Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Pathologic-radiologic correlation in evaluation of retroareolar margin in nipple-sparing mastectomy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Virchows Archiv Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) has recently been increasing in popularity due to a better cosmetic outcome and quality-of-life benefit. The radiologic distance between the tumor and the nipple is independently predictive of nipple-areolar complex involvement and can assist in patient selection for NSM. However, concordance between the preoperative radiologic imaging and histologic evaluation would play a major role in making patient selection for NSM meaningful. We analyzed the pathologic-radiologic correlation for evaluation of retroareolar (RA) margin in NSM. A retrospective histologic and blinded radiologic review of 80 NSM (41 therapeutic and 39 prophylactic) performed on 45 patients was done. Histologically, the cases were divided into positive or close (invasive or in situ carcinoma within 5 mm of the RA margin) and negative (greater than 5 mm from the RA margin). Radiographically, positive cases were defined as suspicious enhancement and/or suspicious findings within 20 mm of the nipple on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and/or diagnostic mammography, respectively. Thirty five of 41 (85.4 %) therapeutic cases were concordant. Six cases were discordant, with 2/41 (4.9 %) discordant cases classified as positive at histology, but negative on imaging and 4/41 (9.75 %) discordant cases classified as negative at histology, but positive on imaging. Agreement between pathology and radiology was moderate [kappa coefficient 0.54 (p = 0.0003)].We conclude that there is a significant agreement between histologic and radiologic evaluation for assessment of RA margin and preoperative radiologic imaging; specifically, MRI provides valuable information and should be strongly recommended to help select patients for NSM.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mallon P, Feron JG, Couturaud B et al (2013) The role of nipple-sparing mastectomy in breast cancer: a comprehensive review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg 131:969–984

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rusby JE, Smith BL, Gui GPH (2010) Nipple-sparing mastectomy. Br J Surg 97:305–316

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Li W, Wang S, Guo X et al (2011) Nipple involvement in breast cancer: retrospective analysis of 2323 consecutive mastectomy specimens. Int J Surg Pathol 19:328–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Didier F, Radice D, Gandini S et al (2008) Does nipple preservation in mastectomy improve satisfaction with cosmetic results, psychological adjustment, body image and sexuality? Breast Cancer Res Treat 118:623–633

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Brachtel EF, Rusby JE, Michaelson JS et al (2009) Occult nipple involvement in breast cancer: clinicopathologic findings in 316 consecutive mastectomy specimens. J Clin Oncol 27:4948–4954

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Vlajcic Z, Zic R, Stanec S et al (2005) Nipple-areola complex preservation: predictive factors of neoplastic nipple-areola complex invasion. Ann Plast Surg 55:240–244

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kissin MW, Kark AE (1987) Nipple preservation during mastectomy. Br J Surg 74:58–61

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Schecter AK, Freeman MB, Giri D et al (2006) Applicability of the nipple–areola complex-sparing mastectomy: a prediction model using mammography to estimate risk of nipple–areola complex involvement in breast cancer patients. Ann Plast Surg 56:498–504

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Loewen MJ, Jennings JA, Sherman SR et al (2008) Mammographic distance as a predictor of nipple–areola complex involvement in breast cancer. Am J Surg 195:391–394

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rusby JE, Brachtel EF, Othus M et al (2008) Development and validation of a model predictive of occult nipple involvement in women undergoing mastectomy. Br J Surg 95:1356–1361

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Moon JY, Chang YW, Lee EH et al (2013) Malignant invasion of the nipple-areolar complex of the breast: usefulness of breast MRI. Am J Roentgenol 201:448–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Untch M, Gerber B, Harbeck N et al (2013) 13th St. Gallen international breast cancer conference 2013: primary therapy of early breast cancer evidence, controversies, consensus—opinion of a German team of experts (Zurich 2013). Breast Care (Basel) 8:221–229

    Google Scholar 

  13. Harbeck N, Thomssen C, Gnant M (2013) St. Gallen 2013: brief preliminary summary of the consensus discussion. Breast Care (Basel) 8(2):102–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Strigel RM, Eby PR, Demartini WB et al (2010) Frequency, upgrade rates, and characteristics of high-risk lesions initially identified with breast MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:792–798

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lagios MD, Gates EA, Westdahl PR et al (1979) A guide to the frequency of nipple involvement in breast cancer: a study of 149 consecutive mastectomies using a serial subgross and correlated radiographic technique. Am J Surg 138:135–142

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jitendra J, Chinoy RF, Vaidyat JS (1998) Prediction of nipple and areola involvement in breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 24:15–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Pirozzi PR, Rossetti C, Carelli I et al (2010) Clinical and morphological factors predictive of occult involvement of the nipple-areola complex in mastectomy specimens. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 148:177–181

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lüttges J, Kalbfleisch H, Prinz P (1987) Nipple involvement and multicentricity in breast cancer: a study on whole organ sections. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 113:481–487

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cucin RL, Guthrie RH Jr, Luterman A et al (1980) Screening the nipple for involvement in breast cancer. Ann Plast Surg 5:477–479

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wijayanayagam A, Kumar AS, Foster RD et al (2008) Optimizing the total skin-sparing mastectomy. Arch Surg 143:38–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Verma GR, Kumar A, Joshi K (1997) Nipple involvement in peripheral breast carcinoma: a prospective study. Indian J Cancer 34:1–5

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Quinn RH, Barlow JF (1981) Involvement of the nipple and areola by carcinoma of the breast. Arch Surg 116:1139–1140

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Khan K, Chakraborti S, Mondal S (2010) Morphological predictors of nipple areola involvement in malignant breast tumors. Indian J Pathol Microbiol 53:232–237

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. de Alcantara FP, Capko D, Barry JM et al (2011) Nipple-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer and risk-reducing surgery: the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center experience. Ann Surg Oncol 18:3117–3122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Alperovich M, Tanna N, Samra F et al (2013) Nipple-sparing mastectomy in patients with a history of reduction mammaplasty or mastopexy: how safe is it? Plast Reconstr Surg 131:962–967

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. D’Alonzo M, Martincich L, Biglia N et al (2012) Clinical and radiological predictors of nipple-areola complex involvement in breast cancer patients. Eur J Cancer 48:2311–2318

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Steen ST, Chung AP, Han S-H et al (2013) Predicting nipple–areolar involvement using preoperative breast MRI and primary tumor characteristics. Ann Surg Oncol 20:633–639

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Billar JA, Dueck AC, Gray RJ et al (2011) Preoperative predictors of nipple–areola complex involvement for patients undergoing mastectomy for breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 18:3123–3128

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Friedman EP, Hall-Craggs MA, Mumtaz H et al (1997) Breast MR and the appearance of the normal and abnormal nipple. Clin Radiol 52:854–861

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kneubil MC, Lohsiriwat V, Curigliano G et al (2012) Risk of locoregional recurrence in patients with false-negative frozen section or close margins of retroareolar specimen in nipple-sparing mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 19:4117–4123

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Papa MZ, Zippel D, Koller M et al (1999) Positive margins of breast biopsy: is reexcision always necessary? J Surg Oncol 70:167–171

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Gage I, Schnitt SJ, Nixon AJ et al (1996) Pathologic margin involvement and the risk of recurrence in patients treated with breast-conserving therapy. Cancer 78:1921–1928

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Schnitt SJ, Abner A, Gelman R et al (1994) The relationship between microscopic margins of resection and the risk of local recurrence in patients with breast cancer treated with breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy. Cancer 74:1746–1751

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Pittinger TP, Maronian NC, Poulter CA et al (1994) Importance of margin status in outcome of breast-conserving surgery for carcinoma. Surgery 116:605–608

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kunos C, Latson L, Overmoyer B et al (2006) Breast conservation surgery achieving > or = 2 mm tumor-free margins results in decreased local-regional recurrence rates. Breast J 12:28–36

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Eisenberg RE, Chan JS, Swistel AJ et al (2014) Pathological evaluation of nipple-sparing mastectomies with emphasis on occult nipple involvement: the Weill-Cornell experience with 325 cases. Breast J 20:15–21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Dr. Alison Chetlen and Dr. Susann Schetter were paid research consultants for Siemens in October and November 2014. This has no relation to the current research study. The other authors do not have any sources of support or disclosure of funding.

Conflict of interest

We declare that we have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anatomic Pathology, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA, USA

    Dipti M. Karamchandani & Meghan P. Riley

  2. Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Division, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA, USA

    Alison L. Chetlen, Susann Schetter & Julie Mack

  3. Department of Surgery and Public Health Sciences, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA, USA

    Christopher S. Hollenbeak

  4. Department of Pathology, Division of Anatomic Pathology, 500 University Drive, H179, Hershey, PA, 17033-0850, USA

    Dipti M. Karamchandani

Authors
  1. Dipti M. Karamchandani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alison L. Chetlen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Meghan P. Riley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Susann Schetter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Christopher S. Hollenbeak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Julie Mack
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dipti M. Karamchandani.

Additional information

Portions of this study were presented as an abstract/poster at the USCAP 2014 meeting, San Diego.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Karamchandani, D.M., Chetlen, A.L., Riley, M.P. et al. Pathologic-radiologic correlation in evaluation of retroareolar margin in nipple-sparing mastectomy. Virchows Arch 466, 279–287 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-014-1714-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-014-1714-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation