Lorenzo Scardina
Gianluca Franceschini
94% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.
Find out more
- Multidisciplinary Breast Center, Department of Women, Children and Public Health Sciences, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
The global trend in breast surgery for breast cancer patients is moving toward a de-escalation.
Regarding axillary treatment, the focus has shifted from the possibility of avoiding axillary lymph node dissection (1, 2), to seeing how this approach can also be applied to patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (3, 4). Recently, two important prospective trials (5, 6) have shown the possibility of avoiding sentinel lymph node biopsy in selected breast cancer patients.
As for breast surgery, there has been a trend toward performing smaller quadrantectomies, up to procedures where invasive carcinomas no longer require a minimum margin of millimeters, but rather ensuring that resection margins are tumor-free (7). More prospective trials are emerging, suggesting the possibility of avoiding surgery after pCR in breast cancer patients post neoadjuvant chemotherapy (8, 9).
In this global landscape of surgical de-escalation, mastectomy has also undergone significant evolution, though it still remains an important part of clinical practice. Today, unless in specific cases, conservative mastectomy (10) with prosthetic reconstruction is guaranteed, either in a single or two-stage process, or through autologous tissue.
The introduction of nipple-sparing, skin-sparing and skin-reducing mastectomies has significantly improved both the aesthetic outcomes and the psychological well-being of many women (11). However, the benefits of these advanced techniques extend far beyond the preservation of appearance; they present the potential for more precise and less invasive procedures aided by technology, artificial intelligence, and robotic assistance. But what does the future hold for these surgical innovations? And what are the true implications of combining these groundbreaking techniques with cutting-edge technology?
Conservative mastectomies have been considered oncologically safe for at least 15 years now, with preservation of skin and nipple (nipple-sparing or skin-reducing) (12). Prosthetic reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy remains the most frequent, and more specifically, recent studies (13) and reviews (14) have highlighted the superiority of prepectoral implant placement in terms of aesthetic results and quality of life, as well as shorter surgical times and faster postoperative recovery, which translates to economic benefits. Prepectoral reconstruction with polyurethane implants also reduces the need for ADM or mesh use, thereby lowering costs even further.
In the last decade, there has been an increase in the trend of offering bilateral prophylactic mastectomy to patients. This trend can be justified by increased preoperative contrast-enhanced imaging exams, higher genetic risk, onset of tumors at a younger age, and patient choice (15, 16).
It is important to emphasize that while endoscopic and robotic surgery are not yet universally recognized as the standard of care, they can be a viable option in centers of excellence (17).
Robot-assisted mastectomy allows for smaller incisions and greater precision in tissue removal. The robotic system’s ability to translate a surgeon’s hand movements into smaller, more precise movements has led to improved outcomes. Furthermore, robotic system allows better visualization of the surgical area which is crucial in performing nipple-sparing procedures where tissue preservation is key.
Endoscopic technique, which involve using a small camera to guide the surgeon through the procedure, allows for even less invasive approaches to mastectomy.
These minimally invasive surgical techniques provide a magnified view of anatomical structures through 3D visualization, significantly smaller surgical accesses, and faster postoperative recovery times, demonstrating the importance and necessity of utilizing these innovative techniques for highly selected cases (18, 19).
Looking to the future, artificial intelligence (AI) is expected to play a pivotal role in conservative mastectomies, both in preoperative planning and intraoperative navigation. AI-powered imaging systems are already enhancing the surgeon’s ability to detect and map tumors ensuring more accurate gland removal during mastectomy. These systems can analyze mammography, Magnetic Risonance and ultrasound to provide highly detailed 3D reconstructions of the breast allowing for better decision-making regarding surgical technique.
In addition to improving surgical precision, AI has the potential to revolutionize post-operative care. Machine learning algorithms can predict complications based on patient data, such as age, medical history and cancer type providing personalized risk assessments and tailored care plans (20, 21).
In this trend of innovation and advancements in mastectomy techniques, it is essential to remember that the gold standard for early-stage breast cancer, in carefully selected patients, remains breast-conserving surgery combined with radiotherapy (22, 23).
Moreover, thanks to second-level oncoplastic techniques, breast-conserving surgery can now be extended even to cases that would have previously been considered for mastectomy (24).
Several recent studies have also indicated that in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy who achieve a pathological complete response (pCR), breast-conserving surgery can be considered a valid alternative to mastectomy (25, 26).
The prospects of conservative mastectomy are undeniably promising. Advances in surgical techniques, reconstructive options, and the integration of robotics, endoscopy, and AI are opening limitless possibilities for improving patient outcomes. Personalized, less invasive treatments will likely become the standard of care offering patients not only the hope of survival but also the confidence and body image they deserve post-surgery. As we continue to push the boundaries of what’s possible, technology will undoubtedly play an increasingly pivotal role in shaping the future of breast cancer treatment.
Author contributions
LS: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. GF: Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Giuliano AE, Ballman KV, McCall L, Beitsch PD, Brennan MB, Kelemen PR, et al. Effect of axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection on 10-year overall survival among women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: the ACOSOG Z0011 (Alliance) randomized clinical trial. JAMA. (2017) 318:918–26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.11470
2. de Boniface J, Filtenborg Tvedskov T, Rydén L, Szulkin R, Reimer T, Kühn T, et al. Omitting axillary dissection in breast cancer with sentinel-node metastases. N Engl J Med. (2024) 390:1163–75. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2313487
3. Montagna G, Mrdutt MM, Sun SX, Hlavin C, Diego EJ, Wong SM, et al. Omission of axillary dissection following nodal downstaging with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. JAMA Oncol. (2024) 10:793–8. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2024.0578
4. Montagna G, Laws A, Ferrucci M, Mrdutt MM, Sun SX, Bademler S, et al. Nodal burden and oncologic outcomes in patients with residual isolated tumor cells after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (ypN0i+): the OPBC-05/ICARO study. J Clin Oncol. (2024). doi: 10.1200/JCO.24.01052
5. Gentilini OD, Botteri E, Sangalli C, Galimberti V, Porpiglia M, Agresti R, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy vs no axillary surgery in patients with small breast cancer and negative results on ultrasonography of axillary lymph nodes: the SOUND randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. (2023) 9:1557–64. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.3759
6. Reimer T, Stachs A, Veselinovic K, Kühn T, Heil J, Polata S, et al. Axillary surgery in breast cancer - primary results of the INSEMA trial. N Engl J Med. (2024). doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2412063
7. Rakha EA, Quinn C, Masannat YA, Lee AHS, Tan PH, Karakatsanis A, et al. Revisiting surgical margins for invasive breast cancer patients treated with breast conservation therapy - Evidence for adopting a 1 mm negative width. Eur J Surg Oncol. (2024) 50:108573. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2024.108573
8. Tasoulis MK, Lee HB, Kuerer HM. Omission of breast surgery in exceptional responders. Clin Breast Cancer. (2024) 24:310–8. doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2024.01.021
9. Caballero C, Lundon DJ, Vasileva-Slaveva M, Montagna G, Bonci EA, Brandl A, et al. A multidisciplinary team and patient perspective on omission of surgery after neoadjuvant systemic therapy for early breast cancer: A European Society of Surgical Oncology (ESSO) Research Academy survey. Eur J Surg Oncol. (2024) 50:108585. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2024.108585
10. Nava MB, Catanuto G, Pennati A, Garganese G, Spano A. Conservative mastectomies. Aesthetic Plast Surg. (2009) 33:681–6. doi: 10.1007/s00266-009-9382-4
11. Scardina L, Di Leone A, Sanchez AM, Accetta C, Barone Adesi L, Biondi E, et al. Oncological safety of prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction after conservative mastectomy: insights from 842 consecutive breast cancer patients. Cancers. (2025) 17:925. doi: 10.3390/cancers17060925
12. Zaborowski AM, Roe S, Rothwell J, Evoy D, Geraghty J, McCartan D, et al. A systematic review of oncological outcomes after nipple-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer. J Surg Oncol. (2023) 127:361–8. doi: 10.1002/jso.27115
13. Scardina L, Di Leone A, Biondi E, Carnassale B, Am S, D’Archi S, et al. Prepectoral vs. Submuscular Immediate Breast Reconstruction in Patients Undergoing Mastectomy after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Our Early Experience. J Pers Med. (2022) 12:1533. doi: 10.3390/jpm12091533
14. Ostapenko E, Nixdorf L, Devyatko Y, Exner R, Wimmer K, Fitzal F. Prepectoral versus subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: A systemic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. (2023) 30:126–36. doi: 10.1245/s10434-022-12567-0
15. Lim DW, Metcalfe KA, Narod SA. Bilateral mastectomy in women with unilateral breast cancer: A review. JAMA Surg. (2021) 156:569–76. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.6664
16. Singh P, Agnese DM, Amin M, Barrio AV, van den Bruele AB, Burke EE, et al. Society of surgical oncology breast disease site working group statement on bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy: indications, outcomes, and risks. Ann Surg Oncol. (2025) 32:899–911. doi: 10.1245/s10434-024-16484-2
17. Morrow M. Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy-ready for prime time? JAMA Surg. (2024) 159:276. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2023.7007
18. Lai HW, Chen DR, Liu LC, Chen ST, Kuo YL, Lin SL, et al. Robotic versus conventional or endoscopic-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate prosthesis breast reconstruction in the management of breast cancer: A prospectively designed multicenter trial comparing clinical outcomes, medical cost, and patient-reported outcomes (RCENSM-P). Ann Surg. (2024) 279:138–46. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005924
19. Toesca A, Sangalli C, Maisonneuve P, Massari G, Girardi A, Baker JL, et al. A randomized trial of robotic mastectomy versus open surgery in women with breast cancer or BrCA mutation. Ann Surg. (2022) 276:11–9. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004969
20. Seth I, Bulloch G, Joseph K, Hunter-Smith DJ, Rozen WM. Use of artificial intelligence in the advancement of breast surgery and implications for breast reconstruction: A narrative review. J Clin Med. (2023) 12:5143. doi: 10.3390/jcm12155143
21. Pfob A, Heil J. Artificial intelligence to de-escalate loco-regional breast cancer treatment. Breast. (2023) 68:201–4. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2023.02.009
22. de la Cruz Ku G, Karamchandani M, Chambergo-Michilot D, Narvaez-Rojas AR, Jonczyk M, Príncipe-Meneses FS, et al. Does Breast-Conserving Surgery with Radiotherapy have a Better Survival than Mastectomy? A Meta-Analysis of More than 1,500,000 Patients. Ann Surg Oncol. (2022) 29:6163–88. doi: 10.1245/s10434-022-12133-8
23. Ghilli M, Lisa AVE, Salgarello M, Papa G, Rietjens M, Folli S, et al. Oncoplastic and reconstructive surgery in SENONETWORK Italian breast centers: lights and shadows. Breast. (2024) 73:103601. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2023.103601
24. Davies C, Conefrey C, Mills N, Fairbrother P, Holcombe C, Whisker L, et al. Understanding decision-making for and against oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery as an alternative to a mastectomy in early breast cancer: UK ANTHEM qualitative study. Br J Surg. (2024) 111:znae133. doi: 10.1093/bjs/znae133
25. Catanuto G, Gentile D, Martorana F, Tomatis M, Ponti A, Marotti L, et al. Clinico-pathological features predicting indication to mastectomy in breast cancer patients achieving complete response after neoadjuvant therapy: A retrospective analysis of the EUSOMA database. Eur J Surg Oncol. (2025) 51:109643. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2025.109643
Keywords: breast cancer, mastectomy, reconstruction, robotic surgery, surgical technique
Citation: Scardina L and Franceschini G (2025) Redefining conservative mastectomy: the evolution of surgical techniques. Front. Oncol. 15:1575095. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2025.1575095
Received: 11 February 2025; Accepted: 11 March 2025;
Published: 21 March 2025.
Edited by:
Matteo Ghilli, Pisana University Hospital, ItalyReviewed by:
Rosa Di Micco, San Raffaele Hospital (IRCCS), ItalyMatteo Bardelli, Pisana University Hospital, Italy
Copyright © 2025 Scardina and Franceschini. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Lorenzo Scardina, bG9yZW56by5zY2FyZGluYUBwb2xpY2xpbmljb2dlbWVsbGkuaXQ=
†ORCID: Lorenzo Scardina, orcid.org/0000-0002-5828-2851