Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40656245›Full record

ArticleCureus2025

Feasible Nipple Preservation Techniques for Breast Cancer Under the Nipple-Areolar Complex: A Case Report.

Koki Yamamoto, Shoji Oura

Abstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

2 authors.

Koki YamamotoDepartment of Surgery, Kishiwada Tokushukai Hospital, Kishiwada, JPN.
Shoji OuraDepartment of Surgery, Kishiwada Tokushukai Hospital, Kishiwada, JPN.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We present our nipple preservation techniques for breast cancer under or near the nipple-areolar complex through actual surgical procedures in a 59-year-old patient with node-negative luminal breast cancer. Our main surgical points for nipple preservation against juxta-nipple breast cancer were as follows. First, we made an extended peri-areolar incision. Second, we left the subcutaneous fat near the nipple in a thick flap manner on skin flap formation to ensure venous drainage from the nipple-areolar complex. Then, we incised the distal mammary gland with safety margins, bluntly dissected the retromammary space to manually palpate the breast cancer in order to avoid off-center resection, forwarded the mammary gland incision cranially and caudally toward the nipple, and completely skeletonized the mammary gland just under the nipple. Finally, we resected the sub-nipple mammary gland at the lactiferous level with the nipple slightly depressed below the surrounding skin by pulling the breast tissue to be resected, leading to maximal removal of the mammary gland, including some intra-nipple mammary ducts. After the pathological confirmation of negative surgical margins at the nipple base and node negativity, the patient received postoperative radiation therapy to the conserved breast and has been well for seven months on letrozole therapy. Breast surgeons should be familiar with these surgical procedures for feasible nipple preservation in juxta-nipple breast cancer.

Indexed as

breast cancer under the nipplenipple base resectionnipple preservationthick skin flapvenous return from the nipple

Identifiers

PMID40656245
PMCPMC12255872

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.