CClinicalTrials.gg
Status unknownNCT04037852RCENSM-PUpdated Sep 13, 2021

Robotic Versus Conventional or Endoscopic Nipple Sparing Mastectomy in the Management of Breast Cancer-Prospective Study

An interventional study of robotic assisted nipple sparing mastectomy and Endoscopic assisted nipple sparing mastectomy in Breast Cancer Female, sponsored by Changhua Christian Hospital. Status unknown at 11 sites in Taiwan. Open to female participants aged 20 Years to 70 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2021-09-13.

Sponsored by Changhua Christian Hospital · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

The sponsor has not verified this record recently (last verified Sep 2021), so the status shown — last known as Recruiting — may be out of date.
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
180
Allocation
Non-randomized
Ages
20 Years to 70 Years
Sex
Female
01

Study summary

This study will prospectively evaluate the surgical outcomes of robotic nipple sparing mastectomy (NSM) compared with endoscopic assisted NSM or conventional NSM in the management of breast cancer. One-third patients would received R-NSM, another one-third received C-NSM while the other one-third would receive E-NSM.

Read the detailed description

Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM), which preserved the nipple areolar complex (NAC) and skin flap during mastectomy, was increasingly performed in breast cancer patients due to better cosmetic outcome, higher patient satisfaction, and maintained oncologic safety.

Minimal invasive surgery had become the main stream of operations, and new surgical innovations of NSM, like endoscopic nipple sparing mastectomy (E-NSM) or robotic nipple sparing mastectomy (R-NSM), were emerging and applied in the surgical treatment of breast cancer.

E-NSM, which is performed through small axillary and/or peri-areolar incisions, was reported to be associated with small inconspicuous incision and good cosmetic outcome. Conventional E-NSM was performed with two separate incisions over axilla and peri-areolar regions. E-NSM with areolar incision, just like NSM with areolar related incision (NAC ischemia/necrosis rate: range 7%-81.8%), was associated with increased NAC ischemia/necrosis (reported ranged: 9.1-19%). New technique modifications of E-NSM were emerging focusing on single axillary incision NSM, which spare the peri-areolar incision and thereby decrease the compromise of bloody supply from mastectomy skin flap, was reported to have low NAC necrosis rate (0%).

However, the 2-dimensional endoscopic in-line camera produces an inconsistent optical window around the curvature of the breast skin flap, and the internal mobility was limited and the dissection angles were inadequate with traditional endoscopic rigid tips instruments through single access. Due to the limitations of endoscopy instruments and technique difficulty, neither conventional E-NSM nor single access E-NSM was widespread used in breast cancer

R-NSM, which introduce da Vinci surgical platform through a small extra-mammary axillary or lateral chest wound to perform NSM, had been applied in the surgical treatment of early breast cancer or risk reducing mastectomy. R-NSM, which incorporated 3-dimensional (3D) imaging system and flexibility of robotic arm and instruments, was reported to have the potential to overcome the technique difficulty of E-NSM.

The preliminary results of R-NSM from current reported series and ours were safe, and associated with good cosmetic outcome and high patients' satisfaction. However, evidence comparing R-NSM to conventional NSM (C-NSM) or E-NSM was lacking.

In this study, the authors aim to investigate and analyze the clinical and aesthetic outcomes as well as the cost effectiveness of R-NSM through a prospective cohort of patients undergoing R-NSM, E-NSM or C-NSM.

02

Conditions studied

  • Breast Cancer Female

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • nipple sparing mastectomy
  • robotic nipple sparing mastectomy (R-NSM)
  • conventional nipple sparing mastectomy (C-NSM)
  • endoscopic assisted nipple sparing mastectomy (E-NSM)
  • immediate breast reconstruction (IBR)
  • immediate prothesis breast reconstruction (IPBR)
03

In context

Breast Neoplasms

12,544 studies on the registry are indexed under Breast Neoplasms; 2,892 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 180 is above the median of 72 across 9,303 interventional studies indexed under Breast Neoplasms.

Browse Breast Neoplasms studies →

Lead sponsor

Changhua Christian Hospital is the lead sponsor of 74 studies on the registry; 10 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
20 Years to 70 Years
Sexes eligible
Female
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • A. Indications and selection criteria for nipple sparing mastectomy (NSM) in general and conventional nipple sparing mastectomy (C-NSM)
  • NSM will be offered to patients who are suitable for mastectomy but keen to conserve nipple areolar complex (NAC), with or without reconstruction. Patients must not have clinical or radiological involvement of the NAC. Patients with nipple involvement proven via intra-operative frozen section analysis will receive NAC excision and hence a skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) performed instead.

B. Indications and selection criteria for robotic nipple sparing mastectomy (R-NSM) or endoscopic nipple sparing mastectomy (E-NSM)

  • The general inclusion criteria or pre-requisite for nipple sparing mastectomy apply to R-NSM or E-NSM as well.
  • In addition, R-NSM or E-NSM should only include early stage breast cancer (carcinoma in situ, stage I - IIIA), a tumor size less than 5 cm, no evidence of multiple lymph node metastasis, and no evidence of nipple, skin or chest wall invasion.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

    • Contraindications for R-NSM, C-NSM or E-NSM include those with apparent NAC involvement, inflammatory breast cancer, breast cancer with chest wall or skin invasion, locally advanced breast cancer, breast cancer with extensive axillary lymph node metastasis (stage III B or later), and patients with severe co-morbid conditions, such as heart disease, renal failure, liver dysfunction, and poor performance status as assessed by the primary physicians
  • Relative contraindications include women with large (breast cup size larger than E or breast mastectomy weight >600gm) or ptotic breast as the aesthetic outcomes may be suboptimal.
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Non-randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
180 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Robotic assisted nipple sparing mastectomy (R-NSM)

    R-NSM, which introduce da Vinci surgical platform through a small extra-mammary axillary or lateral chest wound to perform NSM.

    Device: robotic assisted nipple sparing mastectomy

  • Active comparator
    Conventional nipple sparing mastectomy (C-NSM)

    Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM), which preserved the nipple areolar complex (NAC) and skin flap during mastectomy.

    Procedure: Conventional nipple sparing mastectomy

  • Active comparator
    Endoscopic assisted nipple sparing mastectomy (E-NSM)

    E-NSM, which is performed through small axillary and/or peri-areolar incisions, with endoscopic instruments to performed nipple sparing mastectomy.

    Procedure: Endoscopic assisted nipple sparing mastectomy

Interventions

  • Devicerobotic assisted nipple sparing mastectomy

    R-NSM, which introduce da Vinci surgical platform through a small extra-mammary axillary or lateral chest wound to perform NSM, had been applied in the surgical treatment of early breast cancer or risk reducing mastectomy. R-NSM, which incorporated 3-dimensional (3D) imaging system and flexibility of robotic arm and instruments, was reported to have the potential to overcome the technique difficulty of E-NSM.

  • ProcedureEndoscopic assisted nipple sparing mastectomy

    E-NSM, which is performed through small axillary and/or peri-areolar incisions, was reported to be associated with small inconspicuous incision and good cosmetic outcome. Conventional E-NSM was performed with two separate incisions over axilla and peri-areolar regions. E-NSM with areolar incision, just like NSM with areolar related incision (NAC ischemia/necrosis rate: range 7%-81.8%), was associated with increased NAC ischemia/necrosis (reported ranged: 9.1-19%). New technique modifications of E-NSM were emerging focusing on single axillary incision NSM, which spare the peri-areolar incision and thereby decrease the compromise of bloody supply from mastectomy skin flap, was reported to have low NAC necrosis rate (0%).

  • ProcedureConventional nipple sparing mastectomy

    Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM), which preserved the nipple areolar complex (NAC) and skin flap during mastectomy, was increasingly performed in breast cancer patients due to better cosmetic outcome, higher patient satisfaction, and maintained oncologic safety.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Operation time

    Overall operation time (minute), including breast cancer operations, lymph node surgery, and breast reconstructions

    Time frame: immediate post operation

  2. Morbidity and complications

    Delayed wound healing, degree of nipple ischemia/necrosis, seroma formation needing repeated aspiration, Blister formation, Skin flap ischemia necrosis, Hematoma formation, Implant loss will be collected and analyzed between different R-NSM, C-NSM and E-NSM groups.

    Time frame: within one month (30 days) post operation

  3. Nipple areolar complex ischemia/necrosis grading

    To evaluate the post-operative perfusion and survival of nipple areolar complex (NAC), a grading system was used in current study. The perfusion of NAC was evaluated in 2 weeks to 3 months post operation. The survival of NAC was confirmed at post-operative 3 months. The NAC ischemia/necrosis was divided into 5 different grades, which were: 1. No ischemia/necrosis was observed in NAC (Grade I). 2. Transient ischemia recovered without necrosis (Grade II). 3. Partial ischemia/necrosis, recovered without loss of nipple volume (Grade III). 4. Partial NAC necrosis with partial volume loss of nipple (Grade IV). 5. Total NAC necrosis with all volume loss of nipple (Grade V). NAC ischemia/necrosis was segregated into no NAC necrosis (Grade I-III) and NAC necrosis (Grade IV-V). The ischemia/necrosis of NAC between different R-NSM, C-NSM and E-NSM groups were recorded and compared.

    Time frame: evaluated in post operative 2 weeks to 3 months post operation

  4. Surgical margin involvement

    Surgical margin involvement was defined as tumor on the ink. The postoperative adjuvant hormone therapy, chemotherapy and radiotherapy were given to patients according to current breast cancer guidelines.

    Time frame: post operative 2 weeks after pathologic report available

  5. Aesthetic outcome evaluation-Patient reported cosmetic outcome results

    - Post-operative aesthetic results will be evaluated by comparing pre-operative and post-operative results. A self-reported questionnaire to evaluate the cosmetic outcome of breast cancer patients with mastectomy following breast reconstruction was conducted 1-3 months after the operation. This questionnaire comprises of 10 questions based on 4 itemized scales, which will be graded as "1, dis-satisfied", "2, fair", "3, satisfied", and "4, very satisfied".

    Time frame: 1-3 months after the operation when the wound was healed

  6. Blood loss during operations

    Blood loss (ml) from skin incision to completion of operations

    Time frame: immediate post operation

  7. Hospital stay

    Hospital stay (days) during operation period, recorded from admission to day of discharge at the breast cancer operation.

    Time frame: within 2 weeks of operation

  8. Resection mastectomy weight

    Mean mastectomy weight (gm) of patients received different mastectomy operations

    Time frame: immediate post operation

  9. Reconstruction implant volume

    Reconstruction implant volume (ml)

    Time frame: immediate post operation

  10. Pain assessments

    Pain assessments will also be collected as part of the post-operative parameters. Visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain assessments will be used in this study (range from 0 to 10 points, 0 indicate no pain, 10 indicate maximal pain ever experienced). VAS for pain per day would be recorded very day and compared.

    Time frame: within post operation two weeks

Secondary outcomes

  1. Cost- analysis of C-NSM versus R-NSM or E-NSM

    The medical cost associated with robotic versus conventional or endoscopic assisted NSM will be collected and compared. The medical cost incurred for each procedure include overall hospital cost. Information on surgery-related expenses will obtained from the finance department of the institution. In Taiwan, the operation fees of breast reconstruction and robotic breast surgery are not reimbursed by national insurance. * The medical cost covered by national insurance include operations fee for breast cancer and/or axillary lymph node surgery, anesthesia, admission fee, and all other medical related expenses. * The medical cost not reimbursed by national insurance, and needed to be paid for by patients include fees for breast reconstruction, robotic breast surgery, endoscopic breast surgery, instruments and prosthetic implants. * Cost is expressed in New Taiwan dollars (NTDs) and in United States dollars (USDs). An exchange rate of 31 NTD/USD was used to convert NTD to USD.

    Time frame: post operation one month

  2. Disease free survival

    any local regional recurrence, or distant metastasis was recorded as an event. Disease free survival would be compared between R-NSM, C-NSM and E-NSM groups

    Time frame: 5 years post operation

  3. Overall Survival

    overall survival would be compared between R-NSM, C-NSM and E-NSM groups

    Time frame: 5 years post operation

07

Study locations

11 of 11 sites recruiting
  • Changhua Christian Hospital
    Changhua, 500, Taiwan
    • Hung-Wen Lai, MD, PhD · Contact · hwlai650420@yahoo.com.tw · +886933496822
    • Hung-Wen Lai, MD, PhD · Principal investigator
    • Shou-Tung Chen, MD · Sub investigator
    • Dar-Ren Chen, MD · Sub investigator
    Recruiting
  • Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
    Kaohsiung, Taiwan
    • Fu Ou-Yang, MD, PhD · Contact · kmufrank@gmail.com
    • Fang-Ming Chen, MD, PhD · Contact · fchen@kmu.edu.tw
    • Fu Ou-Yang · Principal investigator
    • Fang-Ming Chen · Principal investigator
    Recruiting
  • China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan
    Taichung, Taiwan
    • Liang-Chih Liu, MD, PhD · Contact · dr0363@yahoo.com.tw · +886929034008
    • Liang-Chih Liu, MD, PhD · Principal investigator
    Recruiting
  • National Cheng Kung University Hospital
    Tainan, Taiwan
    • Yao-Lung Kuo, MD, PhD · Contact · ylkuo@mail.ncku.edu.tw · +88662353535
    • Yao-Lung Kuo, MD, PhD · Principal investigator
    Recruiting
  • National Taiwan University Hospital
    Taipei, Taiwan
    • Chiun-Sheng Huang, MD, PhD · Contact · huangcs@ntu.edu.tw
    • Chiun-Sheng Huang, MD, PhD · Principal investigator
    Recruiting
  • Shin Kong Wu Ho-Su Memorial Hospital
    Taipei, Taiwan
    • Tsui-Fen Cheng, MD, MPH · Contact · Sgtw88@gmail.com · +886228332211
    • Tsui-Fen Cheng, MD, MPH · Principal investigator
    Recruiting
  • Shuang-Ho Hospital - Taipei Medical University
    Taipei, Taiwan
    • Chin-sheng Hung, MD, PhD · Contact · hungcs@tmu.edu.tw · +886-2-27372181
    • Chin-sheng Hung, MD, PhD · Principal investigator
    Recruiting
  • Taipei Municipal Wan Fang Hospital, Tawian
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Recruiting
  • Taipei Veterans General Hospital
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Recruiting
  • Tri-Service General Hospital
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Recruiting
  • Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan
    Taoyuan, Taiwan
    • Wen-Ling Kuo, MD, PhD · Contact · sylvie5285@gmail.com · +88633281200
    • Hsiu-Pei Tsai, MD · Contact · tsaihp@cgmh.org.tw · +88633281200
    • Wen-Ling Kuo, MD, PhD · Principal investigator
    • Hsiu-Pei Tsai, MD · Sub investigator
    Recruiting
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Petit JY, Veronesi U, Luini A, Orecchia R, Rey PC, Martella S, Didier F, De Lorenzi F, Rietjens M, Garusi C, Sonzogni A, Galimberti V, Leida E, Lazzari R, Giraldo A. When mastectomy becomes inevitable: the nipple-sparing approach. Breast. 2005 Dec;14(6):527-31. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2005.08.028. Epub 2005 Oct 12. PubMed 16226028 ↗
  • Leff DR, Vashisht R, Yongue G, Keshtgar M, Yang GZ, Darzi A. Endoscopic breast surgery: where are we now and what might the future hold for video-assisted breast surgery? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011 Feb;125(3):607-25. doi: 10.1007/s10549-010-1258-4. Epub 2010 Dec 3. PubMed 21128113 ↗
  • Tukenmez M, Ozden BC, Agcaoglu O, Kecer M, Ozmen V, Muslumanoglu M, Igci A. Videoendoscopic single-port nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate reconstruction. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2014 Feb;24(2):77-82. doi: 10.1089/lap.2013.0172. Epub 2014 Jan 8. PubMed 24401140 ↗
  • Toesca A, Peradze N, Galimberti V, Manconi A, Intra M, Gentilini O, Sances D, Negri D, Veronesi G, Rietjens M, Zurrida S, Luini A, Veronesi U, Veronesi P. Robotic Nipple-sparing Mastectomy and Immediate Breast Reconstruction With Implant: First Report of Surgical Technique. Ann Surg. 2017 Aug;266(2):e28-e30. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001397. No abstract available. PubMed 28692558 ↗
  • Moran MS, Schnitt SJ, Giuliano AE, Harris JR, Khan SA, Horton J, Klimberg S, Chavez-MacGregor M, Freedman G, Houssami N, Johnson PL, Morrow M. Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stages I and II invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014 Mar;21(3):704-16. doi: 10.1245/s10434-014-3481-4. Epub 2014 Feb 10. PubMed 24515565 ↗
  • Park SW, Lee TJ, Kim EK, Eom JS. Managing necrosis of the nipple-areola complex in breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy: immediate nipple-areola complex reconstruction with banked skin. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014 Jan;133(1):73e-74e. doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000436805.58165.d3. No abstract available. PubMed 24374705 ↗
  • Lai HW, Chen ST, Chen DR, Chen SL, Chang TW, Kuo SJ, Kuo YL, Hung CS. Current Trends in and Indications for Endoscopy-Assisted Breast Surgery for Breast Cancer: Results from a Six-Year Study Conducted by the Taiwan Endoscopic Breast Surgery Cooperative Group. PLoS One. 2016 Mar 7;11(3):e0150310. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0150310. eCollection 2016. PubMed 26950469 ↗
  • Lai HW, Lin SL, Chen ST, Kuok KM, Chen SL, Lin YL, Chen DR, Kuo SJ. Single-Axillary-Incision Endoscopic-Assisted Hybrid Technique for Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: Technique, Preliminary Results, and Patient-Reported Cosmetic Outcome from Preliminary 50 Procedures. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018 May;25(5):1340-1349. doi: 10.1245/s10434-018-6383-z. Epub 2018 Feb 26. PubMed 29484564 ↗
  • Sakamoto N, Fukuma E, Higa K, Ozaki S, Sakamoto M, Abe S, Kurihara T, Tozaki M. Early results of an endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009 Dec;16(12):3406-13. doi: 10.1245/s10434-009-0661-8. PubMed 19662457 ↗
  • Toesca A, Peradze N, Manconi A, Galimberti V, Intra M, Colleoni M, Bonanni B, Curigliano G, Rietjens M, Viale G, Sacchini V, Veronesi P. Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of breast cancer: Feasibility and safety study. Breast. 2017 Feb;31:51-56. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2016.10.009. Epub 2016 Nov 2. PubMed 27810700 ↗
  • Sarfati B, Struk S, Leymarie N, Honart JF, Alkhashnam H, Tran de Fremicourt K, Conversano A, Rimareix F, Simon M, Michiels S, Kolb F. Robotic Prophylactic Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy with Immediate Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction: A Prospective Study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018 Sep;25(9):2579-2586. doi: 10.1245/s10434-018-6555-x. Epub 2018 Jun 29. PubMed 29959612 ↗
  • Lai HW, Chen ST, Lin SL, Chen CJ, Lin YL, Pai SH, Chen DR, Kuo SJ. Robotic Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Immediate Breast Reconstruction with Gel Implant: Technique, Preliminary Results and Patient-Reported Cosmetic Outcome. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019 Jan;26(1):42-52. doi: 10.1245/s10434-018-6704-2. Epub 2018 Aug 14. PubMed 30109537 ↗
  • Lai HW, Wang CC, Lai YC, Chen CJ, Lin SL, Chen ST, Lin YJ, Chen DR, Kuo SJ. The learning curve of robotic nipple sparing mastectomy for breast cancer: An analysis of consecutive 39 procedures with cumulative sum plot. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019 Feb;45(2):125-133. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2018.09.021. Epub 2018 Oct 17. PubMed 30360987 ↗
  • Lai HW, Huang RH, Wu YT, Chen CJ, Chen ST, Lin YJ, Chen DR, Lee CW, Wu HK, Lin HY, Kuo SJ. Clinicopathologic factors related to surgical margin involvement, reoperation, and residual cancer in primary operable breast cancer - An analysis of 2050 patients. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018 Nov;44(11):1725-1735. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2018.07.056. Epub 2018 Aug 1. PubMed 30120037 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Sep 13, 2021, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT04037852
Lead sponsor
Changhua Christian Hospital
Collaborators
Intuitive Surgical, Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Jul 30, 2019
Start date
Oct 1, 2019
Primary completion
Dec 31, 2021 (estimated)
Completion
Feb 28, 2022 (estimated)
Last update
Sep 13, 2021

Study contacts

Hung-Wen Lai, MD, PhD
Contact
hwlai650420@yahoo.com.tw
+886933496822
Shu-Hsin Pai, MS
Contact
69584@cch.org.tw
Hung-Wen Lai, MD, PhD
principal investigator · Changhua Christian Hospital

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
Yes
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is status unknown, as verified in Sep 2021. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion