ArticleRevista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia2022
Oncological Outcomes of Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy in an Unselected Population Evaluated in a Single Center.
Article in Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- National Survey on Attitudes of Brazilian Breast Surgeons Regarding Oncoplastic Surgery: Success of a Training Model.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Immediate prepectoral versus submuscular breast reconstruction in nipple-sparing mastectomy: a retrospective cohort analysis.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2024Article
- Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy for Early Breast Cancer: Less is More?Annals of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- Inframammary versus Periareolar Incision: A Comparison of Early Complications in Nipple-sparing Mastectomy.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveNipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) has been traditionally used in selected cases with tumor-to-nipple distance > 2 cm and negative frozen section of the base of the nipple. Recommending NSM in unselected populations remains controversial. The present study evaluated the oncological outcomes of patients submitted to NSM in an unselected population seen at a single center.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included unselected patients with invasive carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) who underwent NSM in 2010 to 2020. The endpoints were locoregional recurrence, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS), irrespective of tumor size or tumor-to-nipple distance.
resultsSeventy-six patients (mean age 46.1 years) (58 invasive carcinomas/18 DCIS) were included. The most invasive carcinomas were hormone-positive (60%) (HER2 overexpression: 24%; triple-negative: 16%), while 39% of DCIS were high-grade. Invasive carcinomas were T2 in 66% of cases, with axillary metastases in 38%. Surgical margins were all negative. All patients with invasive carcinoma received systemic treatment and 38% underwent radiotherapy. After a mean of 34.8 months, 3 patients with invasive carcinoma (5.1%) and 1 with DCIS (5.5%) had local recurrence. Two patients had distant metastasis and died during follow-up. The 5-year OS and DFS rates for invasive carcinoma were 98% and 83%, respectively.
conclusionIn unselected cases, the 5-year oncological outcomes following NSM were found to be acceptable and comparable to previous reports. Further studies are required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.