Oncoplastic breast surgery in the setting of breast-conserving therapy: A systematic review

Impact of Oncoplastic Surgery on Oncologic Outcomes in Patients with Breast Cancer

Background

For patients with breast cancer, oncoplastic surgery (OPS) serves as a valuable technique that allows for immediate reconstruction at the time of resection. While the aim of OPS is to improve breast cosmesis, it is critical to ensure OPS does not negatively impact appropriate cancer treatment.

Methods

Based on current literature, this study provides a broad overview on the potential oncologic advantages of OPS for patients diagnosed with breast cancer.

Results

OPS has been shown to be a safe and reliable approach with oncologic advantages. More specifically, OPS broadens the indications for breast conservation therapy (BCT); allows for a more generous margin of resection, thus decreasing rates of re-excision; and provides the opportunity to sample additional breast tissue, which may detect occult disease. Reduction mammaplasty may also decrease the risk for developing breast cancer. Importantly, in the era of multimodality therapy, long-term oncologic outcomes and postoperative surveillance algorithms appear to be similar when comparing patients who undergo OPS and BCT.

Conclusions

For patients with breast cancer, oncoplastic surgery has emerged as a valuable technique to improve breast cosmesis while achieving optimal oncologic outcomes. As the landscape of breast oncology continues to evolve, it is critical for a multidisciplinary team to be involved to guide management and reconstructive strategies.

Effect of Delayed Oncoplastic Reduction Mammoplasty on Radiation Treatment Delay Following Breast-Conserving Surgery for Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the delay in initiating adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in patients with early-stage breast cancer who underwent oncoplastic reduction mammoplasty (ORM) following BCS compared with a matched cohort of patients who did not undergo ORM between BCS and RT.

METHODS

Medical records of 112 women (56 ORMs and 56 matched non-ORMs) with carcinoma in situ or early-stage breast cancer treated with BCS were reviewed. ORM was performed in a delayed manner following BCS, allowing confirmation of negative surgical margins. Time to RT was defined as time from last oncologic surgery to start of RT.

RESULTS

The median follow-up time was 6.8 years for the ORM cohort and 6.7 years for the control non-ORM cohort. Patients who underwent ORM following BCS experienced a significant delay in initiating RT (>8 weeks) than matched patients not undergoing ORM (66% vs. 34%; p < 0.001). Wound complications occurred in 44.6% (n = 25) of patients in the ORM cohort, which were mostly minor, including delayed wound healing and/or infection (39%). There was no significant difference in local recurrence between patients in the non-ORM and ORM cohorts (p = 0.32).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that ORM following BCS has the potential to delay RT >8 weeks, largely as a result of increased risk of wound complications; however, this delay did not impact local control. ORM can be safely considered for appropriately selected patients with breast cancer.

Use of tumour bed boost radiotherapy in volume replacement oncoplastic breast surgery: A systematic review

Tumour bed boost radiotherapy (RT) following breast conserving surgery reduces local recurrence in high-risk disease. There is recent debate over challenges to accurately localise tumour bed for RT boost delivery following volume replacement oncoplastic breast surgery (VR-OBS). This review evaluates the reporting of RT boost following VR-OBS in the literature published between January 2010 and December 2021. This review was in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Metaanalysis statement.Nine studies met the inclusion criteria (n=670 patients), and RT boost was used in eight studies. Boost was administered in total to 384 patients (62.5% of irradiated patients). Only two studies reported boost planned target volumes and only one compared these against surgical specimen volumes.RT boost was not reported in most published studies on VR-OBS. Future prospective research are strongly needed to evaluate long-term outcomes of VR-OBS following RT boost, especially on breast cosmesis and patients' satisfaction. DATA AVAILABILITY: Data will be made available upon request.

Innovative Standards in Oncoplastic Breast Conserving Surgery: From Radical Mastectomy to Extreme Oncoplasty

BACKGROUND

Oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (OBCS), which is the current procedure of choice for eligible BC patients, describes a philosophy that prioritizes oncologic and cosmetic outcomes. However, knowledge gaps regarding training, acceptance, and practice preclude standardization and make it difficult to design algorithmic guidelines to optimize individualized management in the era of precision medicine.

SUMMARY

The harmony between patient expectations and oncologic goals creates the state of the art of OBCS. Nevertheless, to achieve these goals, multidisciplinary approach is a must. Surgical decisions require a comprehensive evaluation including patient factors, tumor biology, genetics, technical considerations, and adjunct therapies. Moreover, the quality-of-life (QOL) issues should be considered as the highest level of priority with a shared decision making instituted on realistic discussions with the patient.

KEY MESSAGES

The standardization in OBCS should be initiated via defining a breast surgeon who should gain theorical and practical competence on techniques via national or international educational programs. The algorithmic patient assessment with appropriate documentation before and after surgery should be established. A simple and safe global lexicon should be designed regarding techniques to be proposed and quality metrics to be considered. Additionally, international multicenter prospective trials should be instituted to overcome knowledge gaps. It is evident that OBCS is the perfect union of science with art. Nevertheless, at the very end, the question is not the nature of the surgeon/artist who would be the extremist, the innovator, or the conservative, but the patient's satisfaction, prognosis, and QOL that conclude the cascade of state of the art of OBCS.

Implications of Oncoplastic Breast Surgery on Radiation Boost Delivery in Localized Breast Cancer

Background

Oncoplastic partial mastectomy (OPM) is a technique utilized to improve aesthetic and survivorship outcomes in patients with localized breast cancer. This technique leads to breast tissue rearrangement, which can have an impact on target definition for boost radiotherapy (BRT). The aim of this study was to determine if the choice of surgical technique independently affected the decision to deliver a radiation boost.

Materials and methods

This was a retrospective study of patients treated between January 2017 and December 2018. We selected consecutive patients based on surgical procedure: 50 undergoing standard breast-conserving surgery and 50 having had an OPM. The primary outcome was average treatment effect (ATE) of surgery type on reception of BRT. Secondary outcomes included ATE of surgery type on the time to reception of radiotherapy and incidence of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR). The ratio of boost clinical target volume (CTV) to pathologic tumor size was also compared between the two groups. Treatment effects regression adjustment and inverse-probability weighted analysis was used to estimate ATEs for both primary and secondary outcomes.

Results

For the entire cohort, the median age was 64 years (range: 37-88 years). The median tumor size was 1.5 cm (range: 0.1-6.5 cm). The majority of patients were with ≤ stage IIA (78%), invasive ductal subtype (80%), negative lymphovascular space invasion (78%), negative margin (90%), and positive ER/PR (estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor) (69%). Overall, surgical technique was not associated with differences in the proportion of patients receiving BRT (ATE: 6.0% [95% CI: -4.5 to 16.0]). There were no differences in delays to radiation treatment between the two groups (ATE: 32.8 days [95% CI: -22.1 to 87.7]). With a median follow-up time of 419 days (range: 30-793 days), there were only five recurrences, with one case of IBTR in each group. There was no difference in the ratio of CTV volume to tumor size between the two groups (p=0.38).

Conclusions

OPM did not affect the decision to offer localized BRT following standard whole breast radiotherapy or significantly affect treatment times or radiation volumes. The decision to offer OPM should include a multi-disciplinary approach.

Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery for women with primary breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (O-BCS) involves removing the tumour in the breast and using plastic surgery techniques to reconstruct the breast. The adequacy of published evidence on the safety and efficacy of O-BCS for the treatment of breast cancer compared to other surgical options for breast cancer is still debatable. It is estimated that the local recurrence rate is similar to standard breast-conserving surgery (S-BCS) and also mastectomy, but the aesthetic and patient-reported outcomes may be improved with oncoplastic techniques.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary objective was to assess oncological control outcomes following O-BCS compared with other surgical options for women with breast cancer. Our secondary objective was to assess surgical complications, recall rates, need for further surgery to achieve adequate oncological resection, patient satisfaction through patient-reported outcomes, and cosmetic outcomes through objective measures or clinician-reported outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (via OVID), Embase (via OVID), the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov on 7 August 2020. We did not apply any language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised comparative studies (cohort and case-control studies). Studies evaluated any O-BCS technique, including volume displacement techniques and partial breast volume replacement techniques compared to any other surgical treatment (partial resection or mastectomy) for the treatment of breast cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four review authors performed data extraction and resolved disagreements. We used ROBINS-I to assess the risk of bias by outcome. We performed descriptive data analysis and meta-analysis and evaluated the quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria. The outcomes included local recurrence, breast cancer-specific disease-free survival, re-excision rates, complications, recall rates, and patient-reported outcome measures.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 78 non-randomised cohort studies evaluating 178,813 women. Overall, we assessed the risk of bias per outcome as being at serious risk of bias due to confounding; where studies adjusted for confounding, we deemed these at moderate risk. Comparison 1: oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (O-BCS) versus standard-BCS (S-BCS) The evidence in the review found that O-BCS when compared to S-BCS, may make little or no difference to local recurrence; either when measured as local recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.34; 4 studies, 7600 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or local recurrence rate (HR 1.33, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.83; 4 studies, 2433 participants; low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain due to most studies not controlling for confounding clinicopathological factors. O-BCS compared to S-BCS may make little to no difference to disease-free survival (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.26; 7 studies, 5532 participants; low-certainty evidence). O-BCS may reduce the rate of re-excisions needed for oncological resection (risk ratio (RR) 0.76, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.85; 38 studies, 13,341 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. O-BCS may increase the number of women who have at least one complication (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.27; 20 studies, 118,005 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and increase the recall to biopsy rate (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.67 to 3.42; 6 studies, 715 participants; low-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis was not possible when assessing patient-reported outcomes or cosmetic evaluation; in general, O-BCS reported a similar or more favourable result, however, the evidence is very uncertain due to risk of bias in the measurement methods. Comparison 2: oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (O-BCS) versus mastectomy alone O-BCS may increase local recurrence-free survival compared to mastectomy but the evidence is very uncertain (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.91; 2 studies, 4713 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of O-BCS on disease-free survival as there were only data from one study. O-BCS may reduce complications compared to mastectomy, but the evidence is very uncertain due to high risk of bias mainly resulting from confounding (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.83; 4 studies, 4839 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Data on patient-reported outcome measures came from single studies; it was not possible to meta-analyse the data. Comparison 3: oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (O-BCS) versus mastectomy with reconstruction O-BCS may make little or no difference to local recurrence-free survival (HR 1.37, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.62; 1 study, 3785 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or disease-free survival (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.22; 1 study, 317 participants; very low-certainty evidence) when compared to mastectomy with reconstruction, but the evidence is very uncertain. O-BCS may reduce the complication rate compared to mastectomy with reconstruction (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.54; 5 studies, 4973 participants; very low-certainty evidence) but the evidence is very uncertain due to high risk of bias from confounding and inconsistency of results. The evidence is very uncertain for patient-reported outcome measures and cosmetic evaluation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence is very uncertain regarding oncological outcomes following O-BCS compared to S-BCS, though O-BCS has not been shown to be inferior. O-BCS may result in less need for a second re-excision surgery but may result in more complications and a greater recall rate than S-BCS. It seems that O-BCS may give better patient satisfaction and surgeon rating for the look of the breast, but the evidence for this is of poor quality, and due to lack of numerical data, it was not possible to pool the results of different studies. It seems O-BCS results in fewer complications compared with surgeries involving mastectomy. Based on this review, no certain conclusions can be made to help inform policymakers. The surgical decision for what operation to proceed with should be made jointly between clinician and patient after an appropriate discussion about the risks and benefits of O-BCS personalised to the patient, taking into account clinicopathological factors. This review highlighted the deficiency of well-conducted studies to evaluate efficacy, safety and patient-reported outcomes following O-BCS.

Awareness and Acceptability of Breast Reconstruction Among Women With Breast Cancer: A Prospective Survey

PURPOSE

Quality of life has become an integral aspect of the management of breast cancer. Many women still need to undergo a modified radical mastectomy (MRM). Factors affecting the choice a woman makes to undergo breast reconstruction (BR) are unclear and are hypothesized to be influenced by socioeconomic factors. We conducted a survey to evaluate the awareness and acceptability of BR among women with breast cancer at our institution.

METHODS

A novel questionnaire was designed and served to 3 groups of women: planned for MRM, follow up (FU) post-MRM, and FU post breast-conserving surgery.

RESULTS

Responses were analyzed from 492 women. Of these, 280 (56.91%) were planned for MRM and 212 (43.08%) women were on FU. Almost 45% women were older than 50 years of age, and literacy rate was 87.6%. More than 70% were homemakers and 15 women (3%) were unmarried. The aspects evaluating awareness of BR suggested that 251 (51.01%) women had knowledge about BR. Major source of information was the surgeon (45.81%) and media (32.87%). About 80% women on FU post-MRM did not want reconstruction, and 55% did not opt for BR as they had coped with the mastectomy and did not feel the need for BR. Only 6% cited family or financial reasons and 10% cited recurrence concerns. Among women planned for surgery, 65.71% had not considered BR. When questioned, 25 (12.88%) felt influenced by cost, 102 (52.58%) felt they did not need it, and 20 (10.31%) were worried it would affect treatment.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows high awareness regarding BR, but only 27.89% women opt for BR independent of economic issues. We recommend all patients should be counseled about the reconstructive options when their MRM is planned.

Adjuvant radiation therapy in breast cancer: Recent advances & Indian data

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women in India, and adjuvant radiotherapy is an integral part of curative treatment in most patients. The recent decades have witnessed several advances in radiation therapy delivery. Several advances in radiation oncology have been identified which include technological advances, change in fractionation used, use of cardiac-sparing radiotherapy as well as efforts to personalize radiotherapy using accelerated partial breast irradiation or avoidance of radiotherapy in certain subpopulations. Indian data are available in most areas which have been summarized. However, increasing emphasis on research in these areas is needed so that effectiveness and safety in our setting can be established. Advances in breast cancer radiotherapy have resulted in improved outcomes. Data published from India suggest that these improved outcomes can be replicated in patients when appropriate treatment protocols are followed.

Systematic review of partial breast reconstruction with pedicled perforator artery flaps: Clinical, oncological and cosmetic outcomes

The use of chest wall perforator flaps (CWPFs) following breast conservation surgery for breast cancer has become a useful tool in the armamentarium of the oncoplastic breast surgeon, however robust evidence for the technique is lacking. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review appraising the current evidence for the use of CWPFs, evaluating clinical, oncological and cosmetic outcomes. A PRISMA-compliant systematic review, with PROSPERO published protocol a priori and search of all relevant database and trial registries between 1990 to July 2020. Eleven studies amounting to 432 cases were reviewed and considered to be at high risk of bias due to small sample size, selective outcome reporting and selection bias. Heterogeneity due to lack of consensus of outcome measures prevented meaningful analysis. Fifty-two (12.3%) clinical complications were recorded: seroma (n = 9; 2.1%), fat necrosis (n = 9; 2.4%), haematoma (n = 8; 1.9%), infection (n = 9; 2.1%), and flap necrosis (n = 9; 2.1%). Thirty-four (10.8%) patients had an involved positive margin, 29 patients underwent re-excision (9.3%) and four underwent completion mastectomy (1.3%). One local recurrence and six distant recurrences were observed during a mean follow up of 21 months (1-49). A pooled patient cosmetic satisfaction descriptor of good or excellent was described in 93% of cases. CWPFs are a safe method of partial breast reconstruction following BCS. They are associated with a low complication rate, acceptable short-term oncological outcomes and satisfactory cosmetic outcome. There is a relative paucity in quality of data in this field and larger prospective studies are needed to investigate outcomes further.

Oncological safety and postoperative complications in oncoplastic breast surgery among Asian women: A single institutional review

Oncoplastic breast surgery (OBS) improves margin clearance and produces good esthetic outcome in breast cancer treatment. This study evaluates the complications and outcome of OBS in a multiracial patient cohort. Data of 421 patients between 2011 and 2018 were analyzed. The majority were Malays (41.8%), followed by Chinese (39.7%) and Indians (16.8%). Low local complications were noted, with no significant differences in disease-free survival (P = .927) and overall survival (P = .719) between low and high OBS levels. Shared decision-making in offering OBS for Asian women has potential to become a practical option in breast cancer treatment.

Consensus statement on tumour bed localization for radiation after oncoplastic breast surgery

Background

Oncoplastic surgery (ops) is becoming the new standard of care for breast-conserving surgery, leading to some challenges with adjuvant radiation, particularly when accurate tumour bed (tbd) delineation is needed for focused radiation (that is, accelerated partial breast irradiation or boost radiation). Currently, no guidelines have been published concerning tbd localization for adjuvant targeted radiation after ops.

Methods

A modified Delphi method was used to establish consensus by a panel of 20 experts in surgical and radiation oncology at the Canadian Locally Advanced Breast Cancer National Consensus Group and in a subsequent online member survey.

Results

These are the main recommendations:■ Surgical clips are necessary and should, at a minimum, be placed along the 4 side walls of the cavity, plus 1-4 clips at the posterior margin if necessary.■ Operative reports should include pertinent information to help guide the radiation oncologists.■ Breast surgeons and radiation oncologists should have a basic understanding of ops techniques and work on "speaking a common language."■ Careful consideration is needed when determining the value of targeted radiation, such as boost, in higher-level ops procedures with extensive tissue rearrangement.

Conclusions

The panel developed a total of 6 recommendations on tbd delineation for more focused radiation therapy after ops, with more than 80% agreement on each statement. All are summarized, together with the corresponding evidence or expert opinion.

Increasing Role of Oncoplastic Surgery for Breast Cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The goals of surgery for breast cancer have remained the same over the years, to eliminate breast cancer from the breast with the least degree of deformity. With the current expectation of long-term survival after breast cancer treatment, more attention has turned to the cosmetic result of the surgical treatment. Whether lumpectomy or mastectomy, the need for aesthetic improvement was recognized by surgeons both in and outside the USA.

RECENT FINDINGS

Oncoplastic surgery combines the skills of the cancer surgeon with those of the plastic surgeon. Sometimes, this means a team approach with a breast surgeon and a plastic surgeon both performing their mutual skills for the patient. Other times, the properly trained breast surgeon may perform some of the plastic techniques at the time of cancer surgery. Breast surgeons are rapidly gaining the ability to improve the post-cancer treatment appearance. To simplify the classification of oncoplastic techniques, we have used lower level, upper level, and highest level. The assignment of techniques to levels is based on both the technique and the surgeon's training and experience. Much data has accumulated demonstrating the safety and efficacy of the "aesthetic cancer cure." We describe the development of oncoplastic surgery, the techniques available, matching the right candidate with the right technique, and some comments about the future. It is clear from both clinical benefit and patient satisfaction that oncoplastic breast cancer procedures are here to stay. Plastic surgeons will likely focus on the upper- and highest-level procedures while breast/general surgeons will learn lower-level procedures and some of upper-level procedures as needed by their locale. Opportunities to educate breast/general surgeons in these techniques will continue to increase over the next several years. Formal education in oncoplastic surgery during breast fellowships will be necessary to catch up with the rest of the surgical world outside the USA.

Outcomes of immediate oncoplastic surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy in breast cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Oncoplastic surgery techniques lead to a rearrangement of the breast tissue and impede target definition during adjuvant radiotherapy (RT). The aim of this study was to assess local control rates after immediate oncoplastic surgery and adjuvant RT.

METHODS

This study comprises 965 patients who underwent breast-conserving therapy and adjuvant RT between 01/2000 and 12/2005. 288 patients received immediate oncoplastic surgery (ONC) and 677 patients breast-conserving surgery only (NONC). All patients were treated with adjuvant external tangential-beam RT (total dose: 50/50.4 Gy; fraction dose 1.8/2.0 Gy). An additional boost dose of 10-16 Gy to the primary tumor bed was given in 900 cases (93.3%). Local control rates (LCR), Progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed retrospectively after a median follow-up period of 67 (Q25-Q75: 51-84) months.

RESULTS

No significant difference was found between ONC and NONC in regard to LCR (5-yr: ONC 96.8% vs. NONC 95.3%; p = 0.25). This held also true for PFS (5-yr: ONC 92.1% vs. NONC 89.3%; p = 0.09) and OS (5-yr: ONC 96.0% vs. NONC 94.8%; p = 0.53). On univariate analyses G2-3 (p = 0.04), a younger age (p = 0.01), T-stage (p < 0.01) lymph node involvement (p < 0.01) as well as triple negative tumors (p < 0.01) were identified as risk factors for local recurrence. In a propensity score stratified Cox-regression model no significant impact of oncoplastic surgery on local control rate was found (HR: 2.05, 95% CI [0.93; 4.51], p = 0.08).

CONCLUSION

Immediate oncoplastic surgery seems not to affect the effectiveness of adjuvant whole breast RT on local control rates in breast cancer patients.

Update of the American Society of Breast Surgeons Toolbox to address the lumpectomy reoperation epidemic

In 2015, the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) convened a multidisciplinary consensus conference, the Collaborative Attempt to Lower Lumpectomy Reoperation Rates (CALLER). The CALLER conference endorsed a "toolbox" of multiple processes of care for which there was evidence that they were associated with fewer reoperations. We present an update of the toolbox taking into consideration the latest advances in decreasing re excision rates. In this review, we performed a comprehensive review of the literature from 2015-2018 using search terms for each tool. The original ten tools were updated with the latest evidence from the literature and our strength of recommendation. We added an additional section looking at new tools and techniques that may provide more accurate intraoperative assessment of margins. The updates on the CALLER Toolbox for lumpectomy will help guide surgeons to various resources to aid in the removal of breast cancer, while being aware of cosmesis and decreasing re excision rates.

Current practice and short-term outcomes of therapeutic mammaplasty in the international TeaM multicentre prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic mammaplasty, which combines breast reduction and mastopexy techniques with tumour excision, may extend the boundaries of breast-conserving surgery and improve outcomes for patients, but current practice is unknown and high-quality outcome data are lacking. This prospective multicentre cohort study aimed to explore the practice and short-term outcomes of the technique.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing therapeutic mammaplasty at participating centres between 1 September 2016 and 30 June 2017 were recruited to the study. Demographic, preoperative, operative, oncological and complication data were collected. The primary outcome was unplanned reoperation for complications within 30 days of surgery. Secondary outcomes included re-excision rates and time to adjuvant therapy.

RESULTS

Overall, 880 patients underwent 899 therapeutic mammaplasty procedures at 50 centres. The most common indications were avoidance of poor cosmetic outcomes associated with standard breast-conserving surgery (702 procedures, 78·1 per cent) or avoidance of mastectomy (379, 42·2 per cent). Wise-pattern skin incisions were the most common (429 of 899, 47·7 per cent), but a range of incisions and nipple-areola pedicles were used. Immediate contralateral symmetrization was performed in one-third of cases (284 of 880, 32·3 per cent). In total, 205 patients (23·3 per cent) developed a complication, but only 25 (2·8 per cent) required reoperation. Median postoperative lesion size was 24·5 (i.q.r. 16-38) mm. Incomplete excision was seen in 132 procedures (14·7 per cent), but completion mastectomy was required for only 51 lesions (5·7 per cent). Median time to adjuvant therapy was 54 (i.q.r. 42-66) days.

CONCLUSION

Therapeutic mammaplasty is a safe and effective alternative to mastectomy or standard breast-conserving surgery. Further work is required to explore the impact of the technique on quality of life, and to establish cost-effectiveness.

Objective assessment of clinical, oncological and cosmetic outcomes following volume replacement in patients undergoing oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery: protocol for a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Oncoplastic breast surgery allows the excision of larger tumours without compromising cosmetic outcome and can be broadly divided into volume displacement and volume replacement techniques. Although oncoplastic surgery has rapidly gained acceptance and is now widely practised, evidence is still lacking especially in patients who underwent volume replacement techniques. As it is a relatively new technique that has been described in the literature in the recent years, a summary of evidence from this literature can help clinicians to understand the clinical, oncologicalandcosmetic outcomes of such procedures.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

All original studies including randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and case series involving more than 10 women undergoing partial breast reconstruction using a volume replacement technique will be included. The primary objective is to evaluate the clinical, oncological and cosmetic outcomes following volume replacement in patients undergoing oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery. The secondary objective is to review the patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) associated with oncoplastic breast surgery to help identify any unmet needs and to consider refining the existing PROMs to suit women undergoing volume replacement surgery.A comprehensive literature search, eligibility assessment and extraction of data will be conducted by two trained teams acting independently. Data will be extracted and stored in a database with standardised extraction fields to facilitate easy and consistent data entry. Heterogeneity will be assessed using the Cochrane tests.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This systematic review requires no ethical approval. It will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it will also be presented at nationalandinternational conferences.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017075700; Pre-results.

Updates in the Evaluation and Management of Breast Cancer

Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer worldwide. More than 200,000 new cases of invasive breast cancer are diagnosed annually in the United States; approximately 40,000 patients die of the disease. The etiology of most breast cancer cases is unknown, although multiple factors predisposing to the disease have been identified. Apart from increasing age and female sex, these other factors account for only a minority of breast cancer diagnoses. This article provides an overview of the management of noninvasive and invasive breast cancer, which is often complex and varies according to patient factors, disease stage, and breast cancer subtype. Although much progress has been made, continued research endeavors are ongoing; enrollment of eligible patients in prospective clinical trials is an essential way to improve patient outcomes.