Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Advancements in Oncologic Surgery of the Breast: A Review of the Literature

  • Review
  • Published:
Current Breast Cancer Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

This review article is an update on the state of surgical options in the treatment of breast cancer. We seek to provide readers with the best practices for oncologically safe and cosmetically superior breast surgery.

Recent Findings

This article reviews the latest technologies for partial mastectomy, advances in and oncologic safety of mastectomy including skin and nipple sparing techniques, and a review of oncoplastic breast surgery techniques.

Summary

Our goal is to inform all surgeons who treat patients with breast cancer that many options remain available for the surgical treatment of breast cancer.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

References

  1. Halsted WSI. The results of radical operations for the cure of carcinoma of the breast. Ann Surg. 1907;46(1):1–19. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-190707000-00001.

    Article  MathSciNet  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Fisher B, Jeong JH, Anderson S, Bryant J, Fisher ER, Wolmark N. Twenty-five-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing radical mastectomy, total mastectomy, and total mastectomy followed by irradiation. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(8):567–75. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa020128.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Effects of radiotherapy and surgery in early breast cancer. An overview of the randomized trials. N Engl J Med. 1995;333(22):1444–55. doi: https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199511303332202.

  4. Fisher B, Bauer M, Margolese R, Poisson R, Pilch Y, Redmond C, et al. Five-year results of a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy and segmental mastectomy with or without radiation in the treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1985;312(11):665–73. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm198503143121101.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, Margolese RG, Deutsch M, Fisher ER, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(16):1233–41. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa022152.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. de Boniface J, Szulkin R, Johansson ALV. Survival after breast conservation vs mastectomy adjusted for comorbidity and socioeconomic status: a Swedish national 6-year follow-up of 48 986 women. JAMA Surg. 2021;156(7):628–37. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2021.1438.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Elmore LC, Dietz JR, Myckatyn TM, Margenthaler JA. The landmark series: mastectomy trials (skin-sparing and nipple-sparing and reconstruction landmark trials). Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28(1):273–80. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-09052-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Margenthaler JA, Dietz JR, Chatterjee A. The landmark series: breast conservation trials (including oncoplastic breast surgery). Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28(4):2120–7. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-09534-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kapoor MM, Patel MM, Scoggins ME. The wire and beyond: recent advances in breast imaging preoperative needle localization. Radiographics. 2019;39(7):1886–906. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2019190041.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Black DM, Mittendorf EA. Landmark trials affecting the surgical management of invasive breast cancer. Surg Clin North Am. 2013;93(2):501–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suc.2012.12.007.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Mascaro A, Farina M, Gigli R, Vitelli CE, Fortunato L. Recent advances in the surgical care of breast cancer patients. World J Surg Oncol. 2010;8:5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7819-8-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L, Greco M, Saccozzi R, Luini A, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(16):1227–32. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa020989.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. De La Cruz L, Blankenship SA, Chatterjee A, Geha R, Nocera N, Czerniecki BJ, et al. Outcomes after oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery in breast cancer patients: a systematic literature review. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(10):3247–58. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5313-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gwark S, Kim HJ, Kim J, Chung IY, Kim HJ, Ko BS, et al. Survival after breast-conserving surgery compared with that after mastectomy in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2023;30(5):2845–53. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-022-12993-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hartmann-Johnsen OJ, Kåresen R, Schlichting E, Nygård JF. Survival is better after breast conserving therapy than mastectomy for early stage breast cancer: a registry-based follow-up study of Norwegian women primary operated between 1998 and 2008. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(12):3836–45. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4441-3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Hwang ES, Lichtensztajn DY, Gomez SL, Fowble B, Clarke CA. Survival after lumpectomy and mastectomy for early stage invasive breast cancer: the effect of age and hormone receptor status. Cancer. 2013;119(7):1402–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.27795.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wrubel E, Natwick R, Wright GP. Breast-conserving therapy is associated with improved survival compared with mastectomy for early-stage breast cancer: a propensity score matched comparison using the National Cancer Database. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28(2):914–9. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-08829-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. van Maaren MC, de Munck L, de Bock GH, Jobsen JJ, van Dalen T, Linn SC, et al. 10 year survival after breast-conserving surgery plus radiotherapy compared with mastectomy in early breast cancer in the Netherlands: a population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(8):1158–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(16)30067-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Gradishar WJ, Moran MS, Abraham J, Aft R, Agnese D, Allison KH, et al. Breast cancer, version 3.2022, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2022;20(6):691–722. doi: https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2022.0030.

  20. Bleicher RJ, Ruth K, Sigurdson ER, Daly JM, Boraas M, Anderson PR, Egleston BL. Breast conservation versus mastectomy for patients with T3 primary tumors (>5 cm): a review of 5685 medicare patients. Cancer. 2016;122(1):42–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29726.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Moran MS, Schnitt SJ, Giuliano AE, Harris JR, Khan SA, Horton J, et al. Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stages I and II invasive breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;88(3):553–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.11.012.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Morrow M, Van Zee KJ, Solin LJ, Houssami N, Chavez-MacGregor M, Harris JR, et al. Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology-American Society of Clinical Oncology Consensus Guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in ductal carcinoma in situ. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2016;6(5):287–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prro.2016.06.011.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Gradishar WJ, Moran MS, et al.: NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: breast cancer. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast.pdf (2024). Accessed Feb 3 2024.

  24. ACS Clinical Research Program; Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology; Nelson HDH, Kelly K. Operative standards for cancer surgery: volume I: breast, lung, pancreas, colon. LWW; 2015.

  25. Morrow M, Strom EA, Bassett LW, Dershaw DD, Fowble B, Giuliano A, et al. Standard for breast conservation therapy in the management of invasive breast carcinoma. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2002;52(5):277–300. doi: https://doi.org/10.3322/canjclin.52.5.277.

  26. Shirazi S, Hajiesmaeili H, Khosla M, Taj S, Sircar T, Vidya R. Comparison of wire and non-wire localisation techniques in breast cancer surgery: a review of the literature with pooled analysis. Medicina (Kaunas). 2023;59(7). doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina59071297.

  27. Farha MJ, Simons J, Kfouri J, Townsend-Day M. SAVI Scout® system for excision of non-palpable breast lesions. Am Surg. 2023;89(6):2434–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/00031348221096576.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Liang DH, Black D, Yi M, Luo CK, Singh P, Sahin A, et al. Clinical outcomes using magnetic seeds as a non-wire, non-radioactive alternative for localization of non-palpable breast lesions. Ann Surg Oncol. 2022;29(6):3822–8. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-022-11443-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Srour MK, Kim S, Amersi F, Giuliano AE, Chung A. Comparison of wire localization, radioactive seed, and Savi Scout(®) radar for management of surgical breast disease. Breast J. 2020;26(3):406–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.13499.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Choe AI, Ismail R, Mack J, Walter V, Yang AL, Dodge DG. Review of variables associated with positive surgical margins using scout reflector localizations for breast conservation therapy. Clin Breast Cancer. 2022;22(2):e232–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2021.07.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kelly BN, Webster AJ, Lamb L, Spivey T, Korotkin JE, Henriquez A, et al. Magnetic seeds: an alternative to wire localization for nonpalpable breast lesions. Clin Breast Cancer. 2022;22(5):e700–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2022.01.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Jones C, Lancaster R. Evolution of operative technique for mastectomy. Surg Clin North Am. 2018;98(4):835–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suc.2018.04.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Surgeons TASoB: Performance and practice guidelines for mastectomy. 2018. https://breastsurgeons.org/docs/statements/Performance-and-Practice-Guidelines-for-Mastectomy.pdf. Accessed.

  34. Morrow M, Jagsi R, Alderman AK, Griggs JJ, Hawley ST, Hamilton AS, et al. Surgeon recommendations and receipt of mastectomy for treatment of breast cancer. JAMA. 2009;302(14):1551–6. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.1450.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Hill EL, Ochoa D, Denham F, Merrill A, Lin-Duffy MF, Wilson AB, et al. The Angel Wings Incision: a novel solution for mastectomy patients with increased lateral adiposity. Breast J. 2019;25(4):687–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.13301.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. van Zeelst LJ, Ten Wolde B, van Eekeren R, Volders JH, de Wilt JHW, Strobbe LJA. Quilting following mastectomy reduces seroma, associated complications and health care consumption without impairing patient comfort. J Surg Oncol. 2022;125(3):369–76. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.26739.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Drivas E, Gachabayov M, Kajmolli A, Stadlan Z, Felsenreich DM, Castaldi M. Quilting suture technique after mastectomy: a meta-analysis. Am Surg. 2023;89(12):6045–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/00031348231173995.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Baker JL, Dizon DS, Wenziger CM, Streja E, Thompson CK, Lee MK, et al. “Going Flat” after mastectomy: patient-reported outcomes by online survey. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28(5):2493–505. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-09448-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Anderson C, Islam JY, Elizabeth Hodgson M, Sabatino SA, Rodriguez JL, Lee CN, et al. Long-term satisfaction and body image after contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(6):1499–506. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5753-7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Kim H, Yoon TI, Kim S, Lee SB, Kim J, Chung IY, et al. Age-related incidence and peak occurrence of contralateral breast cancer. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(12):e2347511. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.47511.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Lee C, Sunu C, Pignone M. Patient-reported outcomes of breast reconstruction after mastectomy: a systematic review. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;209(1):123–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2009.02.061.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Romanoff A, Zabor EC, Stempel M, Sacchini V, Pusic A, Morrow M. A Comparison of patient-reported outcomes after nipple-sparing mastectomy and conventional mastectomy with reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(10):2909–16. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-018-6585-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Hieken TJ, Boolbol SK, Dietz JR. Nipple-sparing mastectomy: indications, contraindications, risks, benefits, and techniques. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(10):3138–44. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5370-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Garcia-Etienne CA, Cody Iii HS, 3rd, Disa JJ, Cordeiro P, Sacchini V. Nipple-sparing mastectomy: initial experience at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and a comprehensive review of literature. Breast J. 2009;15(4):440-https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4741.2009.00758.x

  45. Agarwal S, Agarwal S, Neumayer L, Agarwal JP. Therapeutic nipple-sparing mastectomy: trends based on a national cancer database. The American Journal of Surgery. 2014;208(1):93–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2013.09.030.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Galimberti V, Vicini E, Corso G, Morigi C, Fontana S, Sacchini V, Veronesi P. Nipple-sparing and skin-sparing mastectomy: review of aims, oncological safety and contraindications. Breast. 2017;34 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S82-s4. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2017.06.034.

  47. De La Cruz L, Moody AM, Tappy EE, Blankenship SA, Hecht EM. Overall survival, disease-free survival, local recurrence, and nipple-areolar recurrence in the setting of nipple-sparing mastectomy: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(10):3241–9. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4739-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Donovan CA, Harit AP, Chung A, Bao J, Giuliano AE, Amersi F. Oncological and surgical outcomes after nipple-sparing mastectomy: do incisions matter? Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(10):3226–31. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5323-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Stolier AJ, Wang J. Terminal duct lobular units are scarce in the nipple: implications for prophylactic nipple-sparing mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15(2):438–42. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-007-9568-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Piato JR, de Andrade RD, Chala LF, de Barros N, Mano MS, Melitto AS, et al. MRI to predict nipple involvement in breast cancer patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016;206(5):1124–30. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.15.15187.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Ponzone R, Maggiorotto F, Carabalona S, Rivolin A, Pisacane A, Kubatzki F, et al. MRI and intraoperative pathology to predict nipple-areola complex (NAC) involvement in patients undergoing NAC-sparing mastectomy. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51(14):1882–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2015.07.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Agha RA, Al Omran Y, Wellstead G, Sagoo H, Barai I, Rajmohan S, et al. Systematic review of therapeutic nipple-sparing<i>versus</i>skin-sparing mastectomy. BJS Open. 2019;3(2):135–45. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs5.50119.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Eisenberg RE, Chan JS, Swistel AJ, Hoda SA. Pathological evaluation of nipple-sparing mastectomies with emphasis on occult nipple involvement: the Weill-Cornell experience with 325 cases. Breast J. 2014;20(1):15–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.12199.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Amara D, Peled AW, Wang F, Ewing CA, Alvarado M, Esserman LJ. Tumor involvement of the nipple in total skin-sparing mastectomy: strategies for management. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(12):3803–8. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4646-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Galimberti V, Morigi C, Bagnardi V, Corso G, Vicini E, Fontana SKR, et al. Oncological outcomes of nipple-sparing mastectomy: a single-center experience of 1989 patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(13):3849–57. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-018-6759-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Mitchell SD, Willey SC, Beitsch P, Feldman S. Evidence based outcomes of the American Society of Breast Surgeons Nipple Sparing Mastectomy Registry. Gland Surg. 2018;7(3):247–57. https://doi.org/10.21037/gs.2017.09.10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Orzalesi L, Casella D, Santi C, Cecconi L, Murgo R, Rinaldi S, et al. Nipple sparing mastectomy: surgical and oncological outcomes from a national multicentric registry with 913 patients (1006 cases) over a six year period. Breast. 2016;25:75–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2015.10.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Smith BL, Tang R, Rai U, Plichta JK, Colwell AS, Gadd MA, et al. Oncologic safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy in women with breast cancer. J Am Coll Surg. 2017;225(3):361–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2017.06.013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Daar DA, Abdou SA, Rosario L, Rifkin WJ, Santos PJ, Wirth GA, Lane KT. Is there a preferred incision location for nipple-sparing mastectomy? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143(5):906e-e919. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000005502.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Peled AW, Peled ZM. Nerve preservation and allografting for sensory innervation following immediate implant breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019;7(7):e2332. https://doi.org/10.1097/gox.0000000000002332.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Toth BA, Lappert P. Modified skin incisions for mastectomy: the need for plastic surgical input in preoperative planning. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1991;87(6):1048–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Citgez B, Yigit B, Bas S. Oncoplastic and reconstructive breast surgery: a comprehensive review. Cureus. 2022. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.21763

  63. Ayoub Z, Strom EA, Ovalle V, Perkins GH, Woodward WA, Tereffe W, et al. A 10-year experience with mastectomy and tissue expander placement to facilitate subsequent radiation and reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(10):2965–71. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-017-5956-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Kaufman CS. Increasing role of oncoplastic surgery for breast cancer. Curr Oncol Rep. 2019;21(12):111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-019-0860-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Silverstein MJ, Mai T, Savalia N, Vaince F, Guerra L. Oncoplastic breast conservation surgery: the new paradigm. J Surg Oncol. 2014;110(1):82–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.23641.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Macmillan RD, McCulley SJ. Oncoplastic breast surgery: what, when and for whom? Curr Breast Cancer Rep. 2016;8:112–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-016-0212-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Crown A, Wechter DG, Grumley JW. Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery reduces mastectomy and postoperative re-excision rates. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(10):3363–8. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4738-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Kosasih S, Tayeh S, Mokbel K, Kasem A. Is oncoplastic breast conserving surgery oncologically safe? A meta-analysis of 18,103 patients. Am J Surg. 2020;220(2):385–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2019.12.019.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. André C, Holsti C, Svenner A, Sackey H, Oikonomou I, Appelgren M, et al. Recurrence and survival after standard versus oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer. BJS Open. 2021;5(1). doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zraa013.

  70. Campbell EJ, Romics L. Oncological safety and cosmetic outcomes in oncoplastic breast conservation surgery, a review of the best level of evidence literature. Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press). 2017;9:521–30. https://doi.org/10.2147/bctt.S113742.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Kopkash K, Clark P. Basic oncoplastic surgery for breast conservation: tips and techniques. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(10):2823–8. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-018-6604-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Yang JD, Lee JW, Cho YK, Kim WW, Hwang SO, Jung JH, Park HY. Surgical techniques for personalized oncoplastic surgery in breast cancer patients with small- to moderate-sized breasts (Part 1): Volume Displacement. J Breast Cancer. 2012;15(1):1. https://doi.org/10.4048/jbc.2012.15.1.1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Cantürk NZ, Şimşek T, Özkan GS. Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery according to tumor location. Eur J Breast Health. 2021;17(3):220–33. https://doi.org/10.4274/ejbh.galenos.2021.2021-1-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Franciscan Health, Olympia Fields, Chicago, IL, USA

    Tiffany J. Nevill

  2. Department of Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 2220 Pierce Avenue, Preston Research Building 597, Nashville, TN, 37232-2730, USA

    Kelly C. Hewitt & Rachel L. McCaffrey

Authors
  1. Tiffany J. Nevill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kelly C. Hewitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rachel L. McCaffrey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

TN and RM wrote the main manuscript. KH reviewed the manuscript for clinical content and contributed to table formation. All reviewed the final manuscript prior to submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rachel L. McCaffrey.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors of this review article have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Human and animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nevill, T.J., Hewitt, K.C. & McCaffrey, R.L. Advancements in Oncologic Surgery of the Breast: A Review of the Literature. Curr Breast Cancer Rep (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-024-00537-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-024-00537-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation