The incidence of occult nipple–areola complex involvement in breast cancer patients receiving a skin-sparing mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 1999;6(6):609–13.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pirozzi PR, Rossetti C, Carelli I, Ruiz CA, Pompei LM, Piato S. Clinical and morphological factors predictive of occult involvement of the nipple–areola complex in mastectomy specimens. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010;148(2):177–81.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Simmons RM, Brennan M, Christos P, King V, Osborne M. Analysis of nipple/areolar involvement with mastectomy: can the areola be preserved? Ann Surg Oncol. 2002;9(2):165–8.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brachtel EF, Rusby JE, Michaelson JS, Chen LL, Muzikansky A, Smith BL, et al. Occult nipple involvement in breast cancer: clinicopathologic findings in 316 consecutive mastectomy specimens. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(30):4948–54.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vyas JJ, Chinoy RF, Vaidya JS. Prediction of nipple and areola involvement in breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1998;24(1):15–6.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jensen JA, Orringer JS, Giuliano AE. Nipple-sparing mastectomy in 99 patients with a mean follow-up of 5 years. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(6):1665–70.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Harness JK, Vetter TS, Salibian AH. Areola and nipple–areola-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer treatment and risk reduction: report of an initial experience in a community hospital setting. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(4):917–22.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kim HJ, Park EH, Lim WS, Seo JY, Koh BS, Lee TJ, et al. Nipple areola skin-sparing mastectomy with immediate transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap reconstruction is an oncologically safe procedure: a single center study. Ann Surg. 2010;251(3):493–8.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Voltura AM, Tsangaris TN, Rosson GD, Jacobs LK, Flores JI, Singh NK, et al. Nipple-sparing mastectomy: critical assessment of 51 procedures and implications for selection criteria. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15(12):3396–401.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Paepke S, Schmid R, Fleckner S, Paepke D, Niemeyer M, Schmalfeldt B, et al. Subcutaneous mastectomy with conservation of the nipple–areola skin: broadening the indications. Ann Surg. 2009;250(2):288–92.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vlajcic Z, Zic R, Stanec S, Lambasa S, Petrovecki M, Stanec Z. Nipple–areola complex preservation: predictive factors of neoplastic nipple–areola complex invasion. Ann Plast Surg. 2005;55(3):240–4.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kneubil MC, Lohsiriwat V, Curigliano G, Brollo J, Botteri E, Rotmensz N, et al. Risk of locoregional recurrence in patients with false-negative frozen section or close margins of retroareolar specimen in nipple-sparing mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(13):4117–23.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Clarke M, Collins R, Darby S, Davies C, Elphinstone P, Evans V, 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. 2005;366(9503):2087–106.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Petit JY, Veronesi U, Orecchia R, Rey P, Martella S, Didier F, et al. Nipple sparing mastectomy with nipple areola intraoperative radiotherapy: one thousand and one cases of a five years experience at the European Institute of Oncology of Milan (EIO). Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;117(2):333–8.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pan L, Zheng W, Ye X, Chen L, Ke Y, Wan M, et al. A novel approach of INTRABEAM intraoperative radiotherapy for nipple-sparing mastectomy with breast reconstruction. Clin Breast Cancer. 2014;14(6):435–41.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cox JD, Stetz J, Pajak TF. Toxicity criteria of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995;31(5):1341–6.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Costa MP, Ferreira MC. Aesthetic quality of the nipple–areola complex in breast reconstruction with a new local graft technique. Aesthet Plast Surg. 2009;33(5):774–9.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fitoussi AD, Pollet AG, Couturaud B, Laki F, Salmon RJ. Nipple and areola reconstruction by tattooing, “F” and “Z” flaps. Ann Chir Plast Esthet. 2008;53(4):348–57.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Long L. The use of nipple-sparing mastectomy in patients with breast cancer. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2013;17(1):68–72.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wellisch DK, Schain WS, Noone RB, Little JW 3rd. The psychological contribution of nipple addition in breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1987;80(5):699–704.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yazar S, Karadag EC, Altinkaya A, Kara H, Uras C. Risk factor analysis for survival of Becker-type expander in immediate breast reconstruction. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-018-1111-4.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mesdag V, Régis C, Tresch E, Chauvet MP, Boulanger L, Collinet P, et al. Nipple sparing mastectomy for breast cancer is associated with high patient satisfaction and safe oncological outcomes. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2017;46(8):637–42.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wang F, Peled AW, Garwood E, Fiscalini AS, Sbitany H, Foster RD, et al. Total skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction: an evolution of technique and assessment of outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(10):3223–30.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Breast Cancer Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Breast Surgery, The First Affiliated HospitalGuangzhou Medical UniversityGuangzhouChina
  2. 2.Breast Center, Nanfang HospitalSouthern Medical UniversityGuangzhouChina
  3. 3.Department of Radiotherapy, The First Affiliated HospitalGuangzhou Medical UniversityGuangzhouChina
  4. 4.Department of Radiation Oncology, The First Affiliated HospitalGuangzhou Medical UniversityGuangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations