Clinical and morphological factors predictive of occult involvement of the nipple-areola complex in mastectomy specimens

European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology

Volumn 148, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 177-181

  Pirozzi, Paulo R ^a   Rossetti, Claudia ^a   Carelli, Ivo ^a   Ruiz, Carlos A ^b   Pompei, Luciano M ^a   Piato, Sebastião ^c  

^a FACULDADE DE MEDICINA DO ABC   (Brazil)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SÃO PAULO   (Brazil)

^c Medical School of Santa Casa of Sao Paulo SP   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Breast reconstruction; Mastectomy; Nipple areola complex; Occult nipple involvement

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST AREOLA; BREAST TUMOR; CANCER INVASION; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL EVALUATION; CLINICAL FEATURE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE SEVERITY; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASTECTOMY; MORPHOLOGY; PREDICTOR VARIABLE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TUMOR VOLUME;

EID: 73749083539     PISSN: 03012115     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.10.021     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Gerber B., Krause A., Reimer T., et al. Skin-sparing mastectomy with conservation of the nipple-areola complex and autologous reconstruction is an oncologically safe procedure?. Ann Surg 238 (2003) 120-127
2. Crowe Jr. J.P., Kim J.A., Yetman R., Banbury J., Patrick R.J., and Baynes D. Nipple-sparing mastectomy: technique and results of 54 procedures. Arch Surg 139 (2004) 148-150
3. Fersis N., Hoenig A., Relakis K., Pinis S., and WallwIener D. Skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction: incidence of recurrence in patients with invasive breast cancer. Breast 13 (2004) 488-493
4. Wellings S.R. A hypothesis of the origin of human breast cancer from the terminal ductal lobular unit. Pathol Res Pract 166 (1980) 515-535
5. Jensen J.A. When can the nipple-areola complex safely be spared during mastectomy?. Plast Reconstr Surg 109 (2002) 805-807
6. Laronga C., Kemp B., Johnston D., Robb G.L., and Singletary S.E. The incidence of occult nipple-areola complex involvement in breast cancer patients receiving a skin-sparing mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 6 (1999) 609-613
7. Caruso F., Ferrara M., Castiglione G., et al. Nipple sparing subcutaneous mastectomy: sixty-six months follow-up. Eur J Surg Oncol 32 (2006) 937-940
8. Benediktsson K.P., and 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 34 (2008) 143-148
9. Vlajcic Z., Zic R., Stanec S., Lambasa S., Petrovecki M., and Stanec Z. Nipple-areola complex preservation: predictive factors of neoplastic nipple-areola complex invasion. Ann Plast Surg 55 (2005) 240-244
10. Schecter A.K., Fremman M.B., Giri D., Sabo E., and Weinzweig J. Applicability of the nipple-areola complex-sparing mastectomy: a prediction model using mammography to estimate risk of nipple-areola complex involvement in breast cancer patients. Ann Plast Surg 56 (2006) 498-504
11. Loewen M.J., Jennings J.A., Sherman S.R., et al. Mammographic distance as a predictor of nipple-areola complex involvement in breast cancer. Am J Surg 195 (2008) 391-395
12. Lambert P.A., Kolm P., and Perry R.R. Parameters that predict nipple involvement in breast cancer. J Am Coll Surg 191 (2000) 354-359
13. Vyas J.J., Chinoy R.F., and Vaidya J.S. Prediction of nipple and areola involvement in breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 24 (1998) 15-16
14. Dzierzanowski M., Melville K.A., Barnes P.J., Macintosh R.F., Caines J.S., and Porter G.A. Ductal carcinoma in situ in core biopsies containing invasive breast cancer: correlation with extensive intraductal component and lumpectomy margins. J Surg Oncol 90 (2005) 71-76
15. Elston C.W., and Ellis I.O. Pathological prognostic factors in breast câncer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 19 (1991) 403-410
16. Dabbs D.J. Ductal carcinoma of breast: nuclear grade as a predictor of S-phase fraction. Hum Pathol 24 (1993) 652-656
17. Kissin M.W., and Kark A.E. Nipple preservation during mastectomy. Br J Surg 74 (1987) 58-61
18. Bishop C.C., Singh S., and Nash A.G. Mastectomy and breast reconstruction preserving the nipple. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 72 (1990) 87-89
19. Hashimoto B.E., Morgan G.N., Kramer D.J., and Lee M. Systematic approach to difficult problems in breast sonography. Ultrasound Q 24 1 (2008) 31-38
20. Cooney C.S., Khouri N.F., and Tsangaris T.N. The role of breast MRI in the management of patients with breast disease. Adv Surg 42 (2008) 299-312
21. Katipamula R., Degnim A.C., Hoskin T., et al. Trends in mastectomy rates at the Mayo Clinic Rochester: effect of surgical year and preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. J Clin Oncol 27 25 (2009) 4082-4088
22. Bleicher R.J., Ciocca R.M., Egleston B.L., et al. Association of routine pretreatment magnetic resonance imaging with time to surgery, mastectomy rate, and margin status. J Am Coll Surg 209 2 (2009) 180-187
23. Schell A.M., Rosenkranz K., and Lewis P.J. Role of breast MRI in the preoperative evaluation of patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192 5 (2009) 1438-1444
24. Siegmann K.C., Baur A., Vogel U., et al. Risk-benefit analysis of preoperative breast MRI in patients with primary breast cancer. Clin Radiol 64 4 (2009) 403-413
25. Pediconi F., Catalano C., Roselli A., et al. The challenge of imaging dense breast parenchyma: is magnetic resonance mammography the technique of choice? A comparative study with X-ray mammography and whole-breast ultrasound. Invest Radiol 44 7 (2009) 412-421
26. Lehman C.D., DeMartini W., Anderson B.O., and Edge S.B. Indications for breast MRI in the patient with newly diagnosed breast cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 7 2 (2009) 193-201