Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 20, Issue 10, pp 3294–3302 | Cite as

Nipple Skin-Sparing Mastectomy is Feasible for Advanced Disease

  • Eric C. Burdge
  • James Yuen
  • Matthew Hardee
  • Pranjali V. Gadgil
  • Chandan Das
  • Ronda Henry-Tillman
  • Daniela Ochoa
  • Soheila Korourian
  • V. Suzanne Klimberg
Breast Oncology



Skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) or nipple skin-sparing mastectomy (NSSM) are procedures commonly offered as part of the surgical treatment for breast cancer. Each involves a mastectomy with preservation of the skin overlying the breast (in SSM) and often also the skin overlying the nipple-areolar complex (NSSM). At the time of mastectomy, immediate reconstruction with a tissue expander or implant is performed for a more favorable cosmetic outcome. Until now, these procedures have been reserved for low-risk patients and are rarely offered to patients with advanced disease where neoadjuvant chemotherapy and postmastectomy radiation are a planned part of the treatment. We report our experience of SSM and NSSM in such high-risk patients.


This retrospective study from 2001 to 2012 evaluates the outcomes of 527 patients who underwent SSM or NSSM. Sixty patients with advanced disease who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by SSM or NSSM with immediate reconstruction and subsequent radiotherapy (RT) were identified. The cosmetic and oncologic outcomes of this patient group were noted.


A total of 527 patients in our study group had a total of 1,035 skin-sparing mastectomies (558 NSSM and 477 SSM; 444 patients with bilateral and 83 with unilateral procedures). Of the 60 patients with locally advanced disease, 39 underwent NSSM and 21 underwent SSM. All patients received RT to the diseased side. Mean age of the group was 50.2 ± 10.8 years, with a range of 27–75 years for NSSM and 29–73 years for SSM. The lymph node status was positive in 71.8 % with an average tumor size of 3.8 ± 2.5 cm. The overall radiation-induced complication rate was 38.1 % (8 of 21) in the SSM group and 30.8 % (12 of 39) in the NSSM group. Wound infections and tissue necrosis occurred at a rate of 16.7 %. The implant was removed in 5 % of these cases. Capsular contracture occurred at a rate of 10.2 %. Radiation-related nonbreast complications occurred in 6.7 % of the cases. Examples of these radiation-related nonbreast complications included radiation pneumonitis, stenosis of the superior vena cava requiring venoplasty and severe atypical chest pain thought to be consistent with osteochondritis. The locoregional recurrence rate (median follow-up of 18 months) was 14.3 % (3 of 21) in the SSM group and 10.3 % (4 of 39) in the NSSM group.


SSM and NSSM have been offered to patients with relatively low-risk breast cancer as oncologically safe while affording superior cosmesis with one-step immediate reconstruction. Our series demonstrates that either procedure can be offered to patients with more advanced cancers requiring postoperative RT. The complication rates are comparable to those reported for patients undergoing RT after traditional mastectomies.


Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Breast Reconstruction Nipple Tissue Expander Capsular Contracture 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Supported by the Arkansas Breast Cancer Act Breast Cancer Interdisciplinary Breast Fellowship (E. C. Burdge, P. Gadgil); the Tenenbaum Breast Cancer Foundation, Little Rock, AR (V. S. Klimberg); and by the Fashion Footwear Association of New York (FFANY/QVC) (V. S. Klimberg).


The authors report no disclosures or conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Toth BA, Lappert P. Modified skin incisions for mastectomy: the need for plastic surgical input in preoperative planning. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1991;87:1048–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Elkovitz A, Colen S, Slavin S, Seibert J, Weinstein M, Shaw W. Various methods of breast reconstruction after mastectomy: an economic comparison. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1993;92:77–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Khoo A, Kroll SS, Reece GP, et al. A comparison of resource costs of immediate and delayed breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998;101:964–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rosenqvist S, Sandelin K, Wickman M. Patients psychological and cosmetic experience after immediate breast reconstruction. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1996;22:262–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Al-Ghazal SK, Sully L Fallowfield L, Blamey RW. The psychological impact of immediate rather than delayed reconstruction. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2000;26:17–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wilkins EG, Cederna PS, Lowery JC, et al. Prospective analysis of psychosocial outcomes in breast reconstruction: one-year postoperative results from the Michigan breast reconstruction outcome study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;106:1014–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cunnick G, Mokbel K. Oncological considerations of skin-sparing mastectomy. Int Semin Surg Oncol. 2006;3:14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boneti C, Yuen, J Santiago C, et al. Oncologic safety of nipple skin-sparing or total skin-sparing mastectomies with immediate reconstruction. J Am Coll Surg. 2011;212:686–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stolier A, Sullivan S, Dellacroce F. Technical considerations in nipple-sparing mastectomy: 82 consecutive cases without necrosis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:1341–7.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Layeeque R, Kepple J, Henry-Tillman R, et al. Intraoperative subareolar radioisotope injection for immediate sentinel lymph node biopsy. Ann Surg. 2004;239(6):841–8.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boneti C, Korourian S, Bland K, et al. Axillary reverse mapping: mapping and preserving arm lymphatics may be important in preventing lymphedema during sentinel lymph node biopsy. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;206(5):1038–44.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Klimberg VS, Westbrook KC, Korourian S. Use of touch preps for diagnosis and evaluation of surgical margins in breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 1998;5(3):220–6.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Layeeque R, Hochberg J, Siegel E, et al. Botulinum toxin infiltration for pain control after mastectomy and expander reconstruction. Ann Surg. 2004;240:608–13, 613–4 (discussion).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hochberg J, Yuen J. Atlas of breast surgical techniques, Chap. 18. In: Suzanne Klimberg V, editor. Breast reconstruction postmastectomy with tissue expanders and alloderm.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Carlson G, Page A, Johnson E, Nicholson D, Styblo T, Wood W. Local recurrence of ductal carcinoma in situ after skin-sparing mastectomy. JACS. 2007;204(5):1074–8.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Spiegel A, Butler C. Recurrence following treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ with skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;111(2):706–11.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lim W, Ko B, Kim K, et al. Oncological safety of skin sparing mastectomy followed by immediate reconstruction for locally advanced breast cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2010;102(1):39–42.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Newman L, Kuerer H, Hunt K, et al. Presentation, treatment, and outcome of local recurrence after skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol. 1998;5(7):620–6.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Carlson GW, Styblo TM, Lyles R, et al. Local recurrence after skin-sparing mastectomy: tumor biology or surgical conservatism? Ann Surg Oncol. 2003;10(2):108–12.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kroll SS, Khoo A. Local recurrence risk after skin-sparing and conventional mastectomy: a 6-year follow-up. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;104(2):421–5.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Langstein HN, Cheng MH, Singletary SE, et al. Breast cancer recurrence after immediate reconstruction: patterns and significance. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;111(2):712–20.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Medina-Franco H, Vasconez LO, Fix RJ, et al. Factors associated with local recurrence after skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction for invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg. 2002;235(6):814–9.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Simmons RM, Fish SK, Gayle L, et al. Local and distant recurrence rates in skin-sparing mastectomies compared with non-skin-sparing mastectomies. Ann Surg Oncol. 1999;6(7):676–81.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cunnick GH, Mokbel K. Skin-sparing mastectomy. Am J Surg. 2004;188(1):78–84.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rowell NP. Radiotherapy to the chest wall following mastectomy for node-negative breast cancer: a systematic review. Radiother Oncol. 2009;91(1):23–32.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Al Mushawah F, Rastelli A, Pluard T, Margenthaler JA. Metastatic invasive breast cancer recurrence following curative-intent therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ. J Surg Res. 2012;173(1):10–5.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Godat LN, Horton JK, Shen P, Stewart JH, Wentworth S, Levine EA. Recurrence after mastectomy for ductal carcinoma in situ. Am Surg. 2009;75(7):592–5.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kelley L, Silverstein M, Guerra L. Analyzing the risk of recurrence after mastectomy for DCIS: a new use for the USC/Van Nuys prognostic index. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(2):459–62.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kim JH, Tavassoli F, Haffty BG. Chest wall relapse after mastectomy for ductal carcinoma in situ: a report of 10 cases with a review of the literature. Cancer J. 2006;12(2):92–101.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kronowitz SJ, Robb GL. Breast reconstruction with postmastectomy radiation therapy: current issues. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;114:950–60.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hunt KK, Baldwin BJ, Strom EA, et al. Feasibility of postmastectomy radiation therapy after TRAM flap breast reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol. 1997;4:377–84.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mehta VK, Goffinet D. Postmastectomy radiation therapy after TRAM flap breast reconstruction. Breast J. 2004;10:118–22.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Javaid M, Song F, Leinster S, Dickson MG, James NK. Radiation effects on the cosmetic outcomes of immediate and delayed autologous breast reconstruction: an argument about timing. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2006;59:16–26.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Evans GR, Schusterman MA, Kroll SS. Reconstruction and the radiated breast: is there a role for implants? Plast Reconstr Surg. 1995;96:1111–5.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    McCarthy CM, Pusic AL, Disa JJ, McCormick BL, Montgomery LL, Cordeiro PG. Unilateral postoperative chest wall radiotherapy in bilateral tissue expander/implant reconstruction patients: a prospective outcomes analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;116:1642–7.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cordeiro PG, Pusic AL, Disa JJ, McCormick B, VanZee K. Irradiation after immediate tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction: outcomes, complications, aesthetic results, and satisfaction among 156 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;113:877–81.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kronowitz SJ, Hunt KK, Kuerer HM, et al. Delayed-immediate breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;113:1617–28.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jackson WB, Goldson AL, Staud C. Postoperative irradiation following immediate breast reconstruction using a temporary tissue expander. J Natl Med Assoc. 1994;86:538–42.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Spear SL, Parikh PM, Reisin E, Menon NG. Acellular dermis-assisted breast reconstruction. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2008;32(3):418–25.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sbitany H, Sandeen SN, Amalfi AN, Davenport MS, Langstein HN. Acellular dermis-assisted prosthetic breast reconstruction versus complete submuscular coverage: a head-to-head comparison of outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124(6):1735–40.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wainwright DJ. Use of an acellular allograft dermal matrix (AlloDerm) in the management of full-thickness burns. Burns. 1995;21(4):243–8.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Butler CE, Langstein HN, Kronowitz SJ. Pelvic, abdominal, and chest wall reconstruction with AlloDerm in patients at increased risk for mesh-related complications. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;116(5):1263–75, 1276–7 (discussion)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Chaplin JM, Costantino PD, Wolpoe ME, Bederson JB, Griffey ES, Zhang WX. Use of an acellular dermal allograft for dural replacement: an experimental study. Neurosurgery. 1999;45(2):320–7.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Breuing KH, Warren SM. Immediate bilateral breast reconstruction with implants and inferolateral AlloDerm slings. Ann Plast Surg. 2005;55(3):232–9.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Salzberg CA. Nonexpansive immediate breast reconstruction using human acellular tissue matrix graft (AlloDerm). Ann Plast Surg. 2006;57(1):1–5.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Bindingnavele V, Gaon M, Ota KS, Kulber DA, Lee DJ. Use of acellular cadaveric dermis and tissue expansion in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2007;60(11):1214–8.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Antony AK, McCarthy CM, Cordeiro PG, et al. Acellular human dermis implantation in 153 immediate two-stage tissue expander breast reconstructions: determining the incidence and significant predictors of complications. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125(6):1606–14.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Rawlani V, Buck DW 2nd, Johnson SA, Heyer KS, Kim JY. Tissue expander breast reconstruction using prehydrated human acellular dermis. Ann Plast Surg. 2011;66:593–7.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Breuing KH, Colwell AS. Immediate breast tissue expander-implant reconstruction with inferolateral AlloDerm hammock and postoperative radiation: a preliminary report. Eplasty. 2009;9:e16.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Nahabedian MY. AlloDerm performance in the setting of prosthetic breast surgery, infection, and irradiation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124(6):1743–53.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Salzberg CA, Ashikari AY, Koch RM, Chabner-Thompson E. An 8-year experience of direct-to-implant immediate breast reconstruction using human acellular dermal matrix (AlloDerm). Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127(2):514–24.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric C. Burdge
    • 1
    • 2
  • James Yuen
    • 4
  • Matthew Hardee
    • 5
  • Pranjali V. Gadgil
    • 1
    • 2
  • Chandan Das
    • 1
  • Ronda Henry-Tillman
    • 1
  • Daniela Ochoa
    • 1
  • Soheila Korourian
    • 6
  • V. Suzanne Klimberg
    • 1
    • 3
    • 7
  1. 1.Division of Breast Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Winthrop P. Rockefeller Cancer InstituteUniversity of Arkansas for Medical SciencesLittle RockUSA
  2. 2.Arkansas Breast Cancer Act Breast Cancer Interdisciplinary Breast FellowshipLittle RockUSA
  3. 3.Tenenbaum Breast Cancer FoundationLittle RockUSA
  4. 4.Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of SurgeryUniversity of Arkansas for Medical SciencesLittle RockUSA
  5. 5.Department of Radiation OncologyUniversity of Arkansas for Medical SciencesLittle RockUSA
  6. 6.Department of PathologyUniversity of Arkansas for Medical SciencesLittle RockUSA
  7. 7.Fashion Footwear Association of New York (FFANY/QVC)New YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations