Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Oncoplastic Central Partial Mastectomy and Neoareolar Reduction Mammoplasty with Immediate Nipple Reconstruction: An Initial Report of a Novel Option for Breast Conservation in Patients with Subareolar Tumors

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

Abstract

Background

Breast-conserving therapy (BCT) has been associated with better quality of life and cosmetic outcomes than mastectomy. However, subareolar cancers abutting the nipple–areolar complex (NAC) present a unique cosmetic and oncologic challenge. Oncoplastic central partial mastectomy and neoareolar reduction mammoplasty with immediate nipple reconstruction is a novel technique that can permit BCT for these patients.

Methods

This study enrolled consecutive patients with central tumors during 2017–2018 who underwent central partial mastectomy reconstructed with neoareolar reduction mammoplasty and immediate nipple reconstruction. Patient demographics, imaging and pathology size, margin width, mastectomy and reexcision rates, and cosmesis were evaluated.

Results

The study identified 23 sequential patients. The average patient age was 60.5 ± 12.3 years, and the average body mass index was 29.4 ± 5.7 kg/m2. The mean lesion size was 51.5 ± 43.0 mm on preoperative imaging, and the average disease span shown by the final pathology was 59.5 ± 45.3 mm. “No ink on tumor” was achieved for 22 patients (95.7%). In 13 patients (56.5%), the margins were inadequate for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (n = 12) or invasive cancer (n = 1). Good to excellent cosmetic results were achieved for 21 patients (95.5%). Complications occurred for six patients (26.1%), including three patients with ischemia of the reconstructed NAC.

Conclusion

The single-stage operation described in this report can allow patients with cancers abutting the NAC to consider BCT. This technique allows patients to avoid mastectomy and to minimize the number of operations required for reconstruction while maximizing cosmetic outcomes. In the study cohort, the presence of extensive DCIS resulted in a significant need for reexcision, which could be performed successfully without compromise to cosmetic outcome.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Veronesi U, Saccozzi R, Del Vecchio M, et al. Comparing radical mastectomy with quadrantectomy, axillary dissection, and radiotherapy in patients with small cancers of the breast. N Engl J Med. 1981;305:6–10.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Van Dongen J, Bartelink H, Fentiman I, et al. Randomized clinical trial to assess the value of breast-conserving therapy in stage I and II breast cancer: EORTC 10801 trial. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst. 1992;11:8–15.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Lichter A, Lippman M, Danforth D, et al. Mastectomy versus breast-conserving therapy in the treatment of stage I and II carcinoma of the breast: a randomized trial at the National Cancer Institute. J Clin Oncol. 1992;10:976–82.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, 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;347:1233–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Vaidya JS, Wenz F, Bulsara M, et al. Risk-adapted targeted intraoperative radiotherapy versus whole-breast radiotherapy for breast cancer: 5-year results for local control and overall survival from the TARGIT: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2014;282:603–13.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Veronesi U, Orecchia R, Maisonneuve P, et al. Intraoperative radiotherapy versus external radiotherapy for early breast cancer (ELIOT): a randomised controlled equivalence trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:1269–77.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lagendijk M, van Egdom LSE, van Veen FEE, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures may add value in breast cancer surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25:3563–71.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Chand ND, Browne V, Paramanathan N, et al. Patient-reported outcomes are better after oncoplastic breast conservation than after mastectomy and autologous reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017;5:e1419.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Fisher ER, Gregorio R, Redmond C, et al. Pathologic findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project (protocol no. 4) I: observations concerning the multicentricity of mammary cancer. Cancer. 1975;35247–54.

  10. Wilson LD, Beinfield M, McKhann CF, et al. Conservative surgery and radiation in the treatment of synchronous ipsilateral breast cancers. Cancer. 1993;72:137–42.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Leopold KA, Recht A, Schnitt SJ, et al. Results of conservative surgery and radiation therapy for multiple synchronous cancers of one breast. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1989;16:11–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kurtz JM, Jacquemier J, Amalric R, et al. Breast-conserving therapy for macroscopically multiple cancers. Ann Surg. 1990;212:38–44.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Rosen PP, Fracchia AA, Urban JA, et al. Residual mammary carcinoma following simulated partial mastectomy. Cancer. 1975;35:739–47.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Fisher B, Bauer M, Margolese R, 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;312:665–73.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Danoff B, Pajak T, Solin L, et al. Excisional biopsy, axillary node dissection, and definitive radiotherapy for stages 1 and 2 breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1985;11479–83.

  16. Dale PS, Giuliano AE. Nipple–areola preservation during breast-conserving therapy for subareolar breast carcinomas. Arch Surg. 1996;131:430–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bussieres E, Guyon F, Thomas L, et al. Conservation treatment in subareolar breast cancers. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1996;22:267–70.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Galimberti V, Zurrida S, Zanini V, et al. Central small size breast cancer: how to overcome the problem of nipple and areola involvement. Eur J Cancer. 1993;29A:1093–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Crown A, Wechter DG, Grumley JW. Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery reduces mastectomy and postoperative reexcision rates. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:3363–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. De La Cruz L, Blankenship SA, Chatterjee A, et al. Outcomes after oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery in breast cancer patients: a systematic literature review. Ann Surg Oncolol. 2016;23:3247–58.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Clough KB, Kaufman GJ, Nos C, et al. Improving breast cancer surgery: a classification and quadrant per quadrant atlas for oncoplastic surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:1375–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Santos G, Urban C, Edelweiss MI, et al. Long-term comparison of aesthetical outcomes after oncoplastic surgery and lumpectomy in breast cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:2500–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Yiannakopoulou EC, Mathelin C. Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery and oncological outcome: systematic review. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016;42:625–30.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Tenofsky PL, Dowell P, Topalvoski T, et al. Surgical, oncologic, and cosmetic differences between oncoplastic and nononcoplastic breast-conserving surgery in breast cancer patients. Am J Surg. 2014;207(3):398–402; discussion 402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2013.09.017.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 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 Targets Ther. 2017;9 521–30.

  26. Chatterjee A, Gass J, Krishnabhai P, et al. A consensus definition and classification system of oncoplastic surgery developed by the American Society of Breast Surgeons. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-07345-4.

  27. Crown A, Scovel LG, Rocha FG, et al. Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery is associated with a lower rate of surgical-site complications compared to standard breast conserving surgery. Am J Surg. 2019;217:138–41.

  28. Losken A, Styblo TM, Carlson GW, et al. Management algorithm and outcome evaluation of partial mastectomy defects treated using reduction or mastopexy techniques. Ann Plast Surg. 2007;59:235–42.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Asban A, Homsy C, Chen L, et al. A cost-utility analysis comparing large-volume displacement oncoplastic surgery to mastectomy with single-stage implant reconstruction in the treatment of breast cancer. Breast. 2018;41:159–64.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Chatterjee A, Asban A, Jonczyk M, et al. A cost-utility analysis comparing large-volume displacement oncoplastic surgery to mastectomy with free-flap reconstruction in the treatment of breast cancer. Am J Surg. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2019.01.037.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Silverstein MJ, Savalia N, Khan S, et al. Extreme oncoplasty: breast conservation for patients who need mastectomy. Breast J. 2015;21:52–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Crown A, Laskin R, Rocha FG, et al. Extreme oncoplasty: expanding indications for breast conservation. Am J Surg. 2019;217:851–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Crown A, Handy N, Rocha FG, et al. Oncoplastic reduction mammaplasty: an effective and safe method of breast conservation. Am J Surg. 2018;215:910–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Yun IS, Lew DH, Tark KC, et al. Nipple reconstruction with modified C–V flap:C–U flap. J Korean Soc Aesth Plast Surg. 2008;14:75–8.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Moran MS, Schnitt SJ, Giuliano AE, et al. Society of Surgical Oncology–American Society for Radiation Oncology–American Society of Clinical Oncology Consensus Guideline on margin for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stages I and II invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:704–16.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Ganz PA, Cecchini RS, White JR, et al. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in NRG oncology/NSABP B-39/RTOG 0413: A randomized phase III study of conventional whole breast irradiation (WBI) versus partial breast irradiation (PBI) in stage 0, I, or II breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37:508.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Sparano JA, Gray RJ, Makower DF, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy guided by a 21-gene expression assay in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;1379:111–21.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Rosenkrantz KM, Ballman K, McCall L, et al. The feasibility of breast-conserving surgery for multiple ipsilateral breast cancer: an initial report from ACOSOG Z11102 (Alliance) trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25:2858–66.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Lai HW, Huang RH, Wu YT, et al. Clinicopathologic features related to surgical margin involvement, reoperation, and residual cancer in primary operable breast cancer: an analysis of 2050 patients. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018;44:1725–35.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Lai HW, Chen CJ, Lin YJ, et al. Does breast magnetic resonance imaging combined with conventional imaging modalities decrease the rates of surgical margin involvement and reoperation? A case-control comparative analysis. Med Baltim. 2016;95:3810.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Proulx F, Correa JA, Ferré R, et al. Value of preoperative breast MRI for the size assessment of ductal carcinoma in situ. Br J Radiol. 2016;89:1058.20.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Murphy BL, Boughey JC, Keeney MG, et al. Factors associated with positive margins in women undergoing breast conservation surgery. Mayo Clin Proc. 2018;93:429–35.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Sanchez C, Brem RF, McSwain AP, et al. Factors associated with reexcision in patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast conservation surgery. Am Surg. 2010;76:331–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Fitzgerald S, Romanoff A, Cohen A, et al. Close and positive lumpectomy margins are associated with similar rates of residual disease with additional surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:4270–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Fayanju OM, Ren Yi, Thomas SM, et al. The clinical significance of breast-only and node-only pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT): a review of 20,000 breast cancer patients in the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB). Ann Surg. 2018;268:591–601.

  46. Boughey JC, Peintinger F, Meric-Bernstam F, et al. Impact of preoperative versus postoperative chemotherapy on the extent and number of surgical procedures in patients treated in randomized clinical trials for breast cancer. Ann Surg. 2006;244:464–70.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Mamtani A, Barrio AV, King TA, et al. How often does neoadjuvant chemotherapy avoid axillary dissection in patients with histologically confirmed nodal metastases? Results of a prospective study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:3467–74.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Boughey JC, McCall LM, Ballman KV, et al. Tumor biology correlates with rates of breast-conserving surgery and pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: findings from the ACOSOG Z1071 (Alliance) prospective multicenter clinical trial. Ann Surg. 2014;260:608–14; (discussion 614–6).

  49. Kim JY, Park HS, Kim S, et al. Prognostic normogram for prediction of axillary pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in cytologically proven node-positive breast cancer. Med Baltim. 2015;94:e1720.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Pilewskie M, Zabor EC, Mamtani A, et al. The optimal treatment plan to avoid axillary lymph node dissection in early-stage breast cancer patients differs by surgical strategy and tumor subtype. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24:3527–33.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Pezzi CM, Kukora JS, Audet IM, et al. Breast conservation using nipple–areolar resection for central breast cancers. Arch Surg. 2004;139:32–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Haffty BG, Wilson LD, Smith R, et al. Subareolar breast cancer: long-term results with conservative surgery and radiation therapy. Ing J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995;33:53–7.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Fowble B, Solin LJ, Schultz DJ, et al. Breast recurrence and survival related to primary tumor location in patients undergoing conservative surgery and radiation for early-stage breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1992;23:933–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Huang J, Barbara L, BNrouwers M, et al. Does delay in starting treatment affect outcomes of radiotherapy? A systematic review. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:555–63.

  55. Punglia RS, Saito AM, Neville BA, et al. Impact of interval from breast conserving surgery to radiotherapy on local recurrence in older women with breast cancer: retrospective cohort analysis. BMJ. 2010;340:c845.

  56. Lohrisch C, Paltiel C, Gelmon K, et al. Impact on survival of time from definitive surgery to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:4888–94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA

    Angelena Crown MD & Flavio G. Rocha MD, FACS

  2. Providence Saint John’s Health Center, John Wayne Cancer Institute, Santa Monica, CA, USA

    Janie W. Grumley MD, FACS

Authors
  1. Angelena Crown MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Flavio G. Rocha MD, FACS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Janie W. Grumley MD, FACS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Janie W. Grumley MD, FACS.

Ethics declarations

Disclosure

We have no disclosures.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Crown, A., Rocha, F.G. & Grumley, J.W. Oncoplastic Central Partial Mastectomy and Neoareolar Reduction Mammoplasty with Immediate Nipple Reconstruction: An Initial Report of a Novel Option for Breast Conservation in Patients with Subareolar Tumors. Ann Surg Oncol 26, 4284–4293 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-07731-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-07731-y

Search

Navigation