Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy versus Skin-Sparing Mastectomy: Does Saving the Nipple Impact Short- and Long-Term Patient Satisfaction?

BACKGROUND: Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is an oncologically safe alternative to skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM). This study evaluated whether NSM patients were more satisfied than SSM patients in short- and long-term follow-up. METHODS: Women who underwent NSM or SSM between 2009 and 2019 completed a postoperative BREAST-Q survey at least 1 year after surgery and patient characteristics were compared. Patient satisfaction at 1-5 years and 6-10 years after NSM and SSM were analyzed. RESULTS: Overall, 431 patients were included; 247 had NSM and 184 had SSM 1-10 years prior to BREAST-Q survey completion. SSM patients were older, had higher body mass index (BMI), larger breast weight, and more hypertension than NSM patients, but oncologic treatments were similar between groups. BREAST-Q Psychosocial Well-Being and Sexual Well-Being scores were significantly higher in NSM patients compared with SSM patients in the 1-5 years cohort; however, scores attenuated in the 6-10 years cohort. Satisfaction with breasts was nearly significantly higher in NSM patients compared with SSM patients in the 1-5 years cohort (p = 0.056), but no different in the 6-10 years cohort. Receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy, receipt of postmastectomy radiation therapy, and BMI ≥30 were independent risk factors for dissatisfaction with breasts. CONCLUSIONS: Women who are not candidates for NSM should be reassured that long-term qualify of life is not significantly different between SSM and NSM. Dissatisfaction with reconstructed breasts is linked with other factors (besides the nipple), which patients should be made aware of at the time of surgical decision making.

Similar rates of residual disease in patients with DCIS within 2 mm of lumpectomy margin regardless of the presence of invasive carcinoma.

PURPOSE: The 2014 Society of Surgical Oncology/American Society for Radiation Oncology (SSO/ASTRO) breast-conserving surgery (BCS) margin guidelines for invasive cancer recommended "no ink on tumor" as an adequate margin width. However, 2016 SSO/ASTRO margin guidelines for pure DCIS recommended a 2 mm margin. Thus, management of a margin with DCIS > 0 mm but < 2 mm differs based on presence or absence of invasive carcinoma. We compared rates of residual disease in patients with pure DCIS to patients with invasive cancer with DCIS. METHODS: BCS with complete shaved cavity margins (SCM) for invasive carcinoma or pure DCIS from 2004 to 2006 at our institution was reviewed. Margin width was measured on the main specimen and the presence of carcinoma in the SCM was used as a surrogate for residual disease in the cavity. Rates of residual disease were determined for varying margin widths of invasive carcinoma and DCIS. RESULTS: Of 329 BCS patients, 123 (37%) patients had pure DCIS and 206 (63%) had invasive cancer with DCIS. In the pure DCIS cohort, 61 patients had DCIS between 0 and 2 mm from the inked margin; 32 (52%) of which had residual disease in the SCM. In the invasive cancer plus DCIS cohort, 92 had DCIS between 0 and 2 mm from the inked margin; 39 (42%) of which had residual disease in the SCM (p = 0.221). CONCLUSION: Rates of residual disease are similar in patients treated with lumpectomy for pure DCIS and those with invasive carcinoma with DCIS when DCIS is found between 0 and 2 mm from the inked margin.

A system for risk stratification and prioritization of breast cancer surgeries delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic: preparing for re-entry.

PURPOSE: During the COVID-19 pandemic, most breast surgery for benign and malignant conditions has been postponed, creating a backlog of patients who will need surgery. A fair and transparent system for assessing the risk of further delaying surgery for individual patients to prioritize surgical scheduling is needed. METHODS: Factors related to risk of delaying surgery for breast patients were identified. Scores were assigned to each factor, with higher scores indicating a greater risk from delaying surgery. REDCap and Microsoft Excel tools were designed to track and score delayed patients. RESULTS: Published data and multidisciplinary clinical judgement were used to assign risk scores based on patient and tumor factors, length of delay, and tumor response to preoperative therapy. Patients completing neoadjuvant chemotherapy were assigned the highest scores as their options for delaying surgery are most limited. Among patients receiving neoadjuvant endocrine therapy or no medical therapy, higher scores were assigned for low-estrogen receptor or high-genomic risk scores, higher grade, larger tumors, younger age and longer delay. High priority scores were assigned for progression during preoperative therapy. Low scores were assigned for re-excisions, atypical lesions and other benign indications. There was good agreement of the tool's ranking of sample patients with rankings by experienced clinicians. The tool generates risk-stratified patient lists by surgeon or institution to facilitate assignment of surgery dates. CONCLUSIONS: This tool generates a clinically consistent, risk-stratified priority list of breast surgical procedures delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic. This systematic approach may facilitate surgical scheduling as conditions normalize.

Magnetic Seeds: An Alternative to Wire Localization for Nonpalpable Breast Lesions.

INTRODUCTION: Magnetic seeds have emerged as an alternative to wires for localization of nonpalpable breast lesions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the utility of magnetic seeds compared to wires for preoperative localization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis of magnetic seed localization (MSL) and wire localization (WL) excisional biopsies and lumpectomies performed at a single institution was conducted. Indication, age, BMI, number of markers, procedure type, operative time, and postoperative opioid administration were reviewed. Impact of localization method on operative time, specimen volume, postoperative opioid administration, and re-excision rate were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 608 MSL procedures in 601 patients were compared to 628 WL procedures in 620 patients. MSL excisional biopsies were significantly longer (37.0 minutes) than WL excisional biopsies (31.9 minutes, P< .001), but in lumpectomies without axillary surgery, MSL procedures (42.3 minutes) were significantly shorter than WL procedures (46.9 minutes, P = .017). Significantly less tissue was excised during MSL lumpectomies (68.5 cm3) and excisional biopsies (32.3 cm3) than WL lumpectomies (78.1 cm3, P = .039) and excisional biopsies (38.7 cm3, P = .018). Postoperative opioid administration was similar for MSL and WL procedures (P = .076). Re-excision rates for MSL lumpectomies were significantly higher for ductal carcinoma in situ (35.3% MSL vs. 18.5% WL, P = .013), but were similar for invasive carcinoma (14.4% MSL vs. 17.7% WL, P = .290). Logistic regression analysis showed no association between localization method and re-excision (OR 1.007, 95% CI 0.681-1.488; P = .973). CONCLUSION: MSL is a feasible alternative to WL for excision of nonpalpable breast lesions with regard to surgical outcomes.