Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32432359›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of surgery2020

Use of bilateral prophylactic nipple-sparing mastectomy in patients with high risk of breast cancer.

M G Valero, T-A Moo, S Muhsen, E C Zabor, M Stempel, A Pusic, M L Gemignani, M Morrow, V Sacchini

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Counselling Framework for GermlineCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

M G ValeroBreast Service, Department of Surgery, New York, USA.
T-A MooBreast Service, Department of Surgery, New York, USA.
S MuhsenBreast Service, Department of Surgery, New York, USA.
E C ZaborBiostatistics Service, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA.
M StempelBreast Service, Department of Surgery, New York, USA.
A PusicDivision of Plastic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
M L GemignaniBreast Service, Department of Surgery, New York, USA.
M MorrowBreast Service, Department of Surgery, New York, USA.
V SacchiniBreast Service, Department of Surgery, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0409-9111
Brigham and Women's Hospital · USMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is being performed increasingly for risk reduction in high-risk groups. There are limited data regarding complications and oncological outcomes in women undergoing bilateral prophylactic NSM. This study reviewed institutional experience with prophylactic NSM, and examined the indications, rates of postoperative complications, incidence of occult malignant disease and subsequent breast cancer diagnosis.

methodsWomen who had bilateral prophylactic NSM between 2000 and 2016 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Rates of postoperative complications, incidental breast cancer, recurrence and overall survival were evaluated.

resultsA total of 192 women underwent 384 prophylactic NSMs. Indications included BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations in 117 patients (60·9 per cent), family history of breast cancer in 35 (18·2 per cent), lobular carcinoma in situ in 29 (15·1 per cent) and other reasons in 11 (5·7 per cent). Immediate breast reconstruction was performed in 191 patients. Of 384 NSMs, 116 breasts (30·2 per cent) had some evidence of skin necrosis at follow-up, which resolved spontaneously in most; only 24 breasts (6·3 per cent) required debridement. Overall, there was at least one complication in 129 breasts (33·6 per cent); 3·6 and 1·6 per cent had incidental findings of ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer respectively. The nipple-areola complex was preserved entirely in 378 mastectomies. After a median follow-up of 36·8 months, there had been no deaths and no new breast cancer diagnoses.

conclusionThese findings support the use of prophylactic NSM in high-risk patients. The nipples could be preserved in the majority of patients, postoperative complication rates were low, and, with limited follow-up, there were no new breast cancers.

Indexed as

Genetic Predisposition to DiseaseNipplesOrgan Sparing TreatmentsProphylactic MastectomyAdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Ductal, BreastCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingCarcinoma, LobularFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGenes, BRCA1Genes, BRCA2HumansIncidental Findings

Identifiers

PMID32432359
PMCPMC7938823
OpenAlexW3027256834

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.