↓ Skip to main content

Overall Survival, Disease-Free Survival, Local Recurrence, and Nipple–Areolar Recurrence in the Setting of Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Surgical Oncology, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
228 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
141 Mendeley
Title
Overall Survival, Disease-Free Survival, Local Recurrence, and Nipple–Areolar Recurrence in the Setting of Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology, August 2015
DOI 10.1245/s10434-015-4739-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lucy De La Cruz, Alison M. Moody, Erryn E. Tappy, Stephanie A. Blankenship, Eric M. Hecht

Abstract

Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is an increasingly common procedure; however, concerns exist regarding its oncological safety due to the potential for residual breast tissue to harbor occult malignancy or future cancer. A systematic literature review was performed. Studies with internal comparison arms evaluating therapeutic NSM versus skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) and/or modified radical mastectomy (MRM) were included in a meta-analysis of overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and local recurrence (LR). Studies lacking comparison arms were only included in the systematic review to evaluate mean OS, DFS, LR, and nipple-areolar recurrence (NAR). The search yielded 851 articles. Twenty studies with 5594 patients met selection criteria. The meta-analysis included eight studies with comparison arms. Seven studies that compared OS found a 3.4 % risk difference between NSM and MRM/SSM, five studies that compared DFS found a 9.6 % risk difference between NSM and MRM/SSM, and eight studies that compared LR found a 0.4 % risk difference between NSM and MRM/SSM. Risk differences for all outcomes were not statistically significant. The systematic review included all 20 studies and evaluated OS, DFS, LR, and NAR. Studies with follow-up intervals of <3 years, 3-5 years, and >5 years had mean OS of 97.2, 97.9, and 86.8 %; DFS of 93.1, 92.3, and 76.1 %; LR of 5.4, 1.4, and 11.4 %; and NAR of 2.1, 1.0, and 3.4 %, respectively. This study did not detect adverse oncologic outcomes of NSM in carefully selected women with early-stage breast cancer. Use of prospective data registries, notably the Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy Registry, will add clarity to this important clinical question.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 141 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 138 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 10%
Student > Bachelor 13 9%
Researcher 12 9%
Student > Postgraduate 12 9%
Other 27 19%
Unknown 43 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 82 58%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 <1%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 <1%
Other 4 3%
Unknown 47 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 October 2016.
All research outputs
#3,934,172
of 22,821,814 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#1,176
of 6,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,690
of 264,147 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#18
of 126 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,821,814 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,465 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,147 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 126 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.