Pilot Study of Single-port Robot-assisted Nipple-sparing Mastectomy
A Pilot Study of Robot-assisted Nipple-sparing Mastectomy Followed by Immediate Breast Reconstruction Using da Vinci SP ® Single-port System
Study Overview
Status
Status
Conditions
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Intervention / Treatment
Detailed Description
Study Type
Study Type
Enrollment (Anticipated)
Enrollment
Phase
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Contact
Study Contact
- Name: Wen-Ling Kuo, MD. PhD.
- Phone Number: +886-975369129
- Email: sylvie5285@gmail.com
Study Contact Backup
- Name: Chia-Huei Chu, MD.
- Phone Number: +886-975368233
- Email: nevmoon@hotmail.com
Study Locations
-
-
-
Taoyuan, Taiwan, 333
- Chang Gung Memeorial Hospital, Linkou Medical Center
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
Women with unilateral or bilateral breast cancer, including invasive and noninvasive carcinoma, eligible for unilateral or bilateral nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM), either for therapeutic or prophylactic purpose, followed by immediate breast reconstruction.
Meet at least one of the following indications of NSM for breast cancer:
- Preoperative clinical tumor sizes less than 5 cm, with adequate tumor-skin distance of at least 3mm and above, and without nipple-areolar involvement in at least 1cm around the nipple by image
- Breast cancer up to stage IIIa (T3, N1-2) as the initial clinical stage showing adequate response to neoadjuvant therapy and meet criteria a.
- Germline pathogenic/likely pathogenic BRCA1 or 2 mutation carriers (actionable mutations including pathogenic and likely pathogenic mutations) with breast cancer diagnosis or requiring unilateral or bilateral prophylactic mastectomy as a risk reduction procedure
- Age equal to or above 20 years
- ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) performance score 0-1
- ASA anesthesia risk class 1~2, and with adequate organ functions
- Understanding of the method, benefit and risk and willing to receive immediate breast reconstruction
Exclusion Criteria:
- Extensive breast skin or nipple involvement by cancer including 1) Paget's disease, 2) nipple discharge associated with malignancy, 3) image findings suggesting involvement of the nipple and subareolar tissues 4) inflammatory breast cancer or skin ulceration caused by cancer invasion
- Stage III (up to T3, N1-2) breast cancer without response to neoadjuvant treatment
- Previous radiotherapy on the surgical site of breast
- Patients with severe systemic disease reaching ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) physical status classification equal or greater than 3
- Patients with bleeding disorder or coagulopathy
- Patients with BMI 35.0 or higher
- Patients with habitual smoking
- Pregnancy
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Treatment
- Allocation: N/A
- Interventional Model: Single Group Assignment
- Masking: None (Open Label)
Number of Arms
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / ArmParticipant Group / Arm |
Intervention / TreatmentIntervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
Experimental: Robotic mastectomy
Patients receive unilateral or bilateral robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy with or without axillary lymph node dissection
|
Nipple-sparing mastectomy with or without axillary lymph node dissection using da Vinci SP single-port system
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Surgical performance
Time Frame: Day 1
|
Ability in percentage to complete nipple-sparing mastectomy with da Vinci SP system (no conversion to conventional laparoscopic, multiport da Vinci surgery or open surgery; addition of access port to complete the procedure would not be considered as conversion) in per protocol population
|
Day 1
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Incidence of Treatment-Emergent Acute Complications
Time Frame: Day 1-Day 30
|
Rate of incidence of surgery-related acute complications including hemorrhage, infection, skin ischemia, nipple ischemia, flap ischemia, and requirement for debridement or re-operation within 30 days
|
Day 1-Day 30
|
|
Incidence of Treatment-Emergent Mortality and Morbidity
Time Frame: Day 1-Day 30
|
Morbidity and mortality rate resulting from surgery among per protocol population
|
Day 1-Day 30
|
Other Outcome Measures
Other Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Blood loss
Time Frame: Day 1
|
Blood loss in milliliters resulting from SP robotic mastectomy, and breast reconstruction respectively
|
Day 1
|
|
Surgical time
Time Frame: Day 1
|
Time in minutes consumed by robotic mastectomy and robotic operation: total surgical time, docking time, console operation time, mastectomy time, lymph node dissection time, reconstruction time
|
Day 1
|
|
Body mass index
Time Frame: Day 0-1
|
Patient weight and height to report BMI in kg/m^2
|
Day 0-1
|
|
Specimen weight
Time Frame: Day 1
|
Mastectomy specimen weight in miligrams
|
Day 1
|
|
Mastectomy incision
Time Frame: Day 1
|
Location and length in centimeters of robotic mastectomy incision
|
Day 1
|
|
Oncological safety
Time Frame: Day 1-Day 30
|
The ability to achieve margin-free resection for cancer cases: 1) Resection margin positive rate, 2) Nipple margin positive rate, 3)Nipple areolar complex excision rate (pre-planned, or based on nipple margin status, 4)Axillary surgery type (sentinel lymph node biopsy or axillary lymph node dissection)
|
Day 1-Day 30
|
|
Reconstructive surgery
Time Frame: Day 1-Day 2
|
Type and status of concomitant breast reconstruction: 1) Type of reconstructive surgery (implant or autologous) 2) Impact reconstruction (if applicable): implant location, implant size/shape, brand/surface texture, or tissue expander location 3) Autologous reconstruction (if applicable): type of autologous tissue used, microsurgery detail, nipple neurotization detail
|
Day 1-Day 2
|
|
Drain output
Time Frame: Day 2-15
|
Daily drain output in milliliters
|
Day 2-15
|
|
Duration of admission
Time Frame: Day 0-60
|
Total duration of admission in days for robotic mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction
|
Day 0-60
|
|
Long term complications
Time Frame: Day 90~
|
Rate of complications resulting from robotic mastectomy and concomitant reconstruction more than 3 months after surgery
|
Day 90~
|
|
Patient-reported esthetic outcome
Time Frame: Day0, Day30, Day90, Day180, and Day360
|
Serially evaluated patient-reported scores from Breast Q questionnaire
|
Day0, Day30, Day90, Day180, and Day360
|
|
Patient-reported quality of life outcome for breast cancer cases
Time Frame: Day0, Day30, Day90, Day180, and Day360
|
Serially evaluated patient-reported scores from EORTC-QLQ-C30 including functional and symptomatic scales comprising 30 items.
The raw scores are linearly converted to a 0-100 scale, where higher function scores reflect more interfered function and higher symptom scores present a higher level of symptoms.
|
Day0, Day30, Day90, Day180, and Day360
|
|
Patient-reported breast-specific quality of life outcome for breast cancer cases
Time Frame: Day0, Day30, Day90, Day180, and Day360
|
Serially evaluated patient-reported scores from EORTC-QLQ-B23 including functional and symptomatic scales comprising 23 items.
The raw scores are linearly converted to a 0-100 scale, where higher function scores reflect more interfered function and higher symptom scores present a higher level of symptoms.
|
Day0, Day30, Day90, Day180, and Day360
|
|
Postoperative pain
Time Frame: Day2, Day4, Day6, Day8, Day15
|
Serially evaluated intensity of pain by Numerical Rating Scale (Visual Analog Score) for pain, with scales ranging from 0-10.
The intensity of pain increases with higher numerical scores (eg.,no pain(0), moderate pain (5), worst pain (10)).
|
Day2, Day4, Day6, Day8, Day15
|
|
Physician-evaluated outcomes
Time Frame: Picture taken on Day0, Day30, Day90, Day180, and Day360
|
Questionnaires about post-reconstructive breast cosmesis evaluated by independent plastic surgeon through a Likert 5-point scale after reviewing pre-and post-operative pictures, where higher scale indicating higher cosmetic satisfaction.
|
Picture taken on Day0, Day30, Day90, Day180, and Day360
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Sponsor
Collaborators
Collaborators
Investigators
Investigators
- Principal Investigator: Wen-Ling Kuo, MD. PhD., Breast Cancer Center, Chang Gone Memorial Hospital , Linkou Medical Center
Publications and helpful links
General Publications
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Sarfati B, Toesca A, Roulot A, Invento A. Transumbilical Single-port Robotically Assisted Nipple-sparing Mastectomy: A Cadaveric Study. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2020 May 27;8(5):e2778. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000002778. eCollection 2020 May.
- Park HS, Lee J, Lee H, Lee K, Song SY, Toesca A. Development of Robotic Mastectomy Using a Single-Port Surgical Robot System. J Breast Cancer. 2019 Nov 28;23(1):107-112. doi: 10.4048/jbc.2020.23.e3. eCollection 2020 Feb.
- Garcia-Etienne CA, Cody Iii HS 3rd, Disa JJ, Cordeiro P, Sacchini V. Nipple-sparing mastectomy: initial experience at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and a comprehensive review of literature. Breast J. 2009 Jul-Aug;15(4):440-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4741.2009.00758.x. Epub 2009 May 22.
- Galimberti V, Vicini E, Corso G, Morigi C, Fontana S, Sacchini V, Veronesi P. Nipple-sparing and skin-sparing mastectomy: Review of aims, oncological safety and contraindications. Breast. 2017 Aug;34 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S82-S84. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2017.06.034. Epub 2017 Jun 30.
- Shimo A, Tsugawa K, Tsuchiya S, Yoshie R, Tsuchiya K, Uejima T, Kojima Y, Shimo A, Hayami R, Nishikawa T, Yabuki Y, Kawamoto H, Sudo A, Fukuda M, Kanemaki Y, Maeda I. Oncologic outcomes and technical considerations of nipple-sparing mastectomies in breast cancer: experience of 425 cases from a single institution. Breast Cancer. 2016 Nov;23(6):851-860. doi: 10.1007/s12282-015-0651-6. Epub 2015 Oct 13.
- Frey JD, Salibian AA, Levine JP, Karp NS, Choi M. Incision Choices in Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: A Comparative Analysis of Outcomes and Evolution of a Clinical Algorithm. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018 Dec;142(6):826e-835e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000004969.
- Daar DA, Abdou SA, Rosario L, Rifkin WJ, Santos PJ, Wirth GA, Lane KT. Is There a Preferred Incision Location for Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 May;143(5):906e-919e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000005502.
- Selber JC. Robotic Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: The Next Step in the Evolution of Minimally Invasive Breast Surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019 Jan;26(1):10-11. doi: 10.1245/s10434-018-6936-1. Epub 2018 Nov 12. No abstract available.
- 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.
- Lai HW, Toesca A, Sarfati B, Park HS, Houvenaeghel G, Selber JC, Cheng FT, Kuo WL, Peradze N, Song SY, Mok CW. Consensus Statement on Robotic Mastectomy-Expert Panel From International Endoscopic and Robotic Breast Surgery Symposium (IERBS) 2019. Ann Surg. 2020 Jun;271(6):1005-1012. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003789.
- Kuo WL, Huang JJ, Huang YT, Chueh LF, Lee JT, Tsai HP, Chen SC. Robot-assisted Mastectomy Followed by Immediate Autologous Microsurgical Free Flap Reconstruction: Techniques and Feasibility in Three Different Breast Cancer Surgical Scenarios. Clin Breast Cancer. 2020 Feb;20(1):e1-e8. doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2019.06.018. Epub 2019 Sep 4. No abstract available.
- Toesca A, Sangalli C, Maisonneuve P, Massari G, Girardi A, Baker JL, Lissidini G, Invento A, Farante G, Corso G, Rietjens M, Peradze N, Gottardi A, Magnoni F, Bottiglieri L, Lazzeroni M, Montagna E, Labo P, Orecchia R, Galimberti V, Intra M, Sacchini V, Veronesi P. A Randomized Trial of Robotic Mastectomy Versus Open Surgery in Women With Breast Cancer or BrCA Mutation. Ann Surg. 2022 Jul 1;276(1):11-19. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004969. Epub 2021 Jun 9.
- Lemaine V, Hoskin TL, Farley DR, Grant CS, Boughey JC, Torstenson TA, Jacobson SR, Jakub JW, Degnim AC. Introducing the SKIN score: a validated scoring system to assess severity of mastectomy skin flap necrosis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015 Sep;22(9):2925-32. doi: 10.1245/s10434-015-4409-3. Epub 2015 Jan 30.
- Joo OY, Song SY, Park HS, Roh TS. Single-port robot-assisted prosthetic breast reconstruction with the da Vinci SP Surgical System: first clinical report. Arch Plast Surg. 2021 Mar;48(2):194-198. doi: 10.5999/aps.2020.01557. Epub 2021 Mar 15.
- Lee J, Park HS, Lee H, Lee K, Han DH, Lee DW. Axillary lymph node dissection using a robotic surgical system: Initial experience. J Surg Oncol. 2020 Nov;122(6):1252-1256. doi: 10.1002/jso.26141. Epub 2020 Aug 11. No abstract available.
- Huang JJ, Chuang EY, Cheong DC, Kim BS, Chang FC, Kuo WL. Robotic-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy followed by immediate microsurgical free flap reconstruction: Feasibility and aesthetic results - Case series. Int J Surg. 2021 Nov;95:106143. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.106143. Epub 2021 Oct 16.
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Actual)
Study Start
Primary Completion (Anticipated)
Primary Completion
Study Completion (Anticipated)
Study Completion
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Actual)
First Posted
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Posted
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Keywords
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
Other Study ID Numbers
- 202101421A0
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
IPD Plan Description
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
product manufactured in and exported from the U.S.
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.