ArticleBJS open2026
Long-term oncological outcomes after nipple-sparing mastectomy and implant-based immediate breast reconstruction in a population-based cohort of breast cancer patients.
Article in BJS open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) offers superior cosmetic and patient-reported outcomes compared with skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM), although its oncological safety remains debated. This study evaluated recurrence and survival after NSM versus SSM in women with breast cancer receiving implant-based immediate breast reconstruction (IBR).
methodsThe population-based Stockholm Breast Reconstruction Database, including all women with breast cancer who underwent implant-based IBR in Stockholm from 2005 to 2015, was reviewed. Data were collected from medical chart review and the National Quality Register for Breast Cancer. The primary outcomes were long-term local recurrence (LR) rates and overall survival (OS) after NSM versus SSM. Survival probabilities and hazard ratios (HR) with their 95% confidence interval (c.i.) were estimated with a maximum 12 years of follow-up.
resultsOf 1687 patients registered in the database, this analysis included 1594 implant-based IBRs performed in 1537 women with primary breast cancer. Of these, 86.3% (1376 breasts) had SSM and 13.7% had NSM (218 breasts). The median follow-up was 75 months for SSM and 60 months for NSM. The use of NSM increased from 7.6% in 2005-2007 to 26.6% in 2014-2015 (P < 0.001). LR occurred in 50 breasts, 13 after NSM and 37 after SSM, with a 12-year cumulative incidence of 14.1% for NSM and 3.7% for SSM (P = 0.001). Among the 13 LRs after NSM, 4 (30.8%) were localized in or beneath the nipple-areola complex. The unadjusted HR was 3.18 (95% c.i. 1.67 to 6.03) and remained significant in the multivariable analysis (HR 2.08; 95% c.i. 1.01 to 4.28). OS did not differ significantly (HR 0.74; 95% c.i. 0.38 to 1.44).
conclusionNSM was associated with an increased risk of LR compared with SSM, whereas no significant association with OS was observed. Whether these results can be attributed to more residual breast glandular tissue needs to be evaluated in further research.
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.