z-logo
Premium
Preliminary results for treatment of early stage breast cancer with endoscopic subcutaneous mastectomy combined with endoscopic sentinel lymph node biopsy in China
Author(s) -
Wang ZiHan,
Qu Xiang,
Teng ChangSheng,
Ge ZhiCheng,
Zhang HuiMing,
Yuan Zhu,
Gao YinGuang,
Lu Can,
Yu JianAn,
Zhang ZhongTao
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
journal of surgical oncology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.201
H-Index - 111
eISSN - 1096-9098
pISSN - 0022-4790
DOI - 10.1002/jso.24199
Subject(s) - medicine , sentinel lymph node , stage (stratigraphy) , breast cancer , biopsy , mastectomy , surgery , cancer , lymph node , radiology , biology , paleontology
Background and Objectives To evaluate efficacy and aesthetic outcome for combined endoscopic subcutaneous mastectomy (E‐SM) and endoscopic sentinel lymph node biopsy (E‐SLNB) in early stage breast cancer patients. Methods Combined E‐SM+E‐SLNB was compared to modified radical resection in a cohort of Chinese patients (n = 49) with stages I and II breast cancer. Patient satisfaction with the aesthetic results was assessed 1 year after surgery with a 5‐item‐by‐4‐step scoring system for evaluating cosmetic outcomes. Results All patients were alive 1 year following surgery with no locoregional recurrence or distant metastases and without any critical complications. The average length of incision was less in patients receiving E‐SM+E‐SLNB (4.4 vs. 19.4 cm; P  < 0.001), but time in surgery was longer (131.6 vs. 99.2 min; P  = 0.024). After 1 year, nearly all E‐SM+E‐SLNB patients rated satisfaction with their appearance as excellent or good (23/24; 95.8% vs. 19/25; 76.0%; P  < 0.001), and exhibited less disturbance of sensory ( P  < 0.001) and motor function ( P  = 0.014) relative to modified radical resection. Conclusions E‐SM+E‐SLNB provides significant aesthetic and functional advantages for patients with early stage breast cancer without compromising medical efficacy as assessed at 16 months postsurgery. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;113:616–620 . © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here