ABSTRACT
Background: The use of nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is increasing, despite unproven oncological safety in the therapeutic setting. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the safety and efficacy of NSM compared with skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM). Methods: A literature search of all original studies including RCTs, cohort studies and case-control studies comparing women undergoing therapeutic NSM or SSM for breast cancer was undertaken. Primary outcomes were oncological outcomes; secondary outcomes were clinical, aesthetic, patient-reported and quality-of-life outcomes. Data analysis was undertaken to explore the relationship between NSM and SSM, and preselected outcomes. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochrane tests. Results: A total of 690 articles were identified, of which 14 were included. There was no statistically significant difference in 5-year disease-free survival and mortality for NSM and SSM groups, where data were available. Local recurrence rates were also similar for NSM and SSM (3·9 versus 3·3 per cent respectively; P = 0·45). NSM had a partial or complete nipple necrosis rate of 15·0 per cent, and a higher complication rate than SSM (22·6 versus 14·0 per cent respectively). The higher overall complication rate was due to the rate of nipple necrosis in the NSM group (15·0 per cent). Conclusion: In carefully selected cases, NSM is a viable choice for women with breast cancer who need to have a mastectomy. More research is needed to help further refine which surgical approaches to NSM optimize outcomes.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms/surgery , Mastectomy, Subcutaneous/methods , Organ Sparing Treatments/methods , Patient Selection , Breast Neoplasms/mortality , Disease-Free Survival , Esthetics , Female , Humans , Mastectomy, Subcutaneous/adverse effects , Nipples/surgery , Organ Sparing Treatments/adverse effects , Patient Reported Outcome Measures , Quality of LifeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Case series are an important and common study type. No guideline exists for reporting case series and there is evidence of key data being missed from such reports. The first step in the process of developing a methodologically sound reporting guideline is a systematic review of literature relevant to the reporting deficiencies of case series. METHODS: A systematic review of methodological and reporting quality in surgical case series was performed. The electronic search strategy was developed by an information specialist and included MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Methods Register, Science Citation Index and Conference Proceedings Citation index, from the start of indexing to 5 November 2014. Independent screening, eligibility assessments and data extraction were performed. Included articles were then analysed for five areas of deficiency: failure to use standardized definitions, missing or selective data (including the omission of whole cases or important variables), transparency or incomplete reporting, whether alternative study designs were considered, and other issues. RESULTS: Database searching identified 2205 records. Through the process of screening and eligibility assessments, 92 articles met inclusion criteria. Frequencies of methodological and reporting issues identified were: failure to use standardized definitions (57 per cent), missing or selective data (66 per cent), transparency or incomplete reporting (70 per cent), whether alternative study designs were considered (11 per cent) and other issues (52 per cent). CONCLUSION: The methodological and reporting quality of surgical case series needs improvement. The data indicate that evidence-based guidelines for the conduct and reporting of case series may be useful.
