Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

Share this article on:

Evaluating the Feasibility of Extended Partial Mastectomy and Immediate Reduction Mammoplasty Reconstruction as an Alternative to Mastectomy

Chang, Edward I. MD*; Peled, Anne Warren MD*; Foster, Robert D. MD*; Lin, Cheryl MD; Zeidler, Kamakshi R. MD*; Ewing, Cheryl A. MD; Alvarado, Michael MD; Hwang, E. Shelley MD, MPH; Esserman, Laura J. MBA, MD

doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31824f9769
Original Articles

Objectives: To assess the efficacy of using concurrent partial mastectomy and reduction mammoplasty for resection of a wide range of tumor sizes and compare oncologic outcomes and postoperative complications on the basis of tumor size.

Background: Although tumor size greater than 4 cm has been considered an indication for undergoing a mastectomy, this dictum may not apply in women with breast hypertrophy, where the ratio of tumor size to breast size may still permit breast conservation. We wished to evaluate whether an approach combining partial mastectomy with reduction mammoplasty could provide a safe oncologic procedure with immediate breast reconstruction that could technically be applied even for large (>4 cm) lesions.

Methods: A retrospective review of all patients undergoing partial mastectomy and concurrent reduction mammoplasty performed at our institution from 2000 to 2009. Clinical characteristics at presentation, pathologic data, and follow-up data were collected and analyzed.

Results: Eighty-five consecutive simultaneous partial mastectomy/reduction mammoplasty procedures were performed in 79 patients. Average tumor size was 2.8 cm for ductal carcinoma in situ (0.05–17.0 cm), 2.4 cm for invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) (0.2–8.9 cm), 3.5 cm for lobular carcinoma (1.6–8.0 cm), and 5.7 cm for phyllodes tumors (3.7–7.6 cm). Twenty-five of 85 tumors (29.4%) were larger than 4 cm. Distribution for stage 0, I, II, III, and IV disease was 15, 12, 35, 19, and 2 tumors respectively, with an additional 2 phyllodes tumors. Median follow-up was 39 months (10–130 months). Seventy-five patients (94.9%) achieved successful breast conservation, whereas 4 patients (5.1%) went on to completion mastectomy. Thirteen patients (16.4%) required 1 reexcision to achieve clear margins, and 2 (2.5%) required multiple reexcisions. Two patients had a local recurrence during the follow-up period, one of whom underwent reexcision and the other underwent mastectomy. The overall complication rate was 14.1%, which included 4 major complications (4.7%) requiring an unplanned return to the operating room and need for hospital readmission, and 8 minor wound-related complications (9.4%). Neither recurrence nor complication rates were increased in patients with tumors greater than 4 cm when compared with tumors less than or equal to 4 cm.

Conclusions: A partial mastectomy with concurrent reduction mammoplasty technique is a viable option for breast conservation even for larger tumors, combining a safe oncologic procedure with excellent cosmesis. A combined effort between breast surgeons and reconstructive surgeons has a high probability of success with low recurrence rates. In carefully selected patients, this approach may be preferable to mastecomy and breast reconstruction, particularly when postmastectomy radiation therapy is anticipated.

The ability to reconstruct large partial mastectomy defects while maintaining oncologic and aesthetic outcomes has enabled us to rethink the limits of breast conservation. We present outcomes after concurrent partial mastectomy and reduction mammoplasty, demonstrating a high likelihood of achieving breast conservation, good oncologic outcomes, and low complication rates.

*Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery

Department of Surgery, Carol Franc Buck Breast Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, CA.

Reprints: Laura J. Esserman, MBA, MD, Carol Franc Buck Breast Cancer Center, 1600 Divisadero Avenue, 2nd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94115. E-mail:

E.I.C. and A.W.P. contributed equally to the manuscript.

Presented at the American Society of Breast Surgeons Annual Meeting, April 2010, Las Vegas, NV.

Presented at the California Society of Plastic Surgeons Annual Meeting, 2010, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA.

Disclosure: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

© 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.