Prediction of nipple involvement in breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: Should we rely on breast MRI to preserve the nipple?
Breast cancer
Breast magnetic resonance imaging
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy
Nipple involvement
Journal
Breast cancer research and treatment
ISSN: 1573-7217
Titre abrégé: Breast Cancer Res Treat
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 8111104
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2023
Oct 2023
Historique:
received:
24
05
2023
accepted:
05
07
2023
medline:
29
8
2023
pubmed:
25
7
2023
entrez:
25
7
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Indications for nipple sparing mastectomy (NSM) is extending to post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) setting. Eligibility for NSM with an optimum tumor-nipple distance (TND) after NAC is unclear. We examined predictive factors for nipple tumor involvement in patients undergoing total mastectomy following NAC. Clinical and pathological data from prospectively collected medical records of women with invasive breast carcinoma, who were undergone NAC and total mastectomy with sentinel lymph node biopsy and/or axillary lymph node dissection were analyzed. PreNAC and postNAC magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) views were examined and a cut-off TND value for predicting the negative nipple tumor status was determined. Among 180 women, the final mastectomy specimen analysis revealed that 12 (7%) had nipple involvement as invasive carcinoma. Patients with nipple involvement had more postNAC multifocal/multicentric tumors (p: 0.03), larger tumors on preNAC and postNAC images (p: 0.002 and p < 0.001), shorter median TNDs on preNAC and postNAC images (7 mm-IQR 1.5-14, p: 0.005 and 8.5 mm-IQR 3-15.5, p < 0.001, respectively), more nipple retraction on preNAC and postNAC images (p: 0.007 and p: 0.006) and more nipple areola complex skin thickening (> 2mm) on preNAC and postNAC images (p < 0.001 and p: 0.01). The best likelihood ratios (LR) belonged to the postNAC positivity of the < 20 mm TND, with a + LR of 3.40, and - LR of 0.11 for nipple involvement. PreNAC positivity of the < 20 mm TND also had a similar - LR of 0.14. A TND-cut-off ≥ 2 cm on preNAC and postNAC MRI was shown to be highly predictive of negative nipple tumor involvement.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Indications for nipple sparing mastectomy (NSM) is extending to post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) setting. Eligibility for NSM with an optimum tumor-nipple distance (TND) after NAC is unclear. We examined predictive factors for nipple tumor involvement in patients undergoing total mastectomy following NAC.
METHODS
METHODS
Clinical and pathological data from prospectively collected medical records of women with invasive breast carcinoma, who were undergone NAC and total mastectomy with sentinel lymph node biopsy and/or axillary lymph node dissection were analyzed. PreNAC and postNAC magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) views were examined and a cut-off TND value for predicting the negative nipple tumor status was determined.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Among 180 women, the final mastectomy specimen analysis revealed that 12 (7%) had nipple involvement as invasive carcinoma. Patients with nipple involvement had more postNAC multifocal/multicentric tumors (p: 0.03), larger tumors on preNAC and postNAC images (p: 0.002 and p < 0.001), shorter median TNDs on preNAC and postNAC images (7 mm-IQR 1.5-14, p: 0.005 and 8.5 mm-IQR 3-15.5, p < 0.001, respectively), more nipple retraction on preNAC and postNAC images (p: 0.007 and p: 0.006) and more nipple areola complex skin thickening (> 2mm) on preNAC and postNAC images (p < 0.001 and p: 0.01). The best likelihood ratios (LR) belonged to the postNAC positivity of the < 20 mm TND, with a + LR of 3.40, and - LR of 0.11 for nipple involvement. PreNAC positivity of the < 20 mm TND also had a similar - LR of 0.14.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
A TND-cut-off ≥ 2 cm on preNAC and postNAC MRI was shown to be highly predictive of negative nipple tumor involvement.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37490171
doi: 10.1007/s10549-023-07041-8
pii: 10.1007/s10549-023-07041-8
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
417-424Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Rubens RD, Sexton S, Tong D, Winter PJ, Knight RK, Hayward JL (1980) Combined chemotherapy and radiotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 16(3):351–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-2964(80)90352-7
doi: 10.1016/0014-2964(80)90352-7
Wolmark N, Fau WJ, Fau ME, Bryant J, Fisher B (2001) Preoperative chemotherapy in patients with operable breast cancer: nine-year results from National surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project B-18. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jncimonographs.a003469
doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jncimonographs.a003469
pubmed: 11773300
Bartholomew AJ, Dervishaj OA, Sosin M, Kerivan LT, Tung SS, Caragacianu DL et al (2019) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and nipple-sparing mastectomy: timing and postoperative complications. Ann Surg Oncol 26(9):2768–2772. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-07418-4
doi: 10.1245/s10434-019-07418-4
pubmed: 31123933
Headon HL, Kasem A, Mokbel K (2016) The oncological safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy: a systematic review of the literature with a pooled analysis of 12,358 procedures. Arch Plast Surg 43(4):328–338. https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2016.43.4.328
doi: 10.5999/aps.2016.43.4.328
pubmed: 27462565
pmcid: 4959975
Burdge EC, Yuen J, Hardee M, Gadgil PV, Das C, Henry-Tillman R et al (2013) Nipple skin-sparing mastectomy is feasible for advanced disease. Ann Surg Oncol 20(10):3294–3302. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-013-3174-4
doi: 10.1245/s10434-013-3174-4
pubmed: 23975304
Galimberti V, Vicini E, Corso G, Morigi C, Fontana S, Sacchini V et al (2017) Nipple-sparing and skin-sparing mastectomy: review of aims, oncological safety and contraindications. Breast 34(Suppl 1):S82–S84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2017.06.034
doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2017.06.034
pubmed: 28673535
Santoro S, Loreti A, Cavaliere F, Costarelli L, La Pinta M, Manna E et al (2015) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is not a contraindication for nipple sparing mastectomy. Breast 24(5):661–666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2015.08.001
doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2015.08.001
pubmed: 26343944
Agresti R, Sandri M, Gennaro M, Bianchi G, Maugeri I, Rampa M et al (2017) Evaluation of local oncologic safety in nipple-areola complex-sparing mastectomy after primary chemotherapy: a propensity score-matched study. Clin Breast Cancer 17(3):219–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2016.12.003
doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2016.12.003
pubmed: 28087389
Li H, Yao L, Jin P, Hu L, Li X, Guo T et al (2018) MRI and PET/CT for evaluation of the pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast 40:106–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2018.04.018
doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2018.04.018
pubmed: 29758503
Londero V, Bazzocchi M, Del Frate C, Puglisi F, Di Loreto C, Di Loreto C, Francescutti G et al (2004) Locally advanced breast cancer: comparison of mammography, sonography and MR imaging in evaluation of residual disease in women receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur Radiol 14(8):1371–1379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-004-2246-z
doi: 10.1007/s00330-004-2246-z
pubmed: 14986052
Mota BS, Riera R, Ricci MD, Barrett J, de Castria TB, Atallah ÁN et al (2016) Nipple- and areola-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 11(11):CD008932
pubmed: 27898991
Esgueva AJ, Noordhoek I, Kranenbarg EM, Espinosa-Bravo M, Mátrai Z, Zhygulin A et al (2022) Health-related quality of life after nipple-sparing mastectomy: results from the INSPIRE registry. Ann Surg Oncol 29(3):1722–1734. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-021-10930-1
doi: 10.1245/s10434-021-10930-1
pubmed: 34748122
Yoon-Flannery K, DeStefano LM, De La Cruz LM, Fisher CS, Lin LY, Coffua LS et al (2018) Quality of life and sexual well-being after nipple sparing mastectomy: a matched comparison of patients using the breast Q. J Surg Oncol 118(1):238–242. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.25107
doi: 10.1002/jso.25107
pubmed: 30114323
Moon JY, Chang YW, Lee EH, Seo DY (2013) Malignant invasion of the nipple-areolar complex of the breast: usefulness of breast MRI. Am J Roentgenol 201(2):448–455. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.9186
doi: 10.2214/AJR.12.9186
Zhang H, Li Y, Moran MS, Haffty BG, Yang Q (2015) Predictive factors of nipple involvement in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 151(2):239–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-015-3385-4
doi: 10.1007/s10549-015-3385-4
pubmed: 25893590
Frey JD, Salibian AA, Lee J, Harris K, Axelrod DM, Guth AA et al (2019) Oncologic trends, outcomes, and risk factors for locoregional recurrence: an analysis of tumor-to-nipple distance and critical factors in therapeutic nipple-sparing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 143(6):1575–1585. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000005600
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000005600
pubmed: 30907805
D’Alonzo M, Martincich L, Biglia N, Pisacane A, Maggiorotto F, Rosa GD et al (2012) Clinical and radiological predictors of nipple-areola complex involvement in breast cancer patients. Eur J Cancer 48(15):2311–2318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2012.04.017
doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.04.017
pubmed: 22647686
Ponzone R, Maggiorotto F, Carabalona S, Rivolin A, Pisacane A, Kubatzki F et al (2015) MRI and intraoperative pathology to predict nipple-areola complex (NAC) involvement in patients undergoing NAC-sparing mastectomy. Eur J Cancer 51(14):1882–1889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2015.07.001
doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2015.07.001
pubmed: 26210374
Bae SJ, Cha YJ, Eun NL, Ji JH, Kim D, Lee J et al (2021) Diagnostic accuracy of nonmass enhancement at breast MRI in predicting tumor involvement of the nipple: a prospective study in a single institution. Radiology 301(1):47–56. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2021204136
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2021204136
pubmed: 34254854
Bae SJ, Ahn SG, Park EJ, Eun NL, Kim JH, Ji JH et al (2023) Resolution of nonmass enhancement extension to the nipple at breast MRI after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: pathologic response and feasibility for nipple-sparing mastectomy. Radiology 307(2):e221777. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.221777
doi: 10.1148/radiol.221777
pubmed: 36749210
Kalli S, Freer PE, Rafferty EA (2010) Lesions of the skin and superficial tissue at breast MR imaging. Radiographics 30(7):1891–1913. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.307105064
doi: 10.1148/rg.307105064
pubmed: 21057126
Liberman L, Breast MRI (2005) Diagnosis and intervention. Springer Science+Business Media Inc, New York
Nicholson BT, Harvey JA, Cohen MA (2009) Nipple-areolar complex: normal anatomy and benign and malignant processes. Radiographics 29(2):509–523. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.292085128
doi: 10.1148/rg.292085128
pubmed: 19325062
Zaborowski AM, Roe S, Rothwell J, Evoy D, Geraghty J, McCartan D et al (2023) A systematic review of oncological outcomes after nipple-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer. J Surg Oncol 127:361–368. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.27115
doi: 10.1002/jso.27115
pubmed: 36208279
Morales Piato JR, Aguiar FN, Mota BS et al (2015) Improved frozen section examination of the retroareolar margin for prediction of nipple involvement in breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 41:986–990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2015.04.019
doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2015.04.019
pubmed: 26002985