Objective assessment of aesthetic outcome after breast conserving therapy: Subjective third party panel rating and objective BCCT.core software evaluation

Feasibility of anomaly score detected with deep learning in irradiated breast cancer patients with reconstruction

The aim of this study is to evaluate cosmetic outcomes of the reconstructed breast in breast cancer patients, using anomaly score (AS) detected by generative adversarial network (GAN) deep learning algorithm. A total of 251 normal breast images from patients who underwent breast-conserving surgery were used for training anomaly GAN network. GAN-based anomaly detection was used to calculate abnormalities as an AS, followed by standardization by using z-score. Then, we reviewed 61 breast cancer patients who underwent mastectomy followed by reconstruction with autologous tissue or tissue expander. All patients were treated with adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) after reconstruction and computed tomography (CT) was performed at three-time points with a regular follow-up; before RT (Pre-RT), one year after RT (Post-1Y), and two years after RT (Post-2Y). Compared to Pre-RT, Post-1Y and Post-2Y demonstrated higher AS, indicating more abnormal cosmetic outcomes (Pre-RT vs. Post-1Y, P = 0.015 and Pre-RT vs. Post-2Y, P = 0.011). Pre-RT AS was higher in patients having major breast complications (P = 0.016). Patients with autologous reconstruction showed lower AS than those with tissue expander both at Pre-RT (2.00 vs. 4.19, P = 0.008) and Post-2Y (2.89 vs. 5.00, P = 0.010). Linear mixed effect model revealed that days after baseline were associated with increased AS (P = 0.007). Also, tissue expander was associated with steeper rise of AS, compared to autologous tissue (P = 0.015). Fractionation regimen was not associated with the change of AS (P = 0.389). AS detected by deep learning might be feasible in predicting cosmetic outcomes of RT-treated patients with breast reconstruction. AS should be validated in prospective studies.

Breast-conserving surgery with the geometric compensation/split reduction technique. Indications, oncologic safety and cosmesis. A cohort series and systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

The Geometric Compensation Technique (GCT) and the Split Reduction Technique (SRT) enables breast conserving surgery (BCS) in selected patients with breast cancer initially candidates to mastectomy.

METHODS

Observational study of patients with breast cancer who underwent GCT consecutively treated. Evaluated retrospectively: indications, clinical characteristics, surgical features and recurrences. Cosmesis were evaluated prospectively by the BCCT.core software, Harris/Harvard and Garbay scales. Descriptive statistics were performed, chi-square test was used to compare aesthetic outcomes; Kappa and Weighted Kappa test was used to assess agreement between the postoperative evaluations; Kaplan-Meier model for follow-up and recurrence. A systematic review was carried out using PRISMA methodology.

RESULTS

Thirty-six patients were evaluated, 26 (72.2%) with medium/large breasts with or without ptosis, seven (19.4%) with small breasts with or without ptosis, a profile undergoing GCT not previously identified in the literature. The mean tumor clinical size was 3.65 ± 1.59 cm. 34 (94.4%) patients underwent GCT. Mean follow-up time was 36.6 ± 16.8 months, with no local recurrences. According to BCCT.core, the postoperative aesthetic was good in 17 (51.5%) patients and 11 (33.3%) was reasonable. In the systematic review, 3.584 articles were evaluated, 20 articles were selected, 243 patients undergoing GCT were found, with several indications for BCS instead of mastectomy, with high rates of free margins, low recurrence and good aesthetic outcomes.

CONCLUSION

GCT, an oncologically safe and aesthetically satisfactory option, has been extended to patients with small and medium breasts with ptosis, large tumors to breast volume or in unfavorable resection sites, initially candidates for mastectomy.

Evaluation of breast cosmetic changes with a computer-software; the breast cancer conservative treatment cosmetic results (BCCT. core) in hypofractionated whole breast irradiation after breast-conserving surgery-supplementary analysis of multicenter single-arm confirmatory trial: JCOG0906

BACKGROUND

A good cosmetic outcome has been defined as an important endpoint in breast-conserving therapy (BCT). Various evaluation methods have been studied, but the optimal method has yet to be identified. The present supplementary analysis of JCOG0906 focused on comparing evaluation methods for breast cosmetic outcomes following hypofractionated whole breast irradiation (HFWBI) to examine whether a computer-software (the Breast Cancer Conservative Treatment cosmetic results [BCCT. core])-based program evaluation (CE) can be used for Asian women in clinical trials of BCT.

METHODS

Of 306 women, 292 underwent institutional evaluation (IE) for breast cosmetic outcomes before (pre) and 3 years after (post) HFWBI using a 4-point scale (excellent/good/fair/poor), and they were evaluated by CE and a central panel evaluation (PE) on the same scale using 292 pairs of pre/post-HFWBI photographs. PE was performed twice by consensus of the same two experts with a 3-year interval. CE was assessed individually by two radiation oncologists, an expert and a non-expert. Intra-observer variability and inter-observer variability were calculated using the kappa (k) and weighted kappa (wk) statistics.

RESULTS

The agreement between the first and second PE using pre/post-HFWBI photographs was moderate (k = 0.60, wk = 0.64. k = 0.53, wk = 0.60). The agreement between the expert and non-expert on CE was substantial (k = 0.72, wk = 0.76. k = 0.72, wk = 0.77). The inter-observer variability of CE was smaller than the intra-observer variability of PE.

CONCLUSION

CE with BCCT. core was considered a reproducible and an appropriate evaluation method for Asian women in clinical trials of BCT, when breast cosmetic changes were compared between pre/post therapy.

Methods of Esthetic Assessment after Adjuvant Whole-Breast Radiotherapy in Breast Cancer Patients: Evaluation of the BCCT.core Software and Patients' and Physicians' Assessment from the Randomized IMRT-MC2 Trial

Simple Summary

To validate the BCCT.core software, the present analysis compares the esthetics assessment by the software in relation to patients’ and physicians’ rating in breast cancer patients after surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy. Agreement rates of the different assessments and their correlation with breast asymmetry indices were evaluated. The assessments of the software and the physicians were significantly correlated with all asymmetry indices, while for patients’ self-assessment, this general correlation was first seen after 2 years. Only a slight agreement between the BCCT.core software and the physicians’ or patients’ assessment was seen, while a moderate and substantial agreement was detected between the physicians’ and the patients’ assessments. The BCCT.core software is a reliable tool to measure asymmetries, but may not sufficiently evaluate the esthetic outcome as perceived by patients. It may be more appropriate for a long-term follow-up, when symmetry seems to increase in importance.

Abstract

The present analysis compares the esthetics assessment by the BCCT.core software in relation to patients’ and physicians’ ratings, based on the IMRT-MC2 trial. Within this trial, breast cancer patients received breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and adjuvant radiotherapy. At the baseline, 6 weeks, and 2 years after radiotherapy, photos of the breasts were assessed by the software and patients’ and physicians’ assessments were performed. Agreement rates of the assessments and their correlation with breast asymmetry indices were evaluated. The assessments of the software and the physicians were significantly correlated with asymmetry indices. Before and 6 weeks after radiotherapy, the patients’ self-assessment was only correlated with the lower breast contour (LBC) and upward nipple retraction (UNR), while after 2 years, there was also a correlation with other indices. Only a slight agreement between the BCCT.core software and the physicians’ or patients’ assessment was seen, while a moderate and substantial agreement was detected between the physicians’ and the patients’ assessment after 6 weeks and 2 years, respectively. The BCCT.core software is a reliable tool to measure asymmetries, but may not sufficiently evaluate the esthetic outcome as perceived by patients. It may be more appropriate for a long-term follow-up, when symmetry appears to increase in importance.

A Novel Validated Breast Aesthetic Scale

BACKGROUND

Breast aesthetics impacts patients' quality of life after breast reconstruction, but patients and surgeons frequently disagree on the final aesthetic evaluation. The need for a comprehensive, validated tool to evaluate breast aesthetics independently from the patient motivated this study.

METHODS

The 13-item Validated Breast Aesthetic Scale was developed after several internal meetings, and worded to be understood by a nonspecialist. Three items are common for both breasts, with the remaining being side-specific. To test the internal consistency of the scale subitems, postoperative photographs after different breast reconstruction techniques were graded by a six-member panel. To test interrater and intrarater correlation across time, four physicians evaluated the results of abdominally based breast reconstructions following nipple-sparing mastectomies.

RESULTS

Graded aesthetic outcomes of 53 patients showed that the Cronbach alpha of the subitems of the scale was 0.926, with no single item that, if excluded, would increase it. Twenty-two patients underwent aesthetic outcomes grading at four different time points. The mean overall appearance was 3.71 ± 0.62. The mean grade for overall nipple appearance was 4.0 ± 0.57. The coefficient alpha of the panel overall aesthetic grade across different time points was 0.957; whereas intragrader reliability for graders 1 through 4 individually showed alpha coefficients of 0.894, 0.9, 0.898, and 0.688, respectively. Similar results were found for the other items of the scale.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed aesthetic scale evaluates different aspects of the breast reconstruction aesthetic result with excellent internal consistency among its subitems. Grading by a gender-balanced, diverse four-member panel using postoperative photographs showed higher reliability and reproducibility compared to single graders.

Adaptation of BCCT Learning Model in Developing Religious Aspects of Children

This study aims to find out and analyze the adaptation of BCCT learning models in developing religious aspects of children. With qualitative methods. The informants in the study were principals, class A teachers, and class B teachers taken with a purposive sampling approach. Preliminary observations in the field show that the implementation of early childhood learning still does not entirely refer to the stages of development and growth of children, especially in the religious aspects of children. The results of this study in implementing the BCCT learning model are the first environmental footing by preparing places and conditions before learning. Second, the footing of the experience before playing is also referred to as the opening activity before entering the core learning activities. Third, the footing when playing is the child's activity in playing a role according to the center. Fourth, footing after play is an activity carried out by teachers and children when they finish playing.

New criteria for breast symmetry evaluation after breast conserving surgery for cancer

OBJECTIVE

to evaluate symmetry after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for cancer.

METHODS

a prospective study of patients undergoing BCS. These patients were photographed using the same criteria of evaluation. The references points used were the nipple height difference (NH), the nipple-manubrium distances (NM), nipple-sternum distances (NS) and the angle between the intramammary fold and the nipple (nipple angle; NA). ImageJ software was used. Three breast symmetry models were evaluated: excellent/others (model 1), excellent-good/others (model 2) and others/poor (model 3). The ROC curve was used to select acceptable criteria for the evaluation of symmetry. Decision tree model analysis was performed.

RESULTS

a total of 274 women were evaluated. The BCCT.core result was excellent in 5.8% (16), good in 24.1% (66), fair in 46.4% (127) and poor in 23.7% (65). The difference in NH was associated with good breast area (0.837-0.846); acceptable differences were below 3.1 cm, while unacceptable values were greater than 6.4 cm. Differences in the NM were associated with average breast area (0.709-0.789); a difference in value of less than 4.5 cm was acceptable, while values greater than 6.3 cm were unacceptable. In the decision tree combined model, a good-excellent outcome for patients with differential (d) dNH = 1 (0 to 5.30 cm) and dNM ≠ 3 (<6.28 cm); and for a poor/poor result, values dNM = 3 (> 6.35).

CONCLUSIONS

the results presented here are simple tools that can assist the surgeon for breast symmetry evaluation.

Reliability of the BCCT.core software in evaluation of breast cosmesis - A systematic review

Breast cancer conservative treatment software (BCCT.core) has the potential to provide objective results using digital photographs, thus increasing the reliability, limiting the subjective interpretation and standardising the evaluation of breast cosmesis in patients. The aim of this systematic review was to summarise the empirical evidence regarding the agreement between the BCCT.core and other methods used by health professionals and patients to assess breast cosmesis. The Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Scopus databases were systematically searched for studies comparing the agreement between BCCT.core and other methods used to assess breast cosmesis. A total of 14 studies involving 2703 patients were included in the review. In studies where patients undertook self-assessment, the percentage agreement ranged from 69.2% to 74.8% and the kappa values ranged from slight (k = 0.12) to fair agreement. There was a low correlation between the BCCT.core and the Harvard scale when patients assessed cosmetic outcomes using photographs of their breasts (r = 0.165). A 75% and 42.8% agreement was reported in studies where clinicians assessed breast cosmesis by directly visualising the patients' breasts and photographs, respectively. Assessment of breast cosmesis by the expert panel using patient photographs reported a percentage agreement ranging from 25% to 83%. The results of this systematic review demonstrated an overall agreement of fair to moderate between the BCCT.core and the subjective scales used to assess breast cosmesis. However, clinician experience and patient values should be considered in clinical decision-making.

3-Dimensional objective aesthetic evaluation to replace panel assessment after breast-conserving treatment

BACKGROUND

Two-thirds of patients with early breast cancer undergo breast-conserving treatment (BCT). Aesthetic outcome is important and has long term implications for psychosocial wellbeing. The aesthetic goal of BCT is symmetry for which there is no gold-standard measure. Panel scoring is the most widely adopted assessment but has well-described limitations. This paper describes a model to objectively report aesthetic outcome using measures derived from 3-dimensional surface images (3D-SI).

METHOD

Objective measures and panel assessment were undertaken independently for 3D-SI of women who underwent BCT 1-5 years previously. Univariate analysis was used to test for association between measures and panel score. A forward stepwise multiple linear regression model was fitted to identify 3D measurements that jointly predicted the mean panel score. The fitted model coefficients were used to predict mean panel scores for an independent validation set then compared to the mean observed panel score.

RESULTS

Very good intra-panel reliability was observed for the training and validation sets (wκ = 0.87, wκ = 0.84). Six 3D-measures were used in the multivariate model. There was a good correlation between the predicted and mean observed panel score in the training (n = 190) and validation (n = 100) sets (r = 0.68, r = 0.65). The 3D model tended to predict scores towards the median. The model was calibrated which improved the distribution of predicted scores.

CONCLUSION

A six-variable objective aesthetic outcome model for BCT has been described and validated. This can predict and could replace panel assessment, facilitating the independent and unbiased evaluation of aesthetic outcome to communicate and compare results, benchmark practice, and raise standards.

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.

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.

Surgical excision and oncoplastic breast surgery in 32 patients with benign phyllodes tumors

Background

The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness and safety in patients with benign phyllodes after performing local excision and following with intra-operative breast flap reconstruction.

Methods

Patients (n = 32) with eligible breast cystosarcoma phyllodes underwent wide local excision followed by intra-operative breast flap reconstruction. Primary outcome measures included average operative time, length of in-hospital stay, postoperative recurrence, and intra-operative and postoperative complications.

Results

Thirty-two patients who underwent surgical excision and oncoplastic breast surgery were evaluated using the BCCT.core software. A satisfactory symmetrical breast shape was achieved. The average operative time was 56.3 ± 8.2 min. The average postoperative duration of hospitalization was 3.7 ± 1.2 days. While there was no breast disease recurred during the 1 to 8-year follow-up period.

Conclusions

Wide local excision accompanied by intra-operative breast flap reconstruction could be adopted for removing benign phyllodes tumors while retaining the basic shape of the breast.

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.

A preliminary prediction model for potentially guiding patient choices between breast conserving surgery and mastectomy in early breast cancer patients; a Dutch experience

Purpose

To guide early stage breast cancer patients to choose between breast conserving surgery (BCS) and mastectomy (MST) considering the predicted cosmetic result and quality of life (QoL).

Methods

A decision model was built to compare QoL after BCS and MST. Treatment could result in BCS with good cosmesis, BCS with poor cosmesis, MST only, and MST with breast reconstruction. QoL for these treatment outcomes were obtained from a previous study and the literature and translated into EuroQoL-5D derived utilities. Chance of good cosmesis after BCS was predicted based on tumor location and tumor/breast volume ratio. The decision model determined whether the expected QoL was superior after BCS or MST based on chance of good cosmesis.

Results

The mean utility for the treatments such as BCS with good cosmesis, BCS with poor cosmesis, MST only, and MST with breast reconstruction were 0.908, 0.843, 0.859, and 0.876, respectively. BCS resulted in superior QoL compared to MST in patients with a chance of good cosmesis above 36%. This 36% threshold is reached in case the tumor is located in the upper lateral, lower lateral, upper medial, lower medial, and central quadrant of the breast with a tumor/breast volume ratio below 21.6, 4.1, 15.1, 3.2, and 14.7, respectively.

Conclusions

BCS results in superior QoL in patients with tumors in the upper breast quadrants or centrally and a tumor/breast volume ratio below 15. MST results in superior QoL in patients with tumors in the lower breast quadrants and a tumor/breast volume ratio above 4.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s11136-017-1740-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A step-by-step oncoplastic breast conservation surgical atlas of reproducible dissection techniques and anatomically ideal incision placement

PURPOSE

To develop an atlas for oncoplastic surgery (OPS) with template dissection techniques via anatomically ideal incisions for breast conservation surgery. The evolution of breast conservation techniques has evolved from placing an incision directly over the lesion to the incorporation of a thoughtful decision making process utilizing oncoplastic surgical (OPS) techniques to combining OPS with incision placement in anatomically advantageous sites. The high survival rates of breast cancer and effect of breast surgery on quality of life reinforce emphasis of optimal oncologic as well as aesthetic outcome. OPS results in greater patient satisfaction, fewer surgeries, and is oncologically safe. Today's breast surgeon is tasked with optimizing both oncologic and aesthetic outcomes.

METHODS

Presentation of reproducible dissection techniques and incision placement strategies to afford surgeons a step-by-step approach of OPS via anatomically ideal incisions in breast conservation surgery.

RESULTS

Demonstration of reproducible techniques to facilitate the decision making process of optimal breast conservation surgery, eliminate knowledge gaps for surgeons, optimize outcome for individuals undergoing breast conservation surgery, and decrease disparity of care.

CONCLUSION

Adoption of OPS techniques utilizing an anatomically ideal incision in breast conservation surgery is a feasible and reproducible practice for breast surgeons. Application of these techniques results in maintained optimal shape, size, and contour without the typical overlying skin envelope scars. OPS techniques performed under the skin envelope result in expected OPS oncologic and aesthetic outcomes with the addition of the resulting scar(s) in anatomically discrete position(s).

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.

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 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.

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.