Skip to main content
Log in

Local Recurrence After Skin-Sparing Mastectomy: Tumor Biology or Surgical Conservatism?

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background:Long-term follow-up of the use of skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) in the treatment of breast cancer is presented to determine the impact of local recurrence (LR) on survival.

Methods:A total of 539 patients were treated for 565 cases of breast cancer by SSM and immediate breast reconstruction from January 1, 1989 to December 31, 1998. The American Joint Committee on Cancer pathological staging was stage 0 175 (31%), stage I 135 (23.9%), stage II 173 (30.6%), stage III 54 (9.6%), stage IV 8 (1.4%), and recurrent 20 (3.5%). The mean follow-up was 65.4 months (range, 23.7–86.3 months). Five patients were lost to follow-up.

Results:Thirty-one patients developed a LR during the follow-up including five who received adjuvant radiation. The distribution of LR stratified by cancer stage was stage 0 1, stage I 5, stage II 17, stage III 6, and recurrent 2. The overall LR was 5.5%. Twenty-four patients (77.4%) developed a systemic relapse and 7 (22.6%) patients remained free of recurrent disease at a mean follow-up of 78.1 months. The cancer stage of those remaining disease free was stage 0 1 (100%), stage I 4 (80%), and stage II 2 (11.8%).

Conclusions:LR of breast cancer after SSM is not always associated with systemic relapse.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Carlson GW. Skin sparing mastectomy: anatomic and technical considerations. Am Surg 1996; 62: 151–5.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Carlson GW, Bostwick J III, Styblo TM, et al. Skin-sparing mastectomy. Oncologic and reconstructive considerations. Ann Surg 1997; 225: 570–5.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Newman LA, Kuerer HM, Hunt KK, et al. Presentation, treatment, and outcome of local recurrence after skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol 1998; 5: 620–6.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Gilliland MD, Barton RM, Copeland EM. The implications of local recurrence of breast cancer as the first site of therapeutic failure. Ann Surg 1983; 197: 284–7.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Slavin SA, Schnitt SJ, Duda RB, et al. Skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate reconstruction: oncologic risks and aesthetic results in patients with early-stage breast cancer. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998; 102: 49–62.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Rubio IT, Mirzan N, Sahin AA, et al. Role of specimen radiography in patients treated with skin-sparing mastectomy for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Ann Surg Oncol 2000; 7: 544–8.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Grant W. Carlson MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Carlson, G.W., Styblo, T.M., Lyles, R.H. et al. Local Recurrence After Skin-Sparing Mastectomy: Tumor Biology or Surgical Conservatism?. Ann Surg Oncol 10, 108–112 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1245/ASO.2003.03.053

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/ASO.2003.03.053

Key Words:

Navigation