Impact of Mastectomy Flap Necrosis on Patient-Reported Quality-of-Life Measures After Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: A Preliminary Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Mastectomy skin flap necrosis (SFN) is common following nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM), but studies on its quality-of-life (QOL) impact are limited. We examined patient-reported QOL and satisfaction after NSM with/without SFN utilizing the BREAST-Q patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) survey. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing NSM between April 2018 and July 2021 at our institution were examined; the BREAST-Q PROM was administered preoperatively, and at 6 months and 1 year postoperatively. SFN extent/severity was documented at 2-3 weeks postoperatively; QOL and satisfaction domains were compared between patients with/without SFN. RESULTS: A total of 573 NSMs in 333 patients were included, and 135 breasts in 82 patients developed SFN (24% superficial, 56% partial thickness, 16% full thickness). Patients with SFN reported significantly lower scores in the satisfaction with breasts (p = 0.032) and psychosocial QOL domains (p = 0.009) at 6 months versus those without SFN, with scores returning to baseline at 1 year in both domains. In the "physical well-being-of-the-chest" domain, there was an overall decline in scores among all patients; however, there were no significant differences at any time point between patients with or without SFN. Sexual well-being scores declined for patients with SFN compared with those without at 6 months and also at 1 year, but this did not reach significance (p = 0.13, p = 0.2, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing NSM who developed SFN reported significantly lower satisfaction and psychosocial well-being scores at 6 months, which returned to baseline by 1 year. Physical well-being of the chest significantly declines after NSM regardless of SFN. Future studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up are needed to determine SFN's impact on long-term QOL.

Strategies to avoid mastectomy skin-flap necrosis during nipple-sparing mastectomy.

BACKGROUND: Nipple-sparing mastectomy is associated with a higher risk of mastectomy skin-flap necrosis than conventional skin-sparing mastectomy. There are limited prospective data examining modifiable intraoperative factors that contribute to skin-flap necrosis after nipple-sparing mastectomy. METHODS: Data on consecutive patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy between April 2018 and December 2020 were recorded prospectively. Relevant intraoperative variables were documented by both breast and plastic surgeons at the time of surgery. The presence and extent of nipple and/or skin-flap necrosis was documented at the first postoperative visit. Necrosis treatment and outcome was documented at 8-10 weeks after surgery. The association of clinical and intraoperative variables with nipple and skin-flap necrosis was analysed, and significant variables were included in a multivariable logistic regression analysis with backward selection. RESULTS: Some 299 patients underwent 515 nipple-sparing mastectomies (54.8 per cent (282 of 515) prophylactic, 45.2 per cent therapeutic). Overall, 23.3 per cent of breasts (120 of 515) developed nipple or skin-flap necrosis; 45.8 per cent of these (55 of 120) had nipple necrosis only. Among 120 breasts with necrosis, 22.5 per cent had superficial, 60.8 per cent had partial, and 16.7 per cent had full-thickness necrosis. On multivariable logistic regression analysis, significant modifiable intraoperative predictors of necrosis included sacrificing the second intercostal perforator (P = 0.006), greater tissue expander fill volume (P < 0.001), and non-lateral inframammary fold incision placement (P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Modifiable intraoperative factors that may decrease the likelihood of necrosis after nipple-sparing mastectomy include incision placement in the lateral inframammary fold, preserving the second intercostal perforating vessel, and minimizing tissue expander fill volume.

Nodal Recurrence in Patients With Node-Positive Breast Cancer Treated With Sentinel Node Biopsy Alone After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy-A Rare Event.

IMPORTANCE: Prospective trials have demonstrated sentinel lymph node (SLN) false-negative rates of less than 10% when 3 or more SLNs are retrieved in patients with clinically node-positive breast cancer rendered clinically node-negative with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). However, rates of nodal recurrence in such patients treated with SLN biopsy (SLNB) alone are unknown because axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) was performed in all patients, limiting adoption of this approach. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate nodal recurrence rates in a consecutive cohort of patients with clinically node-positive (cN1) breast cancer receiving NAC, followed by a negative SLNB using a standardized technique, and no further axillary surgery. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From November 2013 to February 2019, a cohort of consecutively identified patients with cT1 to cT3 biopsy-proven N1 breast cancer rendered cN0 by NAC underwent SLNB with dual tracer mapping and omission of ALND if 3 or more SLNs were identified and all were pathologically negative. Metastatic nodes were not routinely clipped, and localization of clipped nodes was not performed. The study was performed in a single tertiary cancer center. INTERVENTION: Omission of ALND in patients with cN1 breast cancer after NAC if 3 or more SLNs were pathologically negative. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the rate of nodal recurrence among patients with cN1 breast cancer treated with SLNB alone after NAC. RESULTS: Of 610 patients with cN1 breast cancer treated with NAC, 555 (91%) converted to cN0 and underwent SLNB; 234 (42%) had 3 or more negative SLNs and had SLNB alone. The median (IQR) age of these 234 patients was 49 (40-58) years; median tumor size was 3 cm; 144 (62%) were ERBB2 (formerly HER2)-positive, and 43 (18%) were triple negative. Most (212 [91%]) received doxorubicin-based NAC; 205 (88%) received adjuvant radiotherapy (RT), and 164 (70%) also received nodal RT. At a median follow-up of 40 months, there was 1 axillary nodal recurrence synchronous with local recurrence in a patient who refused RT. Among patients who received RT (n = 205), there were no nodal recurrences. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This cohort study found that in patients with cN1 disease rendered cN0 with NAC, with 3 or more negative SLNs with SLNB alone, nodal recurrence rates were low, without routine nodal clipping. These findings potentially support omitting ALND in such patients.

Microscopic Extracapsular Extension in Sentinel Lymph Nodes Does Not Mandate Axillary Dissection in Z0011-Eligible Patients.

BACKGROUND: In the ACOSOG (American College of Surgeons Oncology Group) Z0011 trial and the AMAROS (After Mapping of the Axilla: Radiotherapy or Surgery?) trial, matted nodes with gross extracapsular extension (ECE), a risk factor for locoregional recurrence, were an indication for axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), but the effect of microscopic ECE (mECE) in the sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) on recurrence was not examined. METHODS: Between 2010 and 2017, 811 patients with cT1-2N0 breast cancer and SLN metastasis were prospectively managed according to Z0011 criteria, with ALND for those with more than two positive SLNs or gross ECE. Management of mECE was not specified. In this study, we compare outcomes of patients with one to two positive SLNs with and without mECE, treated with SLN biopsy alone (n = 685). RESULTS: Median patient age was 58 years, and median tumor size was 1.7 cm. mECE was identified in 210 (31%) patients. Patients with mECE were older, had larger tumors, and were more likely to be hormone receptor positive and HER2 negative, have two positive SLNs, and receive nodal radiation. At a median follow-up of 41 months, no isolated axillary failures were observed. There were 11 nodal recurrences; two supraclavicular ± axillary, four synchronous with breast, and five with distant failure. The five-year rate of any nodal recurrence was 1.6% and did not differ by mECE (2.3% vs. 1.3%; p = 0.84). No differences were observed in local (p = 0.08) or distant (p = 0.31) recurrence rates by mECE status. CONCLUSIONS: In Z0011-eligible patients, nodal recurrence rates in patients with mECE are low after treatment with SLN biopsy alone, even in the absence of routine nodal radiation. The presence of mECE should not be considered a routine indication for ALND.

Axillary Dissection and Nodal Irradiation Can Be Avoided for Most Node-positive Z0011-eligible Breast Cancers: A Prospective Validation Study of 793 Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To determine rates of axillary dissection (ALND) and nodal recurrence in patients eligible for ACOSOG Z0011. BACKGROUND: Z0011 demonstrated that patients with cT1-2N0 breast cancers and 1 to 2 involved sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) having breast-conserving therapy had no difference in locoregional recurrence or survival after SLN biopsy alone or ALND. The generalizability of the results and importance of nodal radiotherapy (RT) is unclear. METHODS: Patients eligible for Z0011 had SLN biopsy alone. Prospectively defined indications for ALND were metastases in ≥3 SLNs or gross extracapsular extension. Axillary imaging was not routine. SLN and ALND groups and radiation fields were compared with chi-square and t tests. Cumulative incidence of recurrences was estimated with competing risk analysis. RESULTS: From August 2010 to December 2016, 793 patients met Z0011 eligibility criteria and had SLN metastases. Among them, 130 (16%) had ALND; ALND did not vary based on age, estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, or HER2 status. Five-year event-free survival after SLN alone was 93% with no isolated axillary recurrences. Cumulative 5-year rates of breast + nodal and nodal + distant recurrence were each 0.7%. In 484 SLN-only patients with known RT fields (103 prone, 280 supine tangent, 101 breast + nodes) and follow-up ≥12 months, the 5-year cumulative nodal recurrence rate was 1% and did not differ significantly by RT fields. CONCLUSIONS: We confirm that even without preoperative axillary imaging or routine use of nodal RT, ALND can be avoided in a large majority of Z0011-eligible patients with excellent regional control. This approach has the potential to spare substantial numbers of women the morbidity of ALND.

Skin Flap Necrosis After Mastectomy With Reconstruction: A Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Rates of mastectomy with immediate reconstruction are rising. Skin flap necrosis after this procedure is a recognized complication that can have an impact on cosmetic outcomes and patient satisfaction, and in worst cases can potentially delay adjuvant therapies. Many retrospective studies of this complication have identified variable event rates and inconsistent associated factors. METHODS: A prospective study was designed to capture the rate of skin flap necrosis as well as pre-, intra-, and postoperative variables, with follow-up assessment to 8 weeks postoperatively. Uni- and multivariate analyses were performed for factors associated with skin flap necrosis. RESULTS: Of 606 consecutive procedures, 85 (14 %) had some level of skin flap necrosis: 46 mild (8 %), 6 moderate (1 %), 31 severe (5 %), and 2 uncategorized (0.3 %). Univariate analysis for any necrosis showed smoking, history of breast augmentation, nipple-sparing mastectomy, and time from incision to specimen removal to be significant. In multivariate models, nipple-sparing, time from incision to specimen removal, sharp dissection, and previous breast reduction were significant for any necrosis. Univariate analysis of only moderate or severe necrosis showed body mass index, diabetes, nipple-sparing mastectomy, specimen size, and expander size to be significant. Multivariate analysis showed nipple-sparing mastectomy and specimen size to be significant. Nipple-sparing mastectomy was associated with higher rates of necrosis at every level of severity. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of skin flap necrosis are likely higher than reported in retrospective series. Modifiable technical variables have limited the impact on rates of necrosis. Patients with multiple risk factors should be counseled about the risks, especially if they are contemplating nipple-sparing mastectomy.

Axillary dissection can be avoided in the majority of clinically node-negative patients undergoing breast-conserving therapy.

BACKGROUND: The extent to which ACOSOG Z0011 findings are applicable to patients undergoing breast-conserving therapy (BCT) is uncertain. We prospectively assessed how often axillary dissection (ALND) was avoided in an unselected, consecutive patient cohort meeting Z0011 eligibility criteria and whether subgroups requiring ALND could be identified preoperatively. METHODS: Patients with cT1,2cN0 breast cancer undergoing BCT were managed without ALND for metastases in <3 sentinel nodes (SNs) and no gross extracapsular extension (ECE). Patients with and without indications for ALND were compared using Fisher's exact and Wilcoxon rank sum tests. RESULTS: From August 2010 to November 2012, 2,157 invasive cancer patients had BCT. A total of 380 had histologic nodal metastasis; 93 did not meet Z0011 criteria. Of 287 with ≥1 H&E-positive SN (209 macrometastases), 242 (84 %) had indications for SN only. ALND was indicated in 45 for ≥3 positive SNs (n = 29) or ECE (n = 16). The median number of SNs removed in the SN group was 3 versus 5 in the ALND group (p < 0.0001). Age, hormone receptor and HER2 status, and grade did not differ between groups; tumors were larger in the ALND group (p < 0.0001). Of ALND patients, 72 % had additional positive nodes (median = 1; range 1-19). No axillary recurrences have occurred (median follow-up, 13 months). CONCLUSIONS: ALND was avoided in 84 % of a consecutive series of patients having BCT, suggesting that most patients meeting ACOSOG Z0011 eligibility have a low axillary tumor burden. Age, ER, and HER2 status were not predictive of ALND, and the criteria used for ALND (≥3 SNs, ECE) reliably identified patients at high risk for residual axillary disease.

Nipple-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer and risk-reducing surgery: the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center experience.

BACKGROUND: Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) has been gathering increased recognition as an alternative to more traditional mastectomy approaches. Initially, questions concerning its oncologic safety limited the use of NSM. Nevertheless, mounting evidence supporting the practice of NSM for both prophylactic and oncologic purposes is leading to its more widespread use and broadened indications. METHODS: Using a prospectively maintained database, we reviewed our experience of 353 NSM procedures performed in 200 patients over the past 10 years. RESULTS: The indications for surgery were: 196 prophylactic risk-reduction (55.5%), 74 ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (20.8%), 82 invasive cancer (23.2%), and 1 phyllodes tumor (0.5%). The nipple areolar complex (NAC) was entirely preserved in 341 mastectomies (96.7%). There were 11 patients (3.1%) who were found to have cancer at the nipple margin, warranting further excision. A total of 69 breasts (19.5%) had some degree of skin desquamation or necrosis, but only 12 (3.3%) required operative debridement, of which 3 breasts (1%) necessitated removal of a breast implant. Also, 6 patients (2%) were treated for infection. Of the 196 prophylactic NSMs, 11 specimens (5.6%) were found to harbor occult cancer (8 DCIS and 3 invasive cancers). One patient who underwent NSM for invasive ductal carcinoma in 2006 developed metastatic disease to her brain. No other recurrences are attributable to the 353 NSMs. CONCLUSIONS: The trends demonstrate the increasing acceptance of NSM as a prophylactic procedure as well as for therapeutic purposes. Although NSM is not standard, our experience supports the selective use of NSM in both prophylactic and malignant settings.