Turning subjective into objective: The BCCT.core software for evaluation of cosmetic results in breast cancer conservative treatment

Evolution, current challenges, and future possibilities in the objective assessment of aesthetic outcome of breast cancer locoregional treatment

The Breast Cancer overall survival rate has raised impressively in the last 20 years mainly due to improved screening and effectiveness of treatments. This increase in survival paralleled the awareness over the long-lasting impact of the side effects of treatments on patient quality of life, emphasizing the motto “a longer but better life for breast cancer patients”. In breast cancer more strikingly than in other cancers, besides the side effects of systemic treatments, there is the visible impact of surgery and radiotherapy on patients’ body image. This has sparked interest on the development of tools for the aesthetic evaluation of Breast Cancer locoregional treatments, which evolved from manual, subjective approaches to computerized, automated solutions. However, although studied for almost four decades, past solutions were not mature enough to become a standard.

Recent advancements in machine learning have inspired trends toward deep-learning-based medical image analysis, also bringing new promises to the field of aesthetic assessment of locoregional treatments. In this paper, a review and discussion of the previous state-of-the-art methods in the field is conducted and the extracted knowledge is used to understand the evolution and current challenges. The aim of this paper is to delve into the current opportunities as well as motivate and guide future research in the aesthetic assessment of Breast Cancer locoregional treatments.

•

Past, present and future of objective assessment of aesthetic outcome of breast cancer treatments.

•

Critical discussion of the role and impact of deep-learning-based methodologies in the field.

•

Recommendation for future efforts in the objective assessment of aesthetic outcome of breast cancer treatments.

REQUITE: A prospective multicentre cohort study of patients undergoing radiotherapy for breast, lung or prostate cancer

PURPOSE

REQUITE aimed to establish a resource for multi-national validation of models and biomarkers that predict risk of late toxicity following radiotherapy. The purpose of this article is to provide summary descriptive data.

METHODS

An international, prospective cohort study recruited cancer patients in 26 hospitals in eight countries between April 2014 and March 2017. Target recruitment was 5300 patients. Eligible patients had breast, prostate or lung cancer and planned potentially curable radiotherapy. Radiotherapy was prescribed according to local regimens, but centres used standardised data collection forms. Pre-treatment blood samples were collected. Patients were followed for a minimum of 12 (lung) or 24 (breast/prostate) months and summary descriptive statistics were generated.

RESULTS

The study recruited 2069 breast (99% of target), 1808 prostate (86%) and 561 lung (51%) cancer patients. The centralised, accessible database includes: physician- (47,025 forms) and patient- (54,901) reported outcomes; 11,563 breast photos; 17,107 DICOMs and 12,684 DVHs. Imputed genotype data are available for 4223 patients with European ancestry (1948 breast, 1728 prostate, 547 lung). Radiation-induced lymphocyte apoptosis (RILA) assay data are available for 1319 patients. DNA (n = 4409) and PAXgene tubes (n = 3039) are stored in the centralised biobank. Example prevalences of 2-year (1-year for lung) grade ≥2 CTCAE toxicities are 13% atrophy (breast), 3% rectal bleeding (prostate) and 27% dyspnoea (lung).

CONCLUSION

The comprehensive centralised database and linked biobank is a valuable resource for the radiotherapy community for validating predictive models and biomarkers.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Up to half of cancer patients undergo radiation therapy and irradiation of surrounding healthy tissue is unavoidable. Damage to healthy tissue can affect short- and long-term quality-of-life. Not all patients are equally sensitive to radiation "damage" but it is not possible at the moment to identify those who are. REQUITE was established with the aim of trying to understand more about how we could predict radiation sensitivity. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview and summary of the data and material available. In the REQUITE study 4400 breast, prostate and lung cancer patients filled out questionnaires and donated blood. A large amount of data was collected in the same way. With all these data and samples a database and biobank were created that showed it is possible to collect this kind of information in a standardised way across countries. In the future, our database and linked biobank will be a resource for research and validation of clinical predictors and models of radiation sensitivity. REQUITE will also enable a better understanding of how many people suffer with radiotherapy toxicity.

A prospective comparison of subjective and objective assessments of cosmetic outcomes following breast brachytherapy

Purpose

We evaluated agreement between subjective and objective methods of cosmesis scoring in an accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) cohort.

Material and methods

Consecutive women treated with APBI using interstitial brachytherapy reported for clinical follow-up every 6 months. Single cross-sectional assessment of the breast cosmesis was done by a radiation oncologist (subjective method) using Harvard scale and by photographic assessment using BCCT.core (Breast Cancer Conservative Treatment. Cosmetic results, version 3.1) software (objective method) at 18-36 months post-APBI. The agreement between subjective and objective methods for the overall score as well as individual subjective/objective subdomains was computed using kappa statistics. ANOVA was used to test the correlation between objective indices and subjective subdomains.

Results

The agreement between the subjective (physician) and objective assessment was good with a kappa of 0.673. Overall, 77 (98.7%) patients were satisfied with the overall outcomes of breast conservation therapy. The kappa agreement between physician and patient scoring was 0.457 (95% CI: 0.240-0.674). Among the subjective subdomains, location of the nipple areola complex (NAC) had good agreement with both the overall subjective and objective score, with the kappa of 0.778 and 0.547, respectively. In the objective indices, BCE (breast compliance evaluation), LBC (lower breast contour), and UNR (unilateral nipple retraction) correlated significantly with the subjective subdomains: location of the NAC, breast size, and shape (p < 0.05 for all indices).

Conclusions

Good agreement exists for overall cosmetic outcomes measured by subjective and objective methods. Location of the NAC, breast size and shape are the most important parameters determining cosmetic outcomes irrespective of the method of assessment.

Cosmetic assessment in brachytherapy (interventional radiotherapy) for breast cancer: A multidisciplinary review

PURPOSE

This review was to focus on breast brachytherapy cosmetic assessment methods state of the art and to define the advantages and disadvantages related to.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We conducted a literature review of the major experience on breast brachytherapy cosmetic assessment methods in several databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases). To identify the relevant works, a task force screened citations at title and abstract level to identify potentially relevant paper. An expert board reviewed and approved the text. The assessment systems were classified into three main groups: (1) the Oncological Toxicity Scales, (2) the Independent Patients Perspective Measures, (3) the Patient-Related Outcome Measures. Each cosmetic assessment method was evaluated following six parameters: (1) anatomical site, (2) advantages, (3) disadvantages, (4) subjective/objective, (5) quantitative/qualitative, (6) computers or pictures needs.

RESULTS

Eleven assessment methods were selected. Three methods were classified as Oncological Toxicity Scale, six in the Independent Patients Perspective Measures classification, and two as Patient-Related Outcome Measures. Six methods are subjective, while eight are objective. Four systems are classified as quantitative, four as qualitative while three both. Five systems need informatics support. Moreover, each method was discussed individually reporting the main characteristics and peculiarities.

CONCLUSIONS

Cosmesis is one major end point for the patient who has a malignancy of low lethal potential. In modern personalized medicine, there is a need for standardized cosmetic outcome assessments to analyze and compare the results of treatments. No gold standard methods currently exist. The result of this review is to summarize the various cosmesis methods, defining the strengths and weaknesses of each one and giving a line in research and clinical practice.

Patient satisfaction after unilateral oncoplastic volume displacement surgery for breast cancer, evaluated with the BREAST-Q™

Background

Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery allows larger resections in unfavorable locations, with an improved chance of preserving esthetics. Indications and timing for potential contralateral surgery to obtain symmetry are not clear. The aim of this study was to evaluate patient satisfaction after unilateral oncoplastic volume displacement surgery, to investigate potential risk factors for lower patient satisfaction and to assess patient wish for contralateral surgery.

Method

A cohort of 144 women, consecutively treated for breast cancer with unilateral breast-conserving oncoplastic volume displacement surgery, followed by radiotherapy and with an unoperated contralateral breast, was sent the BREAST-Q™ breast-conserving therapy (BCT) and a study-specific questionnaire. In all, 120 women (83%) responded. For these women, the median value for resected specimen weight was 92 g (range 14–345) and for the estimated percentage of the breast volume excised 15% (range 3–35%).

Results

The median patient-reported score for “Satisfaction with breast” (BREAST-Q™ BCT) was 74/100. Factors associated with a score below median value in a simple logistic regression model adjusted for age and BMI were axillary clearance (OR 2.46, 95% CI 1.09–5.56), neoadjuvant chemotherapy (OR 3.26, 95% CI 1.15–9.24), and low breast density (OR 2.32 95% CI 1.02–5.29). Thirteen women (11%) were interested in contralateral surgery.

Conclusion

Most patients in this study cohort, who had undergone breast-conserving therapy with oncoplastic volume displacement techniques, were satisfied with their breasts without surgery to the contralateral breast. This indicates that contralateral surgery to achieve symmetry only should be performed after individual evaluation and as a delayed procedure.

Assessment of breast symmetry in breast cancer patients undergoing therapeutic mammaplasty using the Breast Cancer Conservation Therapy cosmetic results software (BCCT.core)

Background

Therapeutic mammaplasty (TM) is a standard oncoplastic technique utilising aesthetic breast reduction principles to facilitate tumour resection and breast reshaping. Simultaneous contralateral mammaplasties are often performed to maintain symmetry. BCCT.core software, which principally assesses breast symmetry, has been previously employed for evaluating cosmetic results after standard breast conservation therapy and latterly TMs for upper pole tumours. The purpose of this study was to validate this novel tool for TMs in all breast zones.

Methods

Standardised photographs of 20 consecutive patients who underwent TM were evaluated for symmetry using BCCT.core versus a plastic surgical panel completing a visual analogue scale. Results were rated as (excellent/good/fair/poor). Outcomes between the two methods were compared.

Results

Twenty patients aged 37 to 63 years with a median 36G bra size had 22 TMs (18 unilateral, 2 bilateral). Indications were invasive breast cancer (87%) and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (13%). The median (range) tumour size was 22.5 mm (6-90 mm) with a resection weight of 245.8 g (16-1,079 g). Primary nipple pedicles were superomedial (63%), inferior (21%) and superolateral (16%). Five patients required a secondary glandular pedicle for volume redistribution to maintain breast shape. The BCCT.core software vs. panel symmetry assessments were 37% vs. 39% (excellent), 63% vs. 50% (good) and 0% vs. 11% (fair). Wilcoxon matched-pairs sign rank tests and Spearman rank correlations found the pairings to be statistically significant (P<0.05).

Conclusions

Despite small patient numbers, BCCT.core gave comparable findings with the panel and is thus useful for objectively assessing cosmesis of TMs in all breast zones.

Quality of life in breast cancer patients and surgical results of immediate tissue expander/implant-based breast reconstruction after mastectomy

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to analyze the effects of prior radiotherapy (RT) as well as postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) on patient-reported quality of life (QoL) and on surgical/aesthetic outcomes in patients with expander-/implant-based delayed immediate reconstruction (EIBR) compared to patients that underwent EIBR without any RT.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

QoL was assessed by BREAST-Q, the surgical/aesthetic outcome by a structured examination and a picture analysis (BCCT.CORE software) and subsequently compared between the three cohorts.

RESULTS

Of 161 eligible patients, 97 followed the invitation (no RT n = 54, 9 of them with bilateral EIBR; PMRT n = 26; history of RT n = 15). The surgical/aesthetic results were better in the RT-naive cohort than in the PMRT cohort, but satisfaction with outcome and psychosocial well-being were better in the PMRT cohort. The RT-naive cohort showed (significantly) higher scores in satisfaction with breast, satisfaction with implant and sexual well-being compared to the history of RT cohort, although satisfaction with outcome was comparable. The PMRT cohort reached significantly more points in almost all categories and better BCCT.CORE and examination results than the history of RT cohort. Of all patients, 92.7%, 84.6% and 78.6% (RT naive, PMRT, history of RT) would agree to undergo EIBR again.

CONCLUSION

EIBR results in acceptable QoL and surgical results. In patients with a prior RT, QoL is significantly lower and surgical results are significantly worse. However, high acceptance rates suggest EIBR being a justifiable option even for this group. Prospective studies and long-term follow-up are required for definitive conclusions.

Breast Shape Analysis With Curvature Estimates and Principal Component Analysis for Cosmetic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery

Background

Breast shape is defined utilizing mainly qualitative assessment (full, flat, ptotic) or estimates, such as volume or distances between reference points, that cannot describe it reliably.

Objectives

The authors quantitatively described breast shape with two parameters derived from a statistical methodology denominated by principal component analysis (PCA).

Methods

The authors created a heterogeneous dataset of breast shapes acquired with a commercial infrared 3-dimensional scanner on which PCA was performed. The authors plotted on a Cartesian plane the two highest values of PCA for each breast (principal components 1 and 2). Testing of the methodology on a preoperative and posttreatment surgical case and test-retest was performed by two operators.

Results

The first two principal components derived from PCA characterize the shape of the breast included in the dataset. The test-retest demonstrated that different operators obtain very similar values of PCA. The system is also able to identify major changes in the preoperative and posttreatment stages of a two-stage reconstruction. Even minor changes were correctly detected by the system.

Conclusions

This methodology can reliably describe the shape of a breast. An expert operator and a newly trained operator can reach similar results in a test/re-testing validation. Once developed and after further validation, this methodology could be employed as a good tool for outcome evaluation, auditing, and benchmarking.

Level of Evidence 4

Comprehensive Validation Study of Quality-of-Life Questionnaire Using Objective Clinical Measures: Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale (BCTOS), Brazilian Portuguese Version

INTRODUCTION

When evaluating a quality-of-life questionnaire (QLQ), many validation studies do not correlate quality-of-life scores with objective measurements of complications associated with treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional observational study with 300 patients submitted to breast-conserving therapy. The patients answered the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQs C-30 and BR23, as well as the Brazilian Portuguese version of the Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale (BCTOS) questionnaire. Retest, internal consistency, factorial analysis, convergent/divergent analysis, and Rasch evaluation were performed. All patients underwent physical evaluations to assess lymphedema, handgrip strength, shoulder range of motion, breast cosmesis, and breast pain, and these groups were compared on the basis of BCTOS scores. Receiver operating characteristic curve determined the predictive value of BCTOS scores associated with clinical practice.

RESULTS

The internal consistencies of the BCTOS domains ranged from 0.785 to 0.895. Factor analysis grouped according to the original questionnaire. Convergent validation showed differences in the sexual functioning and sexual enjoyment domains of the EORTC BR23. Analysis of known groups found that in most domains, the scores were higher in patients with lymphedema, strength deficit, shoulder range-of-motion alteration, poor breast cosmesis, breast pain, and axillary lymphadenectomy. Using a cutoff of 1.26, lymphedema was associated with the edema domain; using a cutoff of 1.33, Late Effects Normal Tissue Task Force/Subjective, Objective, Management, Analytic pain was associated with the pain domain; and using a cutoff of 2.37, the cosmetic domain was associated with subjective cosmesis.

CONCLUSION

The association of objective measurements in a validation study of quality of life qualified the study and allowed us to develop better parameters for comparisons of results of breast-conserving therapy between populations.

Aesthetic outcome following breast-conserving surgery assessed by three evaluation modalities in relation to health-related quality of life

Background

The aim of this study was to compare the agreement between three different methods for evaluation of aesthetic outcome following breast-conserving surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy: a patient questionnaire, panel evaluation of photographs and the software BCCT.core. A further aim was to examine how these modalities predict health-related quality of life as measured by the validated Breast-Q™ questionnaire.

Methods

At 1-year follow-up after breast-conserving surgery, patients completed a study-specific questionnaire. Postoperative photographs were evaluated using the software BCCT.core. A panel of three healthcare professionals assessed preoperative and postoperative photographs. Agreement between methods was assessed using Spearman's correlation coefficients (rs). The Breast-Q™ questionnaire was sent to study participants. The ability of the different evaluation methods to predict Q-scores for the health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) domains satisfaction with breasts and psychosocial well-being was investigated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.

Results

A total of 532 patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery were examined before surgery. At 1-year follow-up, 334 patients completed the study-specific questionnaire. Postoperative photographs from 310 patients were evaluated using BCCT.core. The panel of healthcare professionals assessed photographs from 215 patients. Agreement between the different evaluation modalities was poor. The strongest agreement was noted between the panel evaluation for symmetry and BCCT.core results (rs = 0·59, P &lt; 0·001). The Breast-Q™ questionnaire was returned by 348 patients. Patient satisfaction ratings at 1-year follow-up best predicted long-term HRQoL measured using the Breast-Q score, both in terms of satisfaction with breasts (area under the curve (AUC) 0·80, P &lt; 0·001) and psychosocial well-being (AUC 0·73, P &lt; 0·001).

Conclusion

There is currently no ideal method for evaluating aesthetic outcome after breast-conserving surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy. These results emphasize the use of patient-related outcome measures.

The value of 3D images in the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment. Results from a prospective multicentric clinical trial

PURPOSE

BCCT.core (Breast Cancer Conservative Treatment. cosmetic results) is a software created for the objective evaluation of aesthetic result of breast cancer conservative treatment using a single patient frontal photography. The lack of volume information has been one criticism, as the use of 3D information might improve accuracy in aesthetic evaluation. In this study, we have evaluated the added value of 3D information to two methods of aesthetic evaluation: a panel of experts; and an augmented version of the computational model - BCCT.core3d.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Within the scope of EU Seventh Framework Programme Project PICTURE, 2D and 3D images from 106 patients from three clinical centres were evaluated by a panel of 17 experts and the BCCT.core. Agreement between all methods was calculated using the kappa (K) and weighted kappa (wK) statistics.

RESULTS

Subjective agreement between 2D and 3D individual evaluation was fair to moderate. The agreement between the expert classification and the BCCT.core software with both 2D and 3D features was also fair to moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

The inclusion of 3D images did not add significant information to the aesthetic evaluation either by the panel or the software. Evaluation of aesthetic outcome can be performed using of the BCCT.core software, with a single frontal image.

Objective assessment of flap volume changes and aesthetic results after adjuvant radiation therapy in patients undergoing immediate autologous breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

The use of immediate breast reconstruction and adjuvant radiation therapy is increasing in breast cancer patients. This study aimed to analyze the aesthetic outcome and changes in flap volume in patients with breast cancer undergoing radiation therapy of the surgical site after immediate autologous tissue reconstruction.

METHODS

Immediate abdominal free flap breast reconstruction following unilateral mastectomy was performed in 42 patients; 21 patients received adjuvant radiation (study group) and 21 patients did not (control group). To compare flap volume, three-dimensional computed tomography (CT) was performed before and after radiation. Also, aesthetic analysis was performed in both groups to evaluate shape changes.

RESULTS

There was a 12.3% flap volume reduction after the completion of radiation in the experimental group that was significantly greater than the 2.6% volume reduction observed in the non-radiation group (P<0.01). There was no significant difference in the short- and long-term aesthetic results between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

When performing immediate autologous breast reconstruction, 14% volume overcorrection is recommended for patients in whom adjuvant radiation therapy is anticipated to improve aesthetic outcomes.

The COSMAM TRIAL a prospective cohort study of quality of life and cosmetic outcome in patients undergoing breast conserving surgery

Background

Cosmetic result in breast cancer surgery is gaining increased interest. Currently, some 30–40% of the patients treated with breast conserving surgery (BCS) are dissatisfied with their final cosmetic result. In order to prevent disturbing breast deformity oncoplastic surgical techniques have been introduced. The extent of different levels of oncoplastic surgery incorporated in breast conserving surgery and its value with regard to cosmetic outcome, patient satisfaction and quality of life remains to be defined. The aim of this prospective cohort study is to investigate quality of life and satisfaction with cosmetic result in patients with breast cancer, undergoing standard lumpectomy versus level I or II oncoplastic breast conserving surgery.

Methods

Female breast cancer patients scheduled for BCS, from 18 years of age, referred to our outpatient clinic from July 2015 are asked to participate in this study. General, oncologic and treatment information will be collected. Patient satisfaction will be scored preceding surgery, and at 1 month and 1 year follow up. Photographs of the breast will be used to score cosmetic result both by the patient, an independent expert panel and BCCT.Core software. Quality of life will be measured by using the BREAST-Q BCT, EORTC-QLQ and EQ-5D-5 L questionnaires.

Discussion

The purpose of this prospective study is to determine the clinical value of different levels of oncoplastic techniques in breast conserving surgery, with regard to quality of life and cosmetic result. Analysis will be carried out by objective measurements of the final cosmetic result in comparison with standard breast conserving surgery. The results of this study will be used to development of a clinical decision model to guide the use oncoplastic surgery in future BCS.

Trial registration

Central Commission of Human Research (CCMO), The Netherlands: NL54888.015.15.

Medical Ethical Commission (METC), Maxima Medical Centre, Veldhoven, The Netherlands: 15.107.

Dutch Trial Register: NTR5665, retrospectively registered, 02-25-2016.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-018-4368-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Cosmetic outcome as rated by patients, doctors, nurses and BCCT.core software assessed over 5 years in a subset of patients in the TARGIT-A Trial

Background

The purpose of this research was to assess agreement between four rating systems of cosmetic outcome measured in a subset of patients with early breast cancer participating in the randomised TARGIT-A trial. TARGIT-A compared risk-adapted single-dose intra-operative radiotherapy (TARGIT-IORT) to whole breast external beam radiotherapy (EBRT).

Methods

Patients, their Radiation Oncologist and Research Nurse completed a subjective cosmetic assessment questionnaire before radiotherapy and annually thereafter for five years. Objective data previously calculated by the validated BCCT.core software which utilizes digital photographs to score symmetry, colour and scar was also used. Agreement was assessed by the Kappa statistic and longitudinal changes were assessed by generalized estimating equations.

Results

Overall, an Excellent-Good (EG) cosmetic result was scored more often than a Fair-Poor (FP) result for both treatment groups across all time points, with patients who received TARGIT-IORT scoring EG more often than those who received EBRT however this was statistically significant at Year 5 only. There was modest agreement between the four rating systems with the highest Kappa score being moderate agreement which was between nurse and doctor scores at Year 1 with Kappa = 0.46 (p < 0.001), 95% CI (0.24, 0.68).

Conclusion

Despite similar overall findings between treatment groups and rating systems, the inter-rater agreement was only modest. This suggests that the four rating systems utilized may not necessarily be used interchangeably and it is arguable that for an outcome such as cosmetic appearance, the patient’s point of view is the most important.

Trial Registration

TARGIT-A ISRCTN34086741, Registered 21 July 2004, retrospectively registered.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13014-018-0998-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Surgical treatment of multiple ipsilateral breast cancers

Abundant research

Batwing Mastopexy as Oncoplastic Surgical Approach to Periareolar Tumors in Upper Quadrants

Aims and background

Batwing mastopexy (BWM) is an oncoplastic technique most commonly used in the treatment of 12 o'clock periareolar tumors. The aim of this study was to assess the early cosmetic results of BWM performed for periareolar lesions located in the upper quadrants, i.e. from 10 to 2 o'clock position.

Methods and study design

A prospective analysis of a preliminary group of 35 women with periareolar intraductal or invasive breast cancer in the upper quadrants was done. All patients underwent wide lumpectomy with clear margins followed by BWM in order to obtain favorable cosmesis. For invasive cancers axillary biopsy or dissection was performed by separate incision. Cosmetic outcome was assessed 4 weeks after surgery by the patient with reference to breast shape, nipple-areola complex (NAC) position and scar arrangement. The result was rated as poor, medium or good for each parameter.

Results

There were no poor ratings of cosmetic outcome. The result was rated as medium by 5 women (14%) regarding breast shape and by 3 regarding NAC position (9%). The remaining women evaluated these parameters as good (86% and 91%, respectively). In contrast, scar arrangement was assessed as good by 26 patients (74%), medium by 8 (23%), and poor by 1 (3%). All women rating scar arrangement as other than good had a lesion located in the upper lateral quadrant. Considering the reasons for the relatively low scar acceptance by these women, the only important cause of disappointment was the placement of one of the radial parts of the scar in the area of decolletage in the upper medial quadrant.

Conclusions

BWM allows to achieve favorable breast shape and NAC position for lesions located in the upper quadrants regardless of the medial or lateral side. However, when performed in the lateral quadrant it produces a scar that can be hard to accept for some women.

Evaluation of cosmetic outcome following breast-conserving therapy in trials: panel versus digitalized analysis and the role of PROMs

Cosmetic outcome is an important quality of life-related end point following breast-conserving therapy (BCT). To advise on a gold standard, we compare cosmetic outcome evaluated by panel and an objective evaluation (BCCT.core software). Second, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are compared to cosmetic outcome evaluation by panel and BCCT.core. Sixty-eight breast cancer patients were included following BCT between 2007 and 2012. Two independent 6-member panels and two observers using the BCCT.core evaluated cosmetic outcome. First, reproducibility, repeatability, and relatedness of panel and BCCT.core were analyzed using the interclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Second, the association between panel/BCCT.core with PROMs (EORTC-QLQ-C30/BR23, EQ-5D-5L, and BREAST-Q) was analyzed with a linear regression and the goodness of fit by the R² . Both panel and BCCT.core evaluations showed "excellent" intraobserver agreement (ICC 0.93 [95% CI: 0.83; 0.97] and 0.93 [95% CI: 0.84; 0.97]) for respectively panel 1 and BCCT.core 1 and "excellent" interobserver agreement (ICC 0.94 [95% CI: 0.90; 0.96] and 0.85 [95% CI: 0.77; 0.91]) respectively for panel and BCCT.core. Association between panel and BCCT.core varied, ICC 0.59-0.69. Only the PROM BREAST-Q showed a significant association with both panel evaluations and BCCT.core observers (panel 1 and BCCT.core 1; R² of .157 [P = .002] and .178 [P = .001]). Both panel and BCCT.core showed comparable "excellent" intraobserver and interobserver agreement. For future trials evaluating cosmetic outcome following BCT, one of those can be chosen. Solely, the PROM BREAST-Q showed a significant association with panel and/or BCCT.core evaluation. To enable standardized cosmetic outcome evaluation and corresponding patient satisfaction in future trials, at least the BREAST-Q should be combined with a panel or BCCT.core evaluation.

The potential role of three-dimensional surface imaging as a tool to evaluate aesthetic outcome after Breast Conserving Therapy (BCT)

PURPOSE

To establish whether objective measurements of symmetry of volume and shape using three-dimensional surface imaging (3D-SI) can be used as surrogate markers of aesthetic outcome in patients who have undergone breast conserving therapy (BCT).

METHODS

Women who had undergone unilateral BCT in the preceding 1-6 years were invited to participate. Participants completed a satisfaction questionnaire (BREAST-Q) and underwent 3D-SI. Volume and surface symmetry were measured on the images. Assessment of aesthetic outcome was undertaken by a panel of clinicians. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to assess the relationship between volume and shape symmetry measurements with the panel score. Spearman's rho correlations were used to assess the relationship between the measurements and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

200 women participated. Median volume symmetry was 87% (IQR 78-93) and shape symmetry was 5.9 mm (IQR 4.2-8.0). The participants were grouped according to panel assessment of aesthetic outcome (poor, fair, good, excellent) and the median volume and shape symmetry was calculated for each group. Volume symmetry significantly differed between the groups. Post hoc pairwise comparisons demonstrated that these differences existed between panel scores of fair versus good and good versus excellent. Median shape symmetry also differed according to patient panel groups with four significant pairwise comparisons between poor versus good, poor versus excellent, fair versus good and fair versus excellent. There was a significant but weak correlation of both volume symmetry and surface asymmetry with BREAST-Q scores (correlation coefficients 0.187 and -0.229, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Breast volume and shape symmetry are both associated with panel assessment scores and patient satisfaction. The objective volume and shape symmetry measures were strongly associated with panel assessment scores, such that a 3D-SI tool could replace panel assessment as a faster and more objective method of evaluating aesthetic outcomes.

Aesthetic result after breast-conserving therapy is associated with quality of life several years after treatment. Swedish women evaluated with BCCT.core and BREAST-Q™

Purpose

A gold standard for evaluation of aesthetic outcome after breast-conserving therapy (BCT) is still lacking. The BCCT.core software has been developed to assess aesthetic result in a standardised way. We aimed to study how the result of BCCT.core after BCT is associated with quality of life, measured with the BREAST-Q™, a validated questionnaire.

Methods

Women eligible for BCT were consecutively recruited between February 1st 2008 and January 31st 2012 (n = 653). Photographs of 310 women, taken one year after BCT, were evaluated using the BCCT.core software. The postoperative BCT module of the BREAST-Q™ questionnaire was administered by mail and 348 questionnaires were returned (median 5.5 years after BCT). In all, 216 women had both BCCT.core results and completed BREAST-Q™ questionnaires available.

Results

The results from the BCCT.core evaluation were: excellent n = 49 (15.8%); good n = 178 (57.4%); fair n = 73 (23.5%); poor n = 10 (3.2%). The median BREAST-Q™ score for satisfaction with breasts was 66 [interquartile range (IQR) 57–80] and for psychosocial well-being 82 (IQR 61–100). Poor/fair results on BCCT.core were associated with Q-scores below median for both satisfaction with breasts [odds ratio (OR) 3.4 (confidence interval (CI) 1.7–6.8)] as well as for psychosocial well-being [OR 2.2 (CI 1.1–4.2)].

Conclusions

A statistically significant association between BCCT.core results one year after BCT and quality of life ratings using BREAST-Q™ several years later is shown in this study. This implies that the BCCT.core may be valuable in BCT follow-up and used as a standardised instrument in the evaluation of aesthetic results.

TUmor-volume to breast-volume RAtio for improving COSmetic results in breast cancer patients (TURACOS); a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Cosmetic result following breast conserving surgery (BCS) for cancer influences quality of life and psychosocial functioning in breast cancer patients. A preoperative prediction of expected cosmetic result following BCS is not (yet) standard clinical practice and therefore the choice for either mastectomy or BCS is still subjective. Recently, we showed that tumour volume to breast volume ratio as well as tumour location in the breast are independent predictors of superior cosmetic result following BCS. Implementation of a prediction model including both factors, has not been studied in a prospective manner. This study aims to improve cosmetic outcome by implementation of a prediction model in the treatment decision making for breast cancer patients opting for BCS.

METHODS/DESIGN

Multicentre, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial comparing standard preoperative work-up to a preoperative work-up with addition of the prediction model. Tumour volume to breast volume ratio and tumour location in the breast will be used to predict cosmetic outcome in invasive breast cancer patients opting for BCS. Three dimensional (3D)-ultrasonography will be used to measure the tumour volume to breast volume ratio needed for the prediction model. Sample size was estimated based on a 14% improvement in incidence of superior cosmetic result one year after BCS (71% in the control group versus 85% in the intervention group). Primarily cosmetic outcome will be evaluated by a 6-member independent panel. Secondary endpoints include; (1) patient reported outcome measured by BREAST-Q, EORTC-QLQ-C30/BR23 and EQ-5D-5 L (2) cosmetic outcome as assessed through the BCCT.core software, (3) radiation-induced reaction (4) surgical treatment performed, (5) pathological result and (6) cost-effectiveness. Follow-up data will be collected for 3 years after surgery or finishing radiotherapy.

DISCUSSION

This randomized controlled trial examines the value of a preoperative prediction model for the treatment-decision making. It aims for a superior cosmetic result in breast cancer patients opting for BCS. We expect improvement of patients' quality of life and psychosocial functioning in a cost-effective way.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Prospectively registered, February 17th 2015, at 'Nederlands Trialregister - NTR4997 '.

Quantitative Assessment of Breast Cosmetic Outcome After Whole-Breast Irradiation

PURPOSE

To measure, by quantitative analysis of digital photographs, breast cosmetic outcome within the setting of a randomized trial of conventionally fractionated (CF) and hypofractionated (HF) whole-breast irradiation (WBI), to identify how quantitative cosmesis metrics were associated with patient- and physician-reported cosmesis and whether they differed by treatment arm.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

From 2011 to 2014, 287 women aged ≥40 with ductal carcinoma in situ or early invasive breast cancer were randomized to HF-WBI (42.56 Gy/16 fractions [fx] + 10-12.5 Gy/4-5 fx boost) or CF-WBI (50 Gy/25 fx + 10-14 Gy/5-7 fx). At 1 year after treatment we collected digital photographs, patient-reported cosmesis using the Breast Cancer Treatment and Outcomes Scale, and physician-reported cosmesis using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group scale. Six quantitative measures of breast symmetry, labeled M1-M6, were calculated from anteroposterior digital photographs. For each measure, values closer to 1 imply greater symmetry, and values closer to 0 imply greater asymmetry. Associations between M1-M6 and patient- and physician-reported cosmesis and treatment arm were evaluated using the Kruskal-Wallis test.

RESULTS

Among 245 evaluable patients, patient-reported cosmesis was strongly associated with M1 (vertical symmetry measure) (P<.01). Physician-reported cosmesis was similarly correlated with M1 (P<.01) and also with M2 (vertical symmetry, P=.01) and M4 (horizontal symmetry, P=.03). At 1 year after treatment, HF-WBI resulted in better values of M2 (P=.02) and M3 (P<.01) than CF-WBI; treatment arm was not significantly associated with M1, M4, M5, or M6 (P≥.12).

CONCLUSIONS

Quantitative assessment of breast photographs reveals similar to improved cosmetic outcome with HF-WBI compared with CF-WBI 1 year after treatment. Assessing cosmetic outcome using these measures could be useful for future comparative effectiveness studies and outcome reporting.

Cosmetic outcome and quality of life are inextricably linked in breast-conserving therapy

INTRODUCTION

Cosmetic results and quality of life (QoL) are increasingly important in the treatment of breast cancer. This study was designed to determine the relationship between QoL and both subjectively and objectively measured cosmetic outcomes of breast-conserving therapy (BCT), and its course over time.

METHODS

A total of 128 breast cancer patients who underwent BCT as part of a prospective randomized controlled trial were included. QoL was measured using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 at baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 36 months. Cosmetic outcome was determined by patient self-evaluation, panel evaluation, and BCCT.core software.

RESULTS

By 36 months, all QoL factors except arm symptoms had returned to baseline or improved. After adjustment for patient and tumor characteristics, a significantly better QoL in terms of body image, pain, and arm and breast symptoms was found for good/excellent cosmetic outcomes compared to fair/poor outcomes, as measured by both patient self-evaluation and panel evaluation. The BCCT.core showed no correlation with any QoL factors.

CONCLUSION

There is a high correlation between poor cosmetic outcome and low scores on quality of life indicators, underlining the importance of achieving a good cosmetic outcome after BCT.

Redefining radiotherapy for early-stage breast cancer with single dose ablative treatment: a study protocol

BACKGROUND

A shift towards less burdening and more patient friendly treatments for breast cancer is currently ongoing. In low-risk patients with early-stage disease, accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) is an alternative for whole breast irradiation following breast-conserving surgery. MRI-guided single dose ablative APBI has the potential to offer a minimally burdening, non-invasive treatment that could replace current breast-conserving therapy.

METHODS

The ABLATIVE study is a prospective, single arm, multicenter study evaluating preoperative, single dose, ablative radiation treatment in patients with early-stage breast cancer. Patients with core biopsy proven non-lobular invasive breast cancer, (estrogen receptor positive, Her2 negative, maximum tumor size 3.0 cm on diagnostic MRI) and a negative sentinel node biopsy are eligible. Radiotherapy (RT) planning will be performed using a contrast enhanced (CE) planning CT-scan, co-registered with a CE-MRI, both in supine RT position. A total of twenty-five consecutive patients will be treated with a single ablative RT dose of 20 Gy to the tumor and 15 Gy to the tumorbed. Follow-up MRIs are scheduled within 1 week, 2, 4 and 6 months after single-dose RT. Breast-conserving surgery is scheduled at six months following RT. Primary study endpoint is pathological complete response. Secondary study endpoints are the radiological response and toxicity. Furthermore, patients will fill out questionnaires on quality of life and functional status. Cosmetic outcome will be evaluated by the treating radiation oncologist, patient and 'Breast Cancer Conservation Treatment cosmetic results' software. Recurrence and survival rates will be assessed. The patients will be followed up to 10 years after diagnosis. If patients give additional informed consent, a biopsy and a part of the irradiated specimen will be stored at the local Biobank and used for future research on radiotherapy response associated genotyping.

DISCUSSION

The ABLATIVE study evaluates MRI-guided single dose ablative RT in patients with early-stage breast cancer, aiming at a less burdening and non-invasive alternative for current breast-conserving treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT02316561 . The trial was registrated prospectively on October 10th 2014.

The Aesthetic Items Scale: A Tool for the Evaluation of Aesthetic Outcome after Breast Reconstruction

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Background:

Valid tools to assess aesthetic outcomes after breast reconstructive surgery are scarce. Previously a professional aesthetic assessment scale was introduced, the Aesthetic Items Scale (AIS). We aim to determine if this method is a valid and reliable tool to assess aesthetic outcome after breast reconstructive surgery.

Methods:

The study population was consenting women who underwent prophylactic mastectomy with subsequent implant-based breast reconstruction. The aesthetic outcome with regard to breast volume, shape, symmetry, scars, and nipple areola complex was rated on a 5-point scale using standardized photographs to give a summed total score. Photographs were evaluated by the patient, 5 plastic surgeons, and 3 mammography nurses. An overall rating of aesthetic outcome on a 1–10 scale was given separately. We determined the intraclass correlation coefficient and assessed interobserver agreement. To assess validity, we calculated the correlation between total score and overall rating of aesthetic outcome.

Results:

Interobserver reliability was highest between plastic surgeons for the subitem and overall scores and ranged between 0.56 and 0.82. The summed score of the AIS correlates strongly with the overall rating in professionals but not in patients.

Conclusions:

The AIS is a valid and reliable method for evaluating aesthetic outcome of breast reconstruction by plastic surgeons. The results indicate that patients judge aesthetic outcome differently, taking into account factors that are not represented in the AIS. Professionals can use this method to evaluate surgical results, but other measurements are needed to map satisfaction of the patient with her breasts.

Comparison of Aesthetic Outcomes Between Vertical and Horizontal Flap Insets in Breast Reconstruction with the TRAM or DIEP Flaps

BACKGROUND

Tissue transfer, such as use of the transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) or deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) free flaps, is considered a standard method. However, outcomes may vary among inset methods. Here we compared the aesthetic outcomes of breast reconstructions using vertical and horizontal flap inset methods.

METHODS

We, respectively, reviewed 274 patients who underwent unilateral post-mastectomy breast reconstruction using TRAM or DIEP free flaps between April 2006 and December 2013. Photographs (frontal and bilateral oblique views) obtained 6 months post-operatively were evaluated. Symmetry scores and regional volume discrepancy scores were compared between the vertical and horizontal inset groups. Symmetry scores were adjusted for 11 potential confounding factors on multivariate regression analysis.

RESULTS

The vertical inset method was associated with higher total symmetry scores, projection, and ptotic naturalness scores. On multivariate regression analysis, the inset method was an independent predictor of outcomes. Regional volume discrepancy score analysis showed a greater tendency for more symmetrical volumes in the upper, medial, and lateral poles with the vertical inset.

CONCLUSION

The flap inset method is one of the key determinants of aesthetic breast reconstruction outcomes. The vertical inset method was associated with superior aesthetic outcomes and enabled balanced distribution of flap volume to the four poles of the breast.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Intraoperative Ultrasound Guidance in Breast-Conserving Surgery Improves Cosmetic Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction: Results of a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial (COBALT)

Background

Ultrasound-guided breast-conserving surgery (USS) results in a significant reduction in both margin involvement and excision volumes (COBALT trial).

Objective

The aim of the present study was to determine whether USS also leads to improvements in cosmetic outcome and patient satisfaction when compared with standard palpation-guided surgery (PGS).

Methods

A total of 134 patients with T1–T2 invasive breast cancer were included in the COBALT trial (NTR2579) and randomized to either USS (65 patients) or PGS (69 patients). Cosmetic outcomes were assessed by a three-member panel using computerized software Breast Cancer Conservative Treatment cosmetic results (BCCT.core) and by patient self-evaluation, including patient satisfaction. Time points for follow-up were 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Overall cosmetic outcome and patient satisfaction were scored on a 4-point Likert scale (excellent, good, fair, or poor), and outcomes were analyzed using a multilevel, mixed effect, proportional odds model for ordinal responses.

Results

Ultrasound-guided breast-conserving surgery achieved better cosmetic outcomes, with 20 % excellence overall and only 6 % rated as poor, whereas 14 % of PGS outcomes were rated excellent and 13 % as poor. USS also had consistently lower odds for worse cosmetic outcomes (odds ratio 0.55, p = 0.067) than PGS. The chance of having a worse outcome was significantly increased by a larger lumpectomy volume (p_trend = 0.002); a volume >40 cc showed odds 2.78-fold higher for a worse outcome than a volume ≤40 cc. USS resulted in higher patient satisfaction compared with PGS.

Conclusion

Ultrasound-guided breast-conserving surgery achieved better overall cosmetic outcomes and patient satisfaction than PGS. Lumpectomy volumes >40 cc resulted in significantly worse cosmetic outcomes.

Single dose IOERT versus whole breast irradiation : Cosmetic results in breast-conserving therapy

BACKGROUND

Scarce data are available about the cosmetic result of single dose intraoperative electron radiotherapy (IOERT) in breast-conserving radiotherapy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We included 71 breast cancer patients. Breast-conserving surgery and sentinel node procedure had started almost 3 years earlier. Subsequently, 26 patients were treated with IOERT and 45 patients received postoperative whole breast irradiation (WBI). For both groups we determined seven dimensionless asymmetry features. We compared the subjectively and the objectively derived cosmetic scores with each other.

RESULTS

For four asymmetry features we noted significantly smaller differences for patients treated with IOERT when compared to those treated with WBI: relative breast contour difference, relative breast area difference and relative breast overlap difference. After correcting for excision volume a significant difference was noticed also for relative lower breast contour. For the IOERT group the cosmetic scores "excellent or good" as determined by each patient and one physician were 88 and 96 %, respectively. When the overall cosmetic scores for patients treated with IOERT and WBI were compared to those of the objectively derived scores, there was a fair level of agreement.

CONCLUSION

For patients treated with IOERT we noted less asymmetry and high rates of "good or excellent" subjectively derived cosmetic scores. The level of agreement between the subjectively and the objectively derived cosmetic scores was limited. Due to the small sample size and the design of the study no definitive conclusions can be drawn.

Evaluation of Aesthetic and Quality-of-Life Results after Immediate Breast Reconstruction with Definitive Form-Stable Anatomical Implants

BACKGROUND

Although there are many reports on different techniques in breast reconstruction, there are few data regarding immediate breast reconstruction with definitive form-stable anatomical implants in terms of aesthetics and quality-of-life outcomes.

METHODS

Ninety-four patients underwent mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction using anatomical implants and contralateral symmetrization. Aesthetic results were evaluated by three different methods: the patient's self-report, the assessment of four independent specialists (two breast surgeons and two plastic surgeons from different institutions), and the BCCT.core software. Quality of life was evaluated by means of the BREAST-Q instrument.

RESULTS

Average age ± SD was 52.1 ± 11.6 years. Most of patients had medium size breasts and T1 tumors. Patients had evaluated their aesthetic results better than did software and specialists. There was no significant difference in the comparison between software and specialist's evaluation. Multifactorial analysis showed that age older than 70 years and radiotherapy were significant risk factors for poor aesthetic outcomes after immediate breast reconstruction with implants. Considering quality of life, most of the patients were satisfied with their outcome and psychosocial and sexual well-being.

CONCLUSION

Immediate breast reconstruction with implants and contralateral symmetrization had a positive impact on the quality of life and showed satisfactory outcomes when evaluated by subjective and objective methods.

The breast cancer conservative treatment. Cosmetic results - BCCT.core - Software for objective assessment of esthetic outcome in breast cancer conservative treatment: A narrative review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Cosmetic outcome of breast cancer conservative treatment (BCCT) remains without a standard evaluation method. Subjective methods, in spite of their low reproducibility, continue to be the most frequently used. Objective methods, although more reproducible, seem unable to translate all the subtleties involved in cosmetic outcome. The breast cancer conservative treatment cosmetic results (BCCT.core) software was developed in 2007 to try to overcome these pitfalls. The software is a semi-automatic objective tool that evaluates asymmetry, color differences and scar visibility using patient's digital pictures. The purpose of this work is to review the use of the BCCT.core software since its availability in 2007 and to put forward future developments.

METHODS

All the online requests for BCCT.core use were registered from June 2007 to December 2014. For each request the department, city and country as well as user intention (clinical use/research or both) were questioned. A literature search was performed in Medline, Google Scholar and ISI Web of Knowledge for all publications using and citing "BCCT.core".

RESULTS

During this period 102 centers have requested the software essentially for clinical use. The BCCT.core software was used in 19 full published papers and in 29 conference abstracts.

CONCLUSIONS

The BCCT.core is a user friendly semi-automatic method for the objective evaluation of BCCT. The number of online requests and publications have been steadily increasing turning this computer program into the most frequently used tool for the objective cosmetic evaluation of BCCT.

Objective Measurement of Cosmetic Outcomes of Breast Conserving Therapy Using BCCT.core

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to evaluate objective cosmetic outcomes and factors related to breast-conserving therapy (BCT) using the BCCT.core software.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty-one patients who received BCT with informed consent were evaluated using the BCCT.core software. Patients were divided into two groups based on the BCCT score: excellent or good (n=42) vs. fair or poor (n=9). Analysis of clinical factors was performed to determine factors affecting cosmetic outcomes.

RESULTS

The objective cosmetic outcome of BCT measured using the BCCT.core software was excellent in 10% of patients, good in 72%, and fair in 18%. None of the patients were classified as poor outcome. Tumor characteristics, systemic adjuvant therapy (chemotherapy and hormonal therapy), and radiation dose or energy of electron boost did not show correlation with the score measured by the BCCT.core program (p > 0.05). In univariate analysis, maximum dose within the breast (Dmax), width of tangential field, and excised tumor volume were smaller in patients with excellent or good by the BCCT.core compared to those with fair or poor (Dmax, 110.2 ± 1.5% vs. 111.6 ± 1.7%, p=0.019; width of tangential field, 8.0 ± 1.1 cm vs. 8.6 ± 0.7 cm, p=0.034; excised tumor volume, 64.0 ± 35.8 cm(3) vs. 95.3 ± 54.4 cm(3), p=0.067). In multivariate analysis, only Dmax was a significant factor for breast cosmetic outcome with a risk ratio of 1.697 (95% confidence interval, 1.006 to 2.863; p=0.047).

CONCLUSION

Objective measurement of cosmetic outcome of BCT using the BCCT.core software was feasible. The cosmetic outcome of BCT may be affected by the maximum dose within the breast.

Long-term results of oncoplastic breast surgery with latissimus dorsi flap reconstruction: a pilot study of the objective cosmetic results and patient reported outcome

Purpose

The goal of oncoplastic breast surgery is to restore the appearance of the breast and improve patient satisfaction. Thus, the assessment of cosmetic results and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) using appropriately constructed and validated instruments is essential. The aim of the present study was to assess the long-term objective cosmetic results and corresponding PROs after oncoplastic breast surgery.

Methods

Cosmetic results were assessed by the patients, a medical panel, and a computer program (BCCT.core). PROs were assessed using BREAST-Q, a questionnaire that measures the perception of patients having breast surgery. The cosmetic results and PROs were analyzed in patients who underwent quadrantectomy and partial breast reconstruction utilizing the latissimus dorsi flap.

Results

The mean duration of the follow-up period was 91.6 months (range, 33.3–171.0 months), and mean age of the patients was 51 years old (range, 33–72 years). The mean tumor size was 2.1 cm (range, 0.9–5.5 cm). There was fair agreement between the medical panel and BCCT.core score (K = 0.32, P < 0.001), and a statistically significant correlation between the BCCT.core score and medical panel cosmetic results was identified (r = 0.606, P < 0.001). A better BCCT.core result was related to a higher PRO of each BREAST-Q domain—satisfaction with breasts (R² = 0.070, P = 0.039), satisfaction with outcome (R² = 0.087, P = 0.021), psychosocial well-being (R² = 0.085, P = 0.023), sexual well-being (R² = 0.082, P = 0.029), and satisfaction with information (R² = 0.064, P = 0.049).

Conclusion

Our long-term results of oncoplastic surgery achieved a high level of patient satisfaction with good cosmetic results. The medical panel and BCCT.core results correlated well with the PROs of the patients using valid, reliable, and procedure-specific measures.

Long-term objective esthetic outcome after breast-conserving therapy

The prediction of unfavorable long-term esthetic outcome (AO) is important for patient consultation. We aimed to analyze variables characterizing the improvement and impairment of AO over time after breast-conserving surgery. A subgroup of a prospective, monocenter cohort study was analyzed to evaluate the results of the BCCT.core software (Breast Cancer Conservative Treatment.cosmetic results) which was used to objectively assess the AO before (n = 356), shortly after (n = 294) and in median 3 years after surgery (n = 356). We analyzed potential influencing factors (such as body mass index, (y)pT-stage, weight of resected specimen, etc.) on the AO using logistic regression analyses (n = 256). Finally, we tried to characterize groups of patients with improving or impaired AO over time (n = 294). Predictors for an unfavorable AO were an axillary lymphadenectomy (OR = 4.05), a tumor in the 12 o'clock position (OR = 2.22), a tumor stage larger or equal to (y)pT2 stage (OR = 2.11), and a surgical specimen weight >75 g (OR = 2.71). Patients with lower specimen weight were more likely to improve in the long-term follow-up (p = 0.018), whereas patients with a higher (y)pT-stage tended to become impaired with time. Although overall AO decreased over time, nearly half of the patients with an unfavorable AO shortly after surgery improved in the long-term follow-up. Predictors of unfavorable AO can be used in patient consultation preoperatively to prepare them for the postsurgical period and/or to recommend surgical alternatives (e.g., more complex oncoplastic techniques). Knowledge of improvement and impairment may help patients and physicians in the postsurgical consultation setting.

Cosmetic evaluation methods adapted to asian patients after breast-conserving surgery and examination of the necessarily elements for cosmetic evaluation

Purpose

Although various strategies have been reported, there are no defined criteria for cosmetic evaluation methods after breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Since Asians tend to have smaller breasts, indistinct inframammary folds, and conspicuous scars, differences in the cosmetic results are expected. So we examined two subjective methods and one objective method to determine the differences, and elements necessary for a cosmetic evaluation after BCS.

Methods

Frontal photographs of 190 Japanese were evaluated using the Harris scale (Harris) and the evaluation method proposed by the Japanese Breast Cancer Society Sawai group (Sawai group) as the subjective methods, and the Breast Cancer Conservation Treatment cosmetic results (BCCT.core) as the objective method, respectively. In order to examine the necessary elements for developing a new ideal method, 100 out of 190 were selected and assessed separately by six raters using both the Harris and modified Sawai group methods in the observer assessment. The correlation between the two methods was examined using the Spearman rank-correlation coefficient.

Results

The results of the BCCT.core and the other two methods were clearly different. In the observer assessment, the consensuses of the six raters were evaluated as follows: 27, 27, 26, and 20 cases were evaluated as "excellent," "good," "fair," and "poor," respectively. For the Spearman rank-correlation coefficient, values higher than 0.7 indicated a strong correlation, as seen by the values of 0.909 for the breast shape and 0.345 for the scar. The breast shape accounted for the most significant part of the evaluation, and the scar had very little correlation.

Conclusion

In this study, we recognized a clear difference between the subjective and objective evaluation methods, and identified the necessary elements for cosmetic evaluation. We would like to continue developing an ideal cosmetic evaluation that is similar to subjective one and is independent from raters.

Dermoglandular rotation flaps for breast-conserving therapy: aesthetic results, patient satisfaction, and morbidity in comparison to standard segmentectomy

We compared a dermoglandular rotation flap (DGR) in the upper inner, lower inner, and upper outer quadrant regarding similar aesthetic results, patient satisfaction, and comfort after breast-conserving therapy with standard segmentectomy (SE). Between 2003 and 2011, 69 patients were treated with breast-conserving surgery using DGR for cancers with high tumor-to-breast volume ratios or skin resection in the three above mentioned quadrants; 161 patients with tumors in the same quadrants were treated with SE. The outcome of the procedures was assessed at least 7 months after completed radiation therapy using a patient and breast surgeon questionnaire and the BCCT.core software. Symmetry, visibility of the scars, the position of the nipple-areola complex, and the appearance of the treated breast were each assessed on a scale from 1 to 4 by an expert panel and by the patients. Univariate and multivariate analysis were used to evaluate the relationship between patient-, tumor-, and treatment-dependent factors and patient satisfaction. 94.2% of the patients with rotation flaps and 83.5% of the patients with lumpectomy were very satisfied with the cosmetic appearance of their breast. Younger patient age was significantly associated with a lower degree of satisfaction. DGR provides good cosmetic results compared with SE and shows high patient satisfaction despite longer scarring and higher median resection volume.

Cosmetic Outcome Assessment following Breast-Conserving Therapy: A Comparison between BCCT.core Software and Panel Evaluation

Purpose. Over recent decades, no consensus has yet been reached on the optimal approach to cosmetic evaluation following breast-conserving therapy (BCT). The present study compared the strengths and weaknesses of the BCCT.core software with a 10-member panel from various backgrounds. Methods. Digital photographs of 109 consecutive patients after BCT were evaluated for 7 items by a panel consisting of 2 breast surgeons, 2 residents, 2 laypersons, and 4 plastic surgeons. All photographs were objectively evaluated using the BCCT.core software (version 20), and an overall cosmetic outcome score was reached using a four-point Likert scale. Results. Based on the mean BCCT.core software score, 41% of all patients had fair or poor overall cosmetic results (10% poor), compared with 51% (14% poor) obtained with panel evaluation. Mean overall BCCT.core score and mean overall panel score substantially agreed (weighted kappa: 0.68). By contrast, analysis of the evaluation of scar tissue revealed large discrepancies between the BCCT.core software and the panel. The analysis of subgroups formed from different combinations of the panel members still showed substantial agreement with the BCCT.core software (range 0.64-0.69), independent of personal background. Conclusions. Although the analysis of scar tissue by the software shows room for improvement, the BCCT.core represents a valid and efficient alternative to panel evaluation.

Predictors of early poor aesthetic outcome after breast-conserving surgery in patients with breast cancer: initial results of a prospective cohort study at a single institution

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to explore features of patients reporting early poor aesthetic outcome after simple breast-conserving surgery.

METHODS

We prospectively evaluated 709 patients shortly after breast-conserving surgery. Aesthetic outcome was measured by aesthetic status scores of the Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale. Clinical, surgical, and pathologic variables were assessed to identify predictors of poor aesthetic outcome.

RESULTS

Poor aesthetic outcome was reported by 46 (6.5%) patients, and 209 (29%) patients reported an intermediate aesthetic outcome. A single factor analysis of variance showed a negative impact of higher specimen weight (P < 0.001). Univariate logistic regression analysis revealed the following significant risk factors for poor aesthetic outcome: 12 o'clock positioning of tumor localization, a tumor behind the nipple areolar complex (NAC), fishmouth-shaped incision with resection of the NAC, quadrantectomy, central segmental resection, and pT stages 3 and 4. Multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated statistically independent associations between poor aesthetic outcome and tumor position in the inner half of the breast or behind the NAC, quadrantectomy, and pT stages 3 and 4.

CONCLUSION

Poor aesthetic outcome is relatively rare shortly after breast-conserving surgery, but predictable in specific situations.

A cosmesis outcome substudy in a prospective, randomized trial comparing radioguided seed localization with standard wire localization for nonpalpable, invasive, and in situ breast carcinomas

BACKGROUND

The primary study objective was to compare the cosmetic result of radioguided seed localization (RSL) with wire localization (WL).

METHODS

A subgroup of patients enrolled in a multicentered, randomized trial comparing WL with RSL participated. Frontal photographs were taken 1 and 3 years postsurgery. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Cosmetic Rating System was used to evaluate cosmesis outcomes by the patient and a panel of 5 raters.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 73 patients (WL, n = 38; RSL, n = 35). Most patients rated their overall cosmesis as "excellent" or "good" (76% WL, 80% RSL). Patient and panel ratings on all cosmetic outcomes were similar between groups. Multivariable regression for overall cosmesis found larger specimen volume and reoperation to be predictors of worse ratings.

CONCLUSIONS

All cosmetic outcomes assessed were similar after WL and RSL. The comparable outcomes may reflect similar reoperation rates and volumes of excision between groups.

The use of real-time digital video in the assessment of post-operative outcomes of breast reconstruction

INTRODUCTION

Outcome measures of breast reconstruction have used panel assessment of photographs. This provides limited information to the assessor as these images are static.. The aim of this study was to assess whether the use of digital video was a valid assessment tool and to compare its use against photography.

METHODS

35 patients post-reconstruction underwent photography, digital video capture and completed Breast Cancer Treatment Outcomes Scale (BCTOS) questionnaires. The photographs/video clips were randomised and shown to a 21 member panel. Opinions on aesthetic aspects of the reconstruction were assessed using the BCTOS and Harris scale. Panel inter-rater agreement and patient-panel correlation was assessed using Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance and Spearman's rank correlation tests respectively.

RESULTS

There was a "moderate" degree of inter-rater agreement amongst panel members in all categories. Greater agreement occurred using video footage to assess overall cosmesis (0.548 vs 0.507) and shape (0.505 vs 0.486). Video showed a greater degree of correlation with patient self-assessment scores in comparison to photography (0.311 vs 0.281).

CONCLUSION

Video footage coupled with panel assessment is a valid method of assessing post-operative outcomes of breast reconstruction and appears superior to still photographs in terms of inter-rater agreement and correlation with patient self-assessment.

Centrifugation versus PureGraft for fatgrafting to the breast after breast-conserving therapy

Background

Breast-conserving treatment (BCT) leads to a progressive and deteriorating breast deformity. Fatgrafting is ideal for breast reconstruction after BCT. The most frequently utilized technique for fat processing is centrifugation. The PureGraft device (Cytori Therapeutics, San Diego, CA, USA) is a new method that involves washing and filtering the fat to prepare the graft. We compared the subjective and objective outcomes of two fat-processing methods, centrifugation and PureGraft filtration.

Methods

Thirty patients underwent breast reconstruction performed by a single surgeon (OM) after BCT in our department between April 2011 and September 2012. The patients were preoperatively divided into two groups randomly: 15 received fatgrafts processed by centrifugation, and 15 received fatgrafts processed by washing in PureGraft bags. The patients were followed up for 12 to 30 months. To measure the subjective outcome, we distributed the BREAST-Q questionnaire to all the patients both preoperatively and 1 year postoperatively. The BCCT.core software evaluated the objective outcome of breast reconstruction by fatgrafting.

Results

The Breast-Q results indicated a tremendous improvement in the modules “Satisfaction with Breast” and “Psychosocial Well-being”. The “Sexual Well-being” scale also improved. Only the module “Satisfaction with Breasts” significantly differed between groups; patients treated with the PureGraft fat exhibited better outcomes. The BCCT.core results did not significantly differ between the groups.

Conclusion

One year postoperatively, the outcomes of the use of PureGraft bags or centrifugation to process fat for breast reconstruction after BCT did not differ. The unpredictability of the results following fatgrafting procedures is likely due to interindividual differences with yet-undisclosed causes.