Why do women accept to undergo a nipple sparing mastectomy or to reconstruct the nipple areola complex when nipple sparing mastectomy is not possible?

In a retrospective study, we investigated the reasons why women accepted to undergo a nipple sparing mastectomy (NSM) and why women who could not keep their nipple areola complex (NAC) decided to reconstruct it. We intended to investigate whether keeping the NAC plays a psychological role, to state possible advantages of NSM. Between 2004 and 2006, 310 women with NAC sparing and 143 patients with successive NAC reconstruction were mailed a single open-ended question at follow-up 12 months after final breast reconstruction surgery or final NAC reconstruction with tattoo. The purpose was to explore personal motivations that drove women to accept NSM or to perform a NAC tattoo reconstruction. Responses were classified into 11 categories by five reviewers. We performed an analysis of the relative frequency of emerging issues. Socio-demographic and clinical data were collected. Among the patients who responded to the open-ended question, 190 patients preserved their NAC, and 100 patients received postponed NAC reconstruction. Women in the NSM group were significantly younger (P = 0.02), more highly educated (P < 0.0001), and more frequently lived in Northern Italy (P = 0.03). The reasons for accepting NSM were more frequently related to body image satisfaction and integrity of the body (P = 0.002), reduction of psychological distress (P = 0.003), and surgeon's influence (P < 0.0001). Esthetic reasons were highly associated to the control group. These results help us to better understand the psychological impact of NAC sparing versus NAC reconstruction. NSM was accepted because it was perceived as a technique that preserved the integrity of the body, reduced the feeling of mutilation, improved the breast cosmetic results, and reduced psychological distress regarding the loss of the breast.

Pasteurization of milk proteins promotes allergic sensitization by enhancing uptake through Peyer's patches.

BACKGROUND: The underlying mechanisms responsible for allergic sensitization to food proteins remain elusive. To investigate the intrinsic properties (as well as the effect of pasteurization) of the milk proteins alpha-lactalbumin, beta-lactoglobulin and casein that promote the induction of milk allergy. METHODS: Alteration of structure and immune-reactivity of native and pasteurized proteins was assessed by gel filtration and ELISA. Uptake of these proteins was compared in vitro and in vivo. The biological effect was assessed by orally sensitizing C3H/HeJ mice with milk proteins followed by a graded oral challenge. Required dose to induce anaphylaxis, symptoms and mean body temperature was recorded. Antigen-specific antibodies and cytokine production by splenocytes were analyzed. RESULTS: Soluble beta-lactoglobulin and alpha-lactalbumin but not insoluble casein were readily transcytosed through enterocytes in vitro and in vivo. Pasteurization caused aggregation of beta-lactoglobulin and alpha-lactalbumin inhibiting uptake by intestinal epithelial cells in vitro and in vivo. Furthermore, aggregation redirected uptake to Peyer's patches, which promoted significantly higher Th2-associated antibody and cytokine production in mice than their native counterparts. Despite this only the soluble forms of beta-lactoglobulin and alpha-lactalbumin elicited anaphylaxis (following priming) when allergens were administered orally. Aggregated beta-lactoglobulin and alpha-lactalbumin as well as casein required systemic administration to induce anaphylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that triggering of an anaphylactic response requires two phases (1) sensitization by aggregates through Peyer's patches and (2) efficient transfer of soluble protein across the epithelial barrier. As the majority of common food allergens tend to form aggregates, this may be of clinical importance.

Suppression of Th1 and Th17, but not Th2, responses in a CD8(+) T cell-mediated model of oral tolerance.

The role of CD8(+) T cells in oral tolerance remains unclear. To address this, we developed a model to induce CD8(+) Tregs by feeding the major histocompatibility complex class I immunodominant epitope of OVA, OVA((257-264)). OVA((257-264)) feeding induced tolerance similar to that observed in OVA protein-fed mice, capable of suppressing the production of Th1 and Th17 cytokines and inhibiting a Th1-driven delayed-type hypersensitivity response following immunization with whole OVA (wOVA) protein. OVA((257-264)) peptide-induced suppression could be transferred to naive mice with CD8(+) cells, but not CD8-depleted cells, isolated from mesenteric lymph nodes of peptide-fed mice. Interestingly, while capable of inhibiting Th1 and Th17 responses, OVA((257-264)) feeding could not suppress any feature of a Th2 inflammatory response, though OVA protein feeding could, suggesting that these cells function through a different mechanism than their CD4(+) counterparts generated in response to feeding with wOVA. Thus, CD8(+) T cells are functionally capable of mediating tolerance to Th1 and Th17 responses.