Intraoperative Examination of Retro-Areolar Margin is not Routinely Necessary During Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy for Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative examination of retro-areolar margin (IERM) often is used during nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) for cancer, but there is no robust data regarding its real advantage. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing NSM for cancer with omission of IERM according to institutional protocols from 2016 to 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. The decision to maintain or remove the Nipple-Areola Complex (NAC) after definitive pathology was taken at the multidisciplinary meeting. RESULTS: Among 162 women operated in the study period, the presence of neoplastic cells within 2 mm from the inked retroareolar margin (RAM) was detected at permanent pathology in 17 cases (10.5%). Nipple-Areola-Complex (NAC) was removed postoperatively in five patients (3%) for margins <1 mm, the other 12 were observed, whereas postoperative NAC necrosis required surgical removal in additional five cases (3%). The NAC was thus preserved in 152 of 162 patients (94%). At multivariate analysis, RAM ≤2 mm was associated with radiological tumor-to-nipple distance less than or equal to 1 cm (p = 0.04) and Ki67 label index ≥ 20 (p = 0.04), whereas multifocality/multicentricity showed a trend towards significance (p = 0.07). At a median follow-up of 46 months, five locoregional relapses occurred (3%), only one of them involving the NAC (0, 6%). Locoregional relapse and overall survival for patients with RAM > or < 2 mm were not different. CONCLUSIONS: IERM is not routinely necessary during NSM for cancer, because its omission is associated with a very low return to the operating room, it is oncologically safe, and associated pitfalls are avoided. Further studies are necessary to confirm these findings.

Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery for Gastric Cancer in Western Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Short- and Long-Term Outcomes.

Background. The advantages of a laparoscopic approach for the treatment of gastric cancer have already been demonstrated in Eastern Countries. This review and meta-analysis aims to merge all the western studies comparing laparoscopic (LG) versus open gastrectomies (OG) to provide pooled results and higher levels of evidence. Methods. A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE(PubMed), Embase, WebOfScience and Scopus for studies comparing laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy in western centers from 1980 to 2021. Results. After screening 355 articles, 34 articles with a total of 24,098 patients undergoing LG (5445) or OG (18,653) in western centers were included. Compared to open gastrectomy, laparoscopic gastrectomy has a significantly longer operation time (WMD = 47.46 min; 95% CI = 31.83−63.09; p < 0.001), lower blood loss (WMD = −129.32 mL; 95% CI = −188.11 to −70.53; p < 0.0001), lower analgesic requirement (WMD = −1.824 days; 95% CI = −2.314 to −1.334; p < 0.0001), faster time to first oral intake (WMD = −1.501 days; 95% CI = −2.571 to −0.431; p = 0.0060), shorter hospital stay (WMD = −2.335; 95% CI = −3.061 to −1.609; p < 0.0001), lower mortality (logOR = −0.261; 95% the −0.446 to −0.076; p = 0.0056) and a better 3-year overall survival (logHR 0.245; 95% CI = 0.016−0.474; p = 0.0360). A slight significant difference in favor of laparoscopic gastrectomy was noted for the incidence of postoperative complications (logOR = −0.202; 95% CI = −0.403 to −0.000 the = 0.0499). No statistical difference was noted based on the number of harvested lymph nodes, the rate of major postoperative complication and 5-year overall survival. Conclusions. In Western centers, laparoscopic gastrectomy has better short-term and equivalent long-term outcomes compared with the open approach, but more high-quality studies on long-term outcomes are required.