Oncologic Outcomes in Nipple-sparing Mastectomy with Immediate Reconstruction and Total Mastectomy with Immediate Reconstruction in Women with Breast Cancer: A Machine-Learning Analysis.
Journal
Annals of surgical oncology
ISSN: 1534-4681
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9420840
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2023
Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
14
02
2023
accepted:
03
07
2023
medline:
12
10
2023
pubmed:
17
8
2023
entrez:
16
8
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study used a single-institution cohort, the Severance dataset, validated the results by using the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) database, adjusted with propensity-score matching (PSM), and analyzed by using a machine learning method. To determine whether the 5-year, disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) of patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) with immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) are not inferior to those of women treated with total mastectomy/skin-sparing mastectomy (TM/SSM). The Severance dataset enrolled 611 patients with early, invasive breast cancer from 2010 to 2017. The SEER dataset contained data for 485,245 patients undergoing TM and 14,770 patients undergoing NSM between 2000 and 2018. All patients underwent mastectomy and IBR. Intraoperative, frozen-section biopsy for the retro-areolar tissue was performed in the NSM group. The SEER dataset was extracted by using operation types, including TM/SSM and NSM. The primary outcome was DFS for the Severance dataset and OS for the SEER dataset. PSM analysis was applied. Survival outcomes were analyzed by using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazard (Cox PH) regression model. We implemented XGBSE to predict mortality with high accuracy and evaluated model prediction performance using a concordance index. The final model inspected the impact of relevant predictors on the model output using shapley additive explanation (SHAP) values. In the Severance dataset, 151 patients underwent NSM with IBR and 460 patients underwent TM/SSM with IBR. No significant differences were found between the groups. In multivariate analysis, NSM was not associated with reduced oncologic outcomes. The same results were observed in PSM analysis. In the SEER dataset, according to the SHAP values, the individual feature contribution suggested that AJCC stage ranks first. Analyses from the two datasets confirmed no impact on survival outcomes from the two surgical methods. NSM with IBR is a safe and feasible procedure in terms of oncologic outcomes. Analysis using machine learning methods can be successfully applied to identify significant risk factors for oncologic outcomes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
This study used a single-institution cohort, the Severance dataset, validated the results by using the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) database, adjusted with propensity-score matching (PSM), and analyzed by using a machine learning method. To determine whether the 5-year, disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) of patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) with immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) are not inferior to those of women treated with total mastectomy/skin-sparing mastectomy (TM/SSM).
METHODS
METHODS
The Severance dataset enrolled 611 patients with early, invasive breast cancer from 2010 to 2017. The SEER dataset contained data for 485,245 patients undergoing TM and 14,770 patients undergoing NSM between 2000 and 2018. All patients underwent mastectomy and IBR. Intraoperative, frozen-section biopsy for the retro-areolar tissue was performed in the NSM group. The SEER dataset was extracted by using operation types, including TM/SSM and NSM. The primary outcome was DFS for the Severance dataset and OS for the SEER dataset. PSM analysis was applied. Survival outcomes were analyzed by using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazard (Cox PH) regression model. We implemented XGBSE to predict mortality with high accuracy and evaluated model prediction performance using a concordance index. The final model inspected the impact of relevant predictors on the model output using shapley additive explanation (SHAP) values.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In the Severance dataset, 151 patients underwent NSM with IBR and 460 patients underwent TM/SSM with IBR. No significant differences were found between the groups. In multivariate analysis, NSM was not associated with reduced oncologic outcomes. The same results were observed in PSM analysis. In the SEER dataset, according to the SHAP values, the individual feature contribution suggested that AJCC stage ranks first. Analyses from the two datasets confirmed no impact on survival outcomes from the two surgical methods.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
NSM with IBR is a safe and feasible procedure in terms of oncologic outcomes. Analysis using machine learning methods can be successfully applied to identify significant risk factors for oncologic outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37587360
doi: 10.1245/s10434-023-13963-w
pii: 10.1245/s10434-023-13963-w
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
7281-7290Informations de copyright
© 2023. Society of Surgical Oncology.
Références
Freeman BS. Subcutaneous mastectomy for benign breast lesions with immediate or delayed prosthetic replacement. Plast Reconstr Surg Transplant Bull. 1962;30:676–82. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-196212000-00008 .
doi: 10.1097/00006534-196212000-00008
pubmed: 13959443
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.
doi: 10.1097/00006534-199106000-00006
pubmed: 1852020
Agha RA, Al Omran Y, Wellstead G, et al. Systematic review of therapeutic nipple-sparing versus skin-sparing mastectomy. BJS Open. 2019;3(2):135–45. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs5.50119 .
doi: 10.1002/bjs5.50119
pubmed: 30957059
Bailey CR, Ogbuagu O, Baltodano PA, et al. Quality-of-life outcomes improve with nipple-sparing mastectomy and breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(2):219–26. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000003505 .
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000003505
pubmed: 28746266
Sherman KA, Woon S, French J, Elder E. Body image and psychological distress in nipple-sparing mastectomy: the roles of self-compassion and appearance investment. Psychooncology. 2017;26(3):337–45. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.4138 .
doi: 10.1002/pon.4138
pubmed: 27167009
Gerber B, Krause A, Dieterich M, Kundt G, Reimer T. The oncological safety of skin sparing mastectomy with conservation of the nipple-areola complex and autologous reconstruction: an extended follow-up study. Ann Surg. 2009;249(3):461–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31819a044f .
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31819a044f
pubmed: 19247035
Peled AW, Duralde E, Foster RD, et al. Patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction after total skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate expander-implant reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2014;72(Suppl 1):S48-52. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000000020 .
doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000000020
pubmed: 24317238
NCCN.org. (2021) NCCN. Version 5; 2021, pp. 1–245.
Mota BS, Riera R, Ricci MD, et al. Nipple- and areola-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008932.pub3 .
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008932.pub3
pubmed: 27898991
pmcid: 5868722
Han W, Lee HB. Recurrence at the nipple-areola complex and safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy. JAMA Surg. 2020;155(4):364–5. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2019.5477 .
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2019.5477
pubmed: 31968062
Conde DM, Torresan RZ. Nipple-sparing mastectomy: what is the frontier between oncologic safety and cosmetic outcome? J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2013;66(5):734–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2012.12.014 .
doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2012.12.014
pubmed: 23294834
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 .
doi: 10.1245/s10434-015-4739-1
pubmed: 26242363
Benediktsson KP, Perbeck L. Survival in breast cancer after nipple-sparing subcutaneous mastectomy and immediate reconstruction with implants: a prospective trial with 13 years median follow-up in 216 patients. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2008;34(2):143–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2007.06.010 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2007.06.010
pubmed: 17709228
Wu ZY, Kim HJ, Lee JW, et al. Long-term oncologic outcomes of immediate breast reconstruction vs. conventional mastectomy alone for breast cancer in the setting of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. JAMA Surg. 2020;155(12):1142–50. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2020.4132 .
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.4132
pubmed: 33052412
pmcid: 7557719
Kim HJ, Park EH, Lim WS, et al. Nipple areola skin-sparing mastectomy with immediate transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap reconstruction is an oncologically safe procedure: a single center study. Ann Surg. 2010;251(3):493–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181c5dc4e .
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181c5dc4e
pubmed: 20134317
Headon HL, Kasem A, Mokbel K. The oncological safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy: a systematic review of the literature with a pooled analysis of 12,358 procedures. Arch Plast Surg. 2016;43(4):328–38. https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2016.43.4.328 .
doi: 10.5999/aps.2016.43.4.328
pubmed: 27462565
pmcid: 4959975
Weissler EH, Naumann T, Andersson T, et al. The role of machine learning in clinical research: transforming the future of evidence generation. Trials. 2021;22(1):537. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05489-x .
doi: 10.1186/s13063-021-05489-x
pubmed: 34399832
pmcid: 8365941
Zhang MJ. Cox proportional hazards regression models for survival data in cancer research. Cancer Treat Res. 2002;113:59–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3571-0_4 .
doi: 10.1007/978-1-4757-3571-0_4
pubmed: 12613350
Won SY, Park HS, Kim EK, et al. Survival rates of breast cancer patients aged 40 to 49 years according to detection modality in Korea: screening ultrasound versus mammography. Korean J Radiol. 2021;22(2):159–67. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2019.0588 .
doi: 10.3348/kjr.2019.0588
pubmed: 32901456
Chen T, Guestrin C. XGBoost: a scalable tree boosting system. Presented at: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining; 2016; San Francisco, California, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939785 .
Team. LDS. XGBSE: XGBoost survival embeddings. https://github.com/loft-br/xgboost-survival-embeddings22 . Accessed 30 Mar 2021.
Wu ZY, Han HH, Kim HJ, et al. A propensity score-matched analysis of long-term oncologic outcomes after nipple-sparing versus conventional mastectomy for locally advanced breast cancer. Ann Surg. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000004416 .
doi: 10.1097/sla.0000000000004416
pubmed: 33214465
Paepke S, Schmid R, Fleckner S, et al. Subcutaneous mastectomy with conservation of the nipple-areola skin: Broadening the indications. Ann Surg. 2009;250(2):288–92. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b0c7d8 .
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b0c7d8
pubmed: 19638905
Mallon P, Feron JG, Couturaud B, et al. The role of nipple-sparing mastectomy in breast cancer: a comprehensive review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131(5):969–84. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182865a3c .
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182865a3c
pubmed: 23629079
Kim S, Lee S, Bae Y, Lee S. Nipple-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer close to the nipple: a single institution’s 11-year experience. Breast Cancer. 2020;27(5):999–1006. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-020-01104-0 .
doi: 10.1007/s12282-020-01104-0
pubmed: 32372321
Alsharif E, Ryu JM, Choi HJ, et al. Oncologic outcomes of nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction in patients with tumor-nipple distance less than 2.0 cm. J Breast Cancer. 2019;22(4):613–23. https://doi.org/10.4048/jbc.2019.22.e48 .
doi: 10.4048/jbc.2019.22.e48
pubmed: 31897334
pmcid: 6933026
Wu ZY, Kim HJ, Lee JW, et al. Breast cancer recurrence in the nipple-areola complex after nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction for invasive breast cancer. JAMA Surg. 2019;154(11):1030–7. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2019.2959 .
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2019.2959
pubmed: 31461141
pmcid: 6714008
Jensen JA, Orringer JS, Giuliano AE. Nipple-sparing mastectomy in 99 patients with a mean follow-up of 5 years. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(6):1665–70. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-010-1475-4 .
doi: 10.1245/s10434-010-1475-4
pubmed: 21174155
Wang F, Peled AW, Garwood E, et al. Total skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction: an evolution of technique and assessment of outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(10):3223–30. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-3915-z .
doi: 10.1245/s10434-014-3915-z
pubmed: 25052246