Oncoplastic breast conservation surgery is oncologically safe when compared to wide local excision and mastectomy

Efficacy and safety of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery versus conventional breast-conserving surgery: An updated meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women. The surgical treatment of breast cancer has transitioned progressively from radical mastectomy to breast-conserving surgery. In this meta-analysis, we are aiming to compare oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OS) with conventional breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in terms of efficacy and safety.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane databases, Clinicaltrial.gov, and CNKI until April 30, 2024. Data from cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Outcomes included primary outcomes (re-excision, local recurrence, positive surgical margin, mastectomy), secondary outcomes and safety outcomes. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to evaluate the quality of outcomes.

RESULTS

Our study included 52 studies containing 46,835 patients. Primary outcomes comprise re-excision, local recurrence, positive surgical margin, and mastectomy, there were significant differences favoring OS over BCS (RR 0.68 [0.56, 0.82], RR 0.62 [0.47, 0.82], RR 0.76 [0.59, 0.98], RR 0.66 [0.44, 0.98] respectively), indicating superior efficacy of OS. Additionally, OS demonstrated significant aesthetic benefits (RR 1.17 [1.03, 1.33] and RR 1.34 [1.18, 1.52]). While total complications were significantly fewer in the OS group (RR 0.70 [0.53, 0.94]), the differences in specific complications were not significant. Furthermore, subgroup analyses were conducted based on nationality, sample size, quality, and type.

CONCLUSION

OS demonstrates either superior or at least comparable outcomes across various aspects when compared to BCS.

Overall survival after mastectomy versus breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy for early-stage breast cancer: meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy and mastectomy are currently offered as equivalent surgical options for early-stage breast cancer based on RCTs from the 1970s and 1980s. However, the treatment of breast cancer has evolved and recent observational studies suggest a survival advantage for breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy. A systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to summarize the contemporary evidence regarding survival after breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy versus mastectomy for women with early-stage breast cancer.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Embase that identified studies published between 1 January 2000 and 18 December 2023 comparing overall survival after breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy versus mastectomy for patients with unilateral stage 1-3 breast cancer was undertaken. The main exclusion criteria were studies evaluating neoadjuvant chemotherapy, rare breast cancer subtypes, and specific breast cancer populations. The ROBINS-I tool was used to assess risk of bias, with the overall certainty of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. Studies without critical risk of bias were included in a quantitative meta-analysis.

RESULTS

From 11 750 abstracts, 108 eligible articles were identified, with one article including two studies; 29 studies were excluded from the meta-analysis due to an overall critical risk of bias, 42 studies were excluded due to overlapping study populations, and three studies were excluded due to reporting incompatible results. A total of 35 observational studies reported survival outcomes for 909 077 patients (362 390 patients undergoing mastectomy and 546 687 patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy). The pooled HR was 0.72 (95% c.i. 0.68 to 0.75, P < 0.001), demonstrating improved overall survival for patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy. The overall certainty of the evidence was very low.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis provides evidence suggesting a survival advantage for women undergoing breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy for early-stage breast cancer compared with mastectomy. Although these results should be interpreted with caution, they should be shared with patients to support informed surgical decision-making.

Integrating X-ray phase-contrast imaging and histology for comparative evaluation of breast tissue malignancies in virtual histology analysis

Detecting breast tissue alterations is essential for cancer diagnosis. However, inherent bidimensionality limits histological procedures' effectiveness in identifying these changes. Our study applies a 3D virtual histology method based on X-ray phase-contrast microtomography (PhC μ CT), performed at a synchrotron facility, to investigate breast tissue samples including different types of lesions, namely intraductal papilloma, micropapillary intracystic carcinoma, and invasive lobular carcinoma. One-to-one comparisons of X-ray and histological images explore the clinical potential of 3D X-ray virtual histology. Results show that PhC μ CT technique provides high spatial resolution and soft tissue sensitivity, while being non-destructive, not requiring a dedicated sample processing and being compatible with conventional histology. PhC μ CT can enhance the visualization of morphological characteristics such as stromal tissue, fibrovascular core, terminal duct lobular unit, stromal/epithelium interface, basement membrane, and adipocytes. Despite not reaching the (sub) cellular level, the three-dimensionality of PhC μ CT images allows to depict in-depth alterations of the breast tissues, potentially revealing pathologically relevant details missed by a single histological section. Compared to serial sectioning, PhC μ CT allows the virtual investigation of the sample volume along any orientation, possibly guiding the pathologist in the choice of the most suitable cutting plane. Overall, PhC μ CT virtual histology holds great promise as a tool adding to conventional histology for improving efficiency, accessibility, and diagnostic accuracy of pathological evaluation.

Oncoplastic reduction mammoplasty: Systematic review and proportional meta-analysis of surgical outcomes

BACKGROUND

Breast-conserving surgery is the standard of care for early-stage breast cancer but can often result in unsatisfactory cosmetic outcomes. Oncoplastic surgery aims to address these issues by combining local excision with plastic surgery techniques to improve oncologic and esthetic outcomes. By incorporating breast reduction techniques into cancer surgery, wider margins of excision can be achieved, leading to enhanced oncological safety and reduced recurrence rates without causing significant asymmetry. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to provide an updated understanding of the surgical outcomes associated with oncoplastic reduction mammoplasty.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Articles reporting post-operative outcomes following the oncoplastic reduction mammoplasty were included. A proportional meta-analysis of post-operative complications was performed to obtain their proportions and 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria, representing a total of 2711 oncoplastic reduction mammoplasty procedures in 2680 patients. The overall complication rate was 20% (95% CI: 15-25%). The positive margin rate following oncoplastic reduction mammoplasty was 11% (95% CI: 6-17%). The re-excision rate was 6% (95% CI: 3-12%). The completion mastectomy rate was 3% (95% CI: 2-6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Oncoplastic reduction mammoplasty is a safe and effective alternative to mastectomy and traditional breast-conserving surgery in the treatment of early-stage breast cancers.

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.

Lateral thoracic adipofascial flaps in the reconstruction of defects after breast-conserving surgery in breasts with ptosis mild ptosis or without ptosis

OBJECTIVE

To study the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of lateral thoracic adipofascial flaps in reconstructing the defects following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in breasts with either no ptosis or mild ptosis.

METHODS

37 female patients who underwent BCS and lateral thoracic adipofascial flap breast reconstruction between June 2020 and July 2022 were analysed. Surgery-related complications, intraoperative positive margin, local recurrence, and cosmetic outcome were assessed.

RESULTS

Three local complications occurred in patients, all of which were cured by conservative treatment. Additionally, four patients had intraoperative positive margins. After a median follow-up period of 17.5 months, none of the patients showed local recurrence. All patients achieved a satisfactory breast shape. Further, patients without ptosis achieved good volume and symmetry. However, the breast symmetry was not satisfactory for patients with ptosis.

CONCLUSION

It is reliable and effective to use the lateral thoracic adipofascial flaps to reconstruct the defects after BCS when the breast is not ptotic and the lesions are located in the lateral and central quadrants.

Surgeon Factors Influencing Breast Surgery Outcomes: A Scoping Review to Define the Modern Breast Surgical Oncologist

BACKGROUND

Modern breast surgical oncology incorporates many aspects of care including preoperative workup, surgical management, and multidisciplinary collaboration to achieve favorable oncologic outcomes and high patient satisfaction. However, there is variability in surgical practice and outcomes. This review aims to identify modifiable surgeon factors influencing breast surgery outcomes and provide a definition of the modern breast surgical oncologist.

METHODS

A systematic literature search with additional backward citation searching was conducted. Studies describing modifiable surgeon factors with associated breast surgery outcomes such as rates of breast conservation, sentinel node biopsy, re-excision, complications, acceptable esthetic outcome, and disease-free and overall survival were included. Surgeon factors were categorized for qualitative analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 91 studies met inclusion criteria describing both modifiable surgeon factor and outcome data. Four key surgeon factors associated with improved breast surgery outcomes were identified: surgical volume (45 studies), use of oncoplastic techniques (41 studies), sub-specialization in breast surgery or surgical oncology (9 studies), and participation in professional development activities (5 studies).

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the literature review, the modern breast surgical oncologist has a moderate- to high-volume breast surgery practice, understands the use and application of oncoplastic breast surgery, engages in additional training opportunities, maintains memberships in relevant societies, and remains up to date on key literature. Surgeons practicing in breast surgical oncology can target these modifiable factors for professional development and quality improvement.

Examining a decade of racial disparity in partial mastectomy and oncoplastic surgery

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Understanding racial disparity is crucial to addressing health equity and access to care. Our study aims to examine racial differences in breast conserving surgery (BCS) utilization rates and determine how these rates have changed over time.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort analysis utilized the NSQIP database to identify women diagnosed with breast cancer who underwent BCS procedures between 2008 and 2019. Racial utilization trends were analyzed using a Cochran-Armitage test and Index of Disparity analysis.

RESULTS

In the 12-year period, 202 492 women underwent a breast cancer surgery, of which 47% underwent BCS. Within the BCS subgroup, oncoplastic surgery utilization increased from 3% to 10%, leading to a declining proportion of partial mastectomies: 97% to 90.0% (both p < 0.01). The racial index of disparity for overall BCS patients decreased from 7% to 6%, remained unchanged (1%) for partial mastectomies, and significantly decreased in oncoplastics (23%-7.6%).

CONCLUSION

BCS represents a mainstay option for early-staged breast cancer interventions, this study demonstrate promising progress in decreasing the index of disparity among races and persistent racial inequalities.

Single Versus Dual Surgeon Approaches to Oncoplastic Surgery: A Comparison of Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Oncoplastic surgery (OPS) is traditionally performed using a dual surgeon (DS) approach that involves both a breast surgeon and a plastic surgeon. It is also performed using a single surgeon (SS) approach with a surgeon trained in both breast surgical oncology and plastic surgery. We sought to determine if outcomes differed between SS versus DS OPS approaches.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted of all OPS performed in a single health system over a 6-y period by either an SS or a DS approach. Primary outcomes were rates of positive margins and the overall complication rate; secondary outcomes were loco-regional recurrence, disease-free survival, and overall survival.

RESULTS

A total of 217 patients were identified; 117 were SS cases and 100 were DS cases. Baseline preoperative patient characteristics were similar between the two groups as there was no difference in mean Charlson Comorbidity Index scores (P = 0.07). There was no difference in tumor stage (P = 0.09) or nodal status (P = 0.31). Rates of positive margins were not significantly different (10.9% (SS) versus 9% (DS); P = 0.81), nor were rates of complications (11.1% (SS) versus 15% (DS); P = 0.42). Rates of locoregional recurrence were also not significantly different (1.7% (SS) versus 0% (DS); P = 0.5). Disease-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different at 1-y, 3-y, and 5-y time points (P = 0.20 and P = 0.23, respectively) although follow-up time was not sufficient for definitive analysis regarding survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Both SS and DS approaches to OPS have similar outcomes with regards to positive margin rates and surgical complication rates and are comparably safe.

Aesthetic, Quality-of-Life, and Clinical Outcomes after Inferior Pedicle Oncoplastic Reduction Mammoplasty

BACKGROUND

Oncoplastic breast surgery is more likely to achieve superior aesthetic outcomes compared to lumpectomy alone. Oncoplastic reduction mammoplasty (ORM) is a volume displacement oncoplastic technique that combines lumpectomy and reduction mammoplasty. Data on aesthetic and quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes after ORM are scarce in the literature. Based on a literature review, this present study reports outcomes on the largest group of ORM patients to date.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of all patients who underwent ORM between 2011 and 2018 at a tertiary care centre. Patients were excluded if no pedicle information was available or did not undergo post-operative radiotherapy. All patients with available post-operative photographs were aesthetically evaluated by four blinded, independent investigators blinded based on breast symmetry, nipple symmetry, and overall appearance. The BREAST-Q (breast conserving module) was used to assess QoL outcomes.

RESULTS

Two-hundred-and-sixteen consecutive patients (223 breasts) were included. Macromastia (cup size D or higher) was present in 173 patients (80.1%). Inferior pedicle ORM was utilized in 179 (80.3%) breasts. Eighty-eight patients (40.7%) were aesthetically evaluated, of whom 69 patients (78.4%) had "good", "very good", or "excellent" grades in all aesthetic categories. Seventy-five patients (85.2%) had "good" or better grades in overall appearance. Preoperative ptosis grade, cup size, presence of post-operative complications, and breast specimen weight had no significant correlations with aesthetic grades. Inferior pedicle ORM was associated with a higher "satisfaction with breast" Q-score (p=0.017) compared to other pedicle approaches.

CONCLUSION

Inferior pedicle ORM achieves objectively excellent aesthetic outcomes and high patient satisfaction with the reconstruction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

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 .

Routine four-quadrant cavity shaving at the time of wide local excision for breast cancer reduces re-excision rate

INTRODUCTION

Breast conservation therapy (BCT) has been shown to have comparable long-term survival outcomes when compared with mastectomy. Clearance of excision margin is one of the mainstays of the surgical treatment, which if not achieved at the first operation of BCT results in the need for subsequent surgery.

METHODS

This study evaluated the impact of routinely taken cavity shavings on re-excision rates. This retrospective two-centre study describes the use of routine four-quadrant cavity shaving in 449 patients with consecutively treated with wide local excision for invasive cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ.

RESULTS

The overall incomplete excision rate was 10.6%. Routine cavity shaving prevented the need for re-excision in 84 patients (18.7%) and identified the need for further re-excision in 33 patients (7.3%). Median time from surgery to radiotherapy was 50 days (range 13-209) for non-re-excised patients versus 78 days (range 47-260) for re-excised patients (p<0.001). Median time to chemotherapy (n=75) was 44 days (range 14-106) for non-re-excised patients versus 56 days (range 35-116) for re-excised patients (p=0.017).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that routine cavity shaving decreases re-excision rate in patients treated with wide local excision and prevents delays to adjuvant treatment due to incomplete excision.

Antibiotic prophylaxis in breast cancer surgery (PAUS trial): randomised clinical double-blind parallel-group multicentre superiority trial

BACKGROUND

Participants were patients with invasive breast cancer undergoing primary surgery. The aim was to test whether a single dose of amoxicillin-clavulanic acid would reduce wound infection at 30 days postoperatively, and to identify risk factors for infection.

METHODS

Participants were randomised to either a single bolus of 1.2 g intravenous amoxicillin-clavulanic acid after the induction of anaesthesia (intervention) or no antibiotic (control). The primary outcome was the incidence of wound infection at 30 days postoperatively.

RESULTS

There were 871 evaluable patients. Of these, 438 received prophylactic antibiotic and 433 served as controls. Seventy-one (16.2 per cent) patients in the intervention group developed a wound infection by 30 days, while there were 83 (19.2 per cent) infections in the control group. This was not statistically significant (odds ratio (OR) 0.82, 95 per cent c.i. 0.58 to 1.15; P = 0.250). The risk of infection increased for every 5 kg/m2 of BMI (OR 1.29, 95 per cent c.i. 1.10 to 1.52; P = 0.003). Patients who were preoperative carriers of Staphylococcus aureus had an increased risk of postoperative wound infection; however, there was no benefit of preoperative antibiotics for patients with either a high BMI or who were carriers of S. aureus.

CONCLUSION

There was no statistically significant or clinically meaningful reduction in wound infection at 30 days following breast cancer surgery in patients who received a single dose of amoxicillin-clavulanic acid preoperatively.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

N0399145605 (National Research Register).

Long-term oncological outcomes of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery after a 10-year follow-up – a single center experience and systematic literature review

Aim

While many studies reported the oncological outcomes of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OBCS), there were inherent differences in the study population, surgeons’ expertise, and classifications of techniques used. There were also limited studies with long term follow up oncological outcomes beyond 5 years. This current study aimed to compare long-term oncological outcomes of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) following conventional and oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery using volume displacement and replacement techniques.

Methods

Between 2009 and 2013, 539 consecutive patients who underwent breast conservation surgery including 174 oncoplastic and 376 conventional procedures were analysed. A systematic review of studies with at least five years of median follow up were performed to compare long term oncological outcomes.

Results

At a median follow-up of 82.4 months, there were 23 (4.2%) locoregional recurrences, 17 (3.2%) metachronous contralateral breast cancer, 26 (4.8%) distant metastases, and 13 (2.4%) deaths. The hazard ratio of OBCS for IBTR, DFS and OS were 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21–2.94, p=0.78), 1.59 (95% CI, 0.88 to 2.87, p=0.12), and 2.1 (95% CI, 0.72 to 5.9, p=0.17) respectively. The 10-year IBTR-free, DFS and OS rate were 97.8%, 86.2%, and 95.7% respectively.

Conclusion

There remained a dearth in well-balanced comparative studies with sufficient long-term follow-up, and our study reported long-term oncological outcomes for OBCS which were favourable of either VD or replacement techniques.

The Impact Oncoplastic Reduction Has on Long-Term Recurrence in Breast Conservation Therapy

BACKGROUND

The use of oncoplastic reduction techniques have many proven benefits over lumpectomy alone in the management of women with breast cancer. The impact it has on tumor recurrence is unclear. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the incidence of recurrence in patients who underwent oncoplastic reduction techniques compared to lumpectomy alone.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained database of patients at Emory Hospital who underwent oncoplastic reduction techniques at the time of tumor resection was queried. These patients were compared to a series of patients who had lumpectomy alone over a similar period. For inclusion in the study, patients were at least 10 years since the time of the tumor resection. The main outcome of interest was tumor recurrence.

RESULTS

There were 97 patients in the lumpectomy-only group and 95 patients in the oncoplastic reduction group, with an average follow-up of 7.8 years and 8.5 years, respectively. Patients in the oncoplastic group were younger (lumpectomy only, 61.4 years; oncoplastic reduction, 51.6 years; p < 0.001) and had larger tumors (lumpectomy only, 1.1 cm; oncoplastic reduction, 1.6 cm; p < 0.001). Local recurrence was 13 percent in the lumpectomy-only group and 9 percent in the oncoplastic reduction group (p = 0.34), and overall recurrence rates were similar (lumpectomy only, 15 percent; oncoplastic reduction, 24 percent; p = 0.13). Overall, surgical intervention (lumpectomy alone versus oncoplastic reduction) was not associated with local recurrence or any recurrence on univariate and multivariate analyses.

CONCLUSION

Despite the oncoplastic reduction patients having a higher risk of recurrence and a more generous tumor resection, the long-term recurrence rates were equivalent when compared to breast-conserving therapy alone.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Subcutaneous Quadrantectomy Is a Safe Procedure in Management of Early-Stage Breast Cancer

Background

A less-invasive surgery is often required today for many tumors, when oncologic radicality is strictly ensured, both to minimize hospital stay and health costs and to guarantee aesthetical results. Breast surgery for cancer has been radically changed in the last years since conservative interventions are widely performed everywhere.

Methods

The authors present 75 cases of early breast cancer, randomly treated with standard quadrantectomy and subcutaneous quadrantectomy; the totally subcutaneous surgical technique implies only a short periareolar skin incision and a complete quadrant resection with skin and subcutaneous layer preservation. Continuous data were analyzed by unpaired Student's t-test. The Chi-square test was used to cumulate categorical variables. The Kaplan–Meyer method and log-rank test were used to compare the overall survival and disease-free survival.

Results

No difference was found among the two groups in terms of the type of tumor, overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), early complications, radicality, and mortality. The only significant differences were both found in the length of hospital stay and in postoperative breast deformity that required further intervention in some cases.

Conclusion

In the era of mini-invasive surgery and quality assurance, the authors conclude that subcutaneous quadrantectomy is a safe procedure that allows less health cost and a better aesthetical result.

Comparing costs of standard Breast-Conserving Surgery to Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery and Mastectomy with Immediate two-stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Conventional breast-conserving surgery (C-BCS) has equal oncological outcomes and superior cosmetic and patient-reported outcomes compared to mastectomy with immediate two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction (M-IBR). Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OP-BCS) is increasingly being used, as it often has better cosmetic results and it enables larger tumour resection. However, OP-BCS and M-IBR compared to C-BCS lengthens operative time and might lead to more complications and consequently to additional costs. Therefore, this study aimed to compare costs and complication rates of C-BCS, OP-BCS and M-IBR.

METHODS

This single-centre, retrospective cohort study, calculated costs for all patients who had undergone breast cancer surgery between January 2014 and December 2016. Patient-, tumour- and surgery-related data of C-BCS, OP-BCS and M-IBR patients were retrieved by medical record review. Treatment costs were calculated using hospital financial data. Differences in costs and complications were analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 220 patients were included: 74 patients in the C-BCS, 78 in the OP-BCS and 68 in the M-IBR group. From most expensive to least expensive, differences in total costs were found between C-BCS vs. OP-BCS and C-BCS vs. M-IBR (p=<0.01 and p=0.04, respectively). Costs of OP-BCS and M-IBR were comparable. Complication rates were 5.5% for C-BCS, followed by 17% for OP-BCS, and 34% for M-IBR (p<0.01).

CONCLUSION

Considering total treatment costs, OP-BCS was financially non-inferior to M-IBR, whereas complication rates were higher following M-IBR. Therefore, when considering other benefits of OP-BCS, such as higher patient-reported outcomes and similar oncological outcomes, a shift from M-IBR to BCS using oncoplastic techniques seems justified.

Clinical and patient-reported outcomes in oncoplastic breast conservation surgery from a single surgeon's practice in a busy community hospital in Canada

BACKGROUND

Oncoplastic breast surgery aims to maintain quality of life by pre-empting and mitigating against breast asymmetry while not compromising oncological effectiveness. This case series demonstrates the implementation of an effective oncoplastic surgical practice in a community hospital within Canada and shows low rates of perioperative complications as well as high levels of patient-reported outcome measures.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of patients diagnosed with stage 0-3 breast cancer treated with level I and level II oncoplastic techniques by a single breast surgeon was undertaken. Patient, tumour, procedure, and outcome data were collected. Patient satisfaction was assessed with the Breast-Q questionnaire administered pre- and postoperatively.

RESULTS

Oncoplastic breast conservation surgery was performed on 340 patients over a 31-month period. The average size of breast lesions was 1.8 cm, with 96 patients having lesions 2-5 cm in size and 10 patients having tumours larger than 5 cm. Thirty (8.8%) patients experienced a complication requiring intervention. The positive margin rate was 9.4%, and the completion mastectomy rate was 4.7%. Breast Q scores increased across breast satisfaction, process of care, psychosocial, physical, and sexual satisfaction domains postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

This case series demonstrates the feasibility of an oncoplastic breast surgery practice in a busy community hospital in Canada. This adds to the growing body of North American data on the clinical and oncological safety of these techniques and introduces the idea of collecting patient-reported outcome measures within a Canadian population. We hope that this enables these techniques to become the standard of care in North America.

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.

Oncoplastic surgery: A suitable alternative to conventional breast conserving surgery in low - Middle income countries; a retrospective cohort study

Introduction

Breast Conserving Surgery (BCS) with whole breast radiation is now standard of care as a safer alternative to Mastectomy in terms of loco-regional recurrence and long-term survival. Despite this, a frequent pitfall of conventional BCS is positive surgical margins and need for second surgery with a reported frequency of 12-59 % in literature. Oncoplastic Surgery can be a safer, more cost effective alternate to conventional BCS owing to its higher rate of negative surgical margins (4-6% vs 12-59 %) and better cosmetic results. We aim to prove utility of Oncoplastic surgery for Low-Middle income countries.

Objective

The aim of this study was to determine Oncoplastic Surgery as a more appropriate alternative to Conventional Breast Conserving Surgery for Low-Middle Income countries in terms of its lower positive margins and re-excision rates.

Methodology

A retrospective comparative single center study by reviewing patient's medical records from August 2016 to June 2020 was conducted. Rate of positive margins and re-excisions along with mean volume of resection specimen, mean tumor size and quadrant dealt by both surgical procedures were compared.

Results

Out of 421 patients 249 patients underwent oncoplastic surgery and were compared with 173 patients who had conventional breast conserving surgery. Positive margins were seen in 5 patients (2 %) in OPS group whereas in 31 (17.9 %) patients in BCS group (p value < 0.001). Therefore, 2 from OPS group and 17 from BCS group underwent re-excision (p value < 0.002).None in OPS group while 7 out of 17 patients in BCS group underwent mastectomy as second procedure. Mean tumor size in OPS group was 2.26 cm ± SD 1.66 and in BCS group was 1.94 cm ± SD 1.28. Majority of Lobular carcinoma and Ductal carcinoma in-situ, multifocal, upper inner and central quadrant tumors and those unresponsive to neo-adjuvant therapy were treated by Oncoplastic techniques.

Conclusion

Oncoplastic surgery has shown promising results as a safer tool to deal with large, complex tumors, lesions in difficult anatomical locations, multifocal or progressing on neo-adjuvant therapy. With its low Re-excision rates, it is a better alternative to traditional Breast Conserving approach for overburdened and resource limited health care system of Low-Middle Income countries. Multi-center, prospective trials are needed to determine its feasibility.

Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery According to Tumor Location

The use of oncoplastic breast surgery is an essential cornerstone for breast cancer management. The main aim of breast cancer surgery is to obtain an adequate oncological safety margin. Still, the cosmetic outcome also seems important for social and psychological wellbeing and quality of life. After breast-conserving surgery, the remaining breast may be reconstructed with volume displacement or volume replacement techniques. A better cosmetic outcome can be achieved by selecting appropriate surgical techniques according to tumor location. In this review, we show each technique step-by-step based on the tumor's location for each quadrant. The most important thing is to select the technique first for oncological safety and then for better cosmesis.

Comparative study of surgical and oncological outcomes in oncoplastic versus non oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer treatment

Background: Oncoplastic surgery has been increasingly used in breast cancer treatment and allows the performance of breast-conserving surgery in cases of larger tumors with unfavorable location or tumor-breast disproportion. Purpose: To compare surgical and oncological outcomes of patients undergoing oncoplastic and nononcoplastic breast-conserving surgery. Methods: Retrospective cohort study with convenience sampling of 866 patients who consecutively underwent breast-conserving surgery from 2011 to 2015. Results: The mean follow-up was 50.4 months. Nononcoplastic breast conservation surgery was performed on 768 (88.7%) patients and oncoplastic surgery on 98 (11.3%) patients. Patients in the oncoplastic group were younger (p<0.0001) and most were premenopausal (p<0.0001). Comorbidities such as diabetes (p=0.003) and hypertension (p=0.0001) were less frequent in this population. Invasive carcinoma >2 cm (p<0.0001), multifocality (p=0.004), ductal in situ carcinoma (p=0.0007), clinically positive axilla (p=0.004), and greater weight of surgical specimens (p<0.0001) were more frequent in the oncoplastic group. A second surgery for margin re-excision was more frequently performed in the nononcoplastic group (p=0.027). There was more scar dehiscence in the oncoplastic group (p<0.001), but there was no difference in early major complications (p=0.854), conversion to mastectomy (p=0.92), or local recurrence (p=0.889). Conclusion: Although used for the treatment of larger and multifocal tumors, surgical re-excisions were performed less often in the oncoplastic group, and there was no increase in conversion to mastectomy or local recurrence. In spite of the higher rate of overall complications in the oncoplastic group, major complications were similar in both groups.

Extreme Oncoplasty: Breast Conservation in Patients with Large, Multifocal, and Multicentric Breast Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Extreme Oncoplastic Breast Conservation Surgery (EOBCS) is offered in selected patients with multifocal or multicentric breast cancer (MFMC). Recent evidence has suggested that EOBCS may be a valuable resource for patients with MFMC who may avoid the risk associated with mastectomy in favour of the benefits of breast conservation without risking their oncological outcomes. Our study examined the practice of EOBCS in two regional breast units in Glasgow, United Kingdom.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospectively collected database of 50 patients treated with EOBC in two breast units in Glasgow between 2007 and 2018 were evaluated, and clinical outcomes were observed.

RESULTS

Fifty patients (median age 55) underwent EOBCS, of which 43 (86%) had invasive disease. Median tumour size was 55mm (50-90) and multifocal disease was identified in 22 (44%) patients. Nine patients (18%) were found to have positive margins and underwent a second procedure, with 6 (12%) proceeding to mastectomy. Five-year disease free survival rate was 91.5%, while cancer-specific survival was 95.7%.

CONCLUSION

EOBCS is oncologically safe in short-term follow-up. Large scale studies are required to confirm these preliminary results, in order to offer EOBCS as a valid option to patients with advanced or multifocal breast cancer.

Improving Results in Oncoplastic Surgery

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After studying this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Describe the risks, benefits, and safety profile of oncoplastic procedures for partial breast reconstruction, and how they compare to breast conservation-therapy alone. 2. Have a working knowledge of oncoplastic techniques and how they are addressed from the multidisciplinary perspective. 3. Understand the limitations of oncoplastic techniques and how to avoid unfavorable results.

SUMMARY

Oncoplastic surgical techniques have expanded indications for breast conservation and have improved both oncologic and reconstructive outcomes. This article will focus on some of the barriers to adoption and discuss ways to improve safety through streamlining the process, understanding the oncologic concerns, and evaluating unfavorable outcomes that might interfere with the appropriate delivery of breast cancer care.

Protocol for a mixed-method study to inform the feasibility of undertaking a large-scale multicentre study comparing the clinical and patient-reported outcomes of oncoplastic breast conservation as an alternative to mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction in women unsuitable for standard breast-conserving surgery (the ANTHEM Feasibility Study)

INTRODUCTION

Approximately 40% of the 55 000 women diagnosed with breast cancer each year in the UK undergo mastectomy because they are considered unsuitable for standard breast-conserving surgery (BCS) due to tumour size or multiple tumour foci. Mastectomy can significantly impact women's quality of life, and only one in four women currently undergo immediate breast reconstruction (IBR).Level 2 oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OPBCS) combines removing the cancer with a range of plastic surgical volume replacement (eg, local perforator flaps) and volume displacement techniques (eg, therapeutic mammaplasty) that can extend the role of BCS and may allow some women not suitable for standard BCS to avoid mastectomy. High-quality research to determine whether OPBCS offers a safe and effective alternative to mastectomy±IBR is currently lacking. Preliminary work is needed to ensure a future large-scale study is feasible and well designed and addresses questions important to patients and the National Health Service.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Mixed methods will be used to inform feasibility and design of a future large-scale study comparing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of OPBCS and mastectomy±IBR. It will have four parts: (1) a National Practice Questionnaire to determine current practice and provision of oncoplastic breast and reconstructive surgery in the UK; (2) a pilot multicentre prospective cohort study to explore the proportion of patients choosing OPBCS versus mastectomy, the proportion in OPBCS is successful and clinical and patient-reported outcomes of different techniques at 3 and 12 months postsurgery; (3) a qualitative interview study to explore patients' attitudes to different procedures, rationale for decision-making and perceptions of outcomes; and (4) design of the future study.All centres offering OPBCS and mastectomy in the UK will be invited to participate. Recruitment is planned to commence winter 2020 and continue for 12 months.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has ethical approval from the Wales Research Ethics Committee 6 National Research Ethics Service (REC Ref 20/WA/0225). Results will be presented at national and international meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. We will work with patients to develop lay summaries and share these through patient groups and breast cancer charities.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN18238549.

Should oncoplastic breast conserving surgery be used for the treatment of early stage breast cancer? Using the GRADE approach for development of clinical recommendations

Introduction

The potential advantages of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (BCS) have not been validated in robust studies that constitute high levels of evidence, despite oncoplastic techniques being widely adopted around the globe. There is hence the need to define the precise role of oncoplastic BCS in the treatment of early breast cancer, with consensual recommendations for clinical practice.

Methods

A panel of world-renowned breast specialists was convened to evaluate evidence, express personal viewpoints and establish recommendations for the use of oncoplastic BCS as primary treatment of unifocal early stage breast cancers using the GRADE approach.

Results

According to the results of the systematic review of literature, the panelists were asked to comment on the recommendation for use of oncoplastic BCS for treatment of operable breast cancer that is suitable for breast conserving surgery, with the GRADE approach. Based on the voting outcome, the following recommendation emerged as a consensus statement: Oncoplastic breast conserving surgery should be recommended versus standard breast conserving surgery for the treatment of operable breast cancer in adult women who are suitable candidates for breast conserving surgery (with very low certainty of evidence).

Discussion

This review has revealed a low level of evidence for most of the important outcomes in oncoplastic surgery with lack of any randomized data and absence of standard tools for evaluation of clinical outcomes and especially patients’ values.

Despite areas of controversy, about one-third (36%) of panel members expressed a strong recommendation in support of oncoplastic BCS. Presumably, this reflects a synthesis of views on the relative complexity of these techniques, associated complications, impact on quality of life and costs.

Recurrence and survival after standard versus oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer

Background

Oncoplastic techniques in breast-conserving surgery (BCS) are used increasingly for larger tumours. This large cohort study aimed to assess oncological outcomes after oncoplastic BCS (OPS) versus standard BCS.

Methods

Data for all women who had BCS in three centres in Stockholm during 2010–2016 were extracted from the Swedish National Breast Cancer Register. All patients with T2–3 tumours, all those receiving neoadjuvant treatment, and an additional random sample of women with T1 tumours were selected. Medical charts were reviewed for local recurrences and surgical technique according to the Hoffman–Wallwiener classification. Date and cause of death were retrieved from the Swedish Cause of Death Register.

Results

The final cohort of 4178 breast cancers in 4135 patients was categorized into three groups according to surgical technique: 3720 for standard BCS, 243 simple OPS, and 215 complex OPS. Median duration of follow up was 64 (range 24–110) months. Node-positive and large tumours were more common in OPS than in standard BCS (P < 0.001). There were 61 local recurrences: 57 (1.5 per cent), 1 (0.4 per cent) and 3 (1.4 per cent) in the standard BCS, simple OPS and complex OPS groups respectively (P = 0.368). Overall, 297 patients died, with an unadjusted 5-year overall survival rate of 94.7, 93.1 and 92.6 per cent respectively (P = 0.350). Some 102 deaths were from breast cancer, with unadjusted 5-year cancer-specific survival rates of 97.9, 98.3 and 95.0 per cent respectively (P = 0.056).

Discussion

Oncoplastic BCS is a safe surgical option, even for larger node-positive tumours, with low recurrence and excellent survival rates.

Oncoplastic partial breast reconstruction: concepts and techniques

Immediate oncoplastic breast reconstruction performed at the time of breast conserving surgery for the treatment of breast cancer merges the therapeutic goals of complete oncologic extirpation with preservation of breast form and function. A constellation of surgical techniques that employs breast volume displacement and/or replacement methods of varying complexity levels have emerged, thus broadening the potential applications for breast conservation therapy to include cases with increased tumor-to-native breast-volume ratios, multicentric or multifocal disease, and/or previous margin-positive resections. This review describes the various reconstructive methods, including the use of local tissue rearrangement, oncoplastic reduction-mastopexy, and locoregional flaps. Classification of the surgical options into levels I and II volume-displacement and volume-replacing techniques is made. Additionally, we explore the oncologic safety and effectiveness of this treatment paradigm by summarizing existing supportive evidence regarding associated risk of surgical complications, rate of margin-positive resection, implications for radiographic surveillance, local recurrence rates, and patient-reported outcomes. In conclusion, surgeons may use a wide variety of oncoplastic techniques for partial breast reconstruction at the time of segmental mastectomy to deliver effective breast conserving treatment for women with breast cancer. A growing body of literature affirms the oncologic safety of this approach. Future directions for research include long-term follow-up data with emphasis on outcomes from patient perspectives.

Cosmetic sequelae after oncoplastic breast surgery: long-term results of a prospective study

BACKGROUND

To analyze risk factors for the cosmetic sequelae of patients treated with oncoplastic procedures and their impact on patient-reported satisfaction.

METHODS

Prospective nonrandomized study between 2003 and 2020. Complications and cosmetic sequelae were reported by the surgeon. We employed the Clough classification for oncoplastic procedures (Level 1 and Level 2) and to define the cosmetic sequelae (Type I, Type II and Type III). The assessment of satisfaction and quality of life was performed with the BreastQ^™ questionnaire.

RESULTS

429 level 1 and 326 level 2 oncoplastic operations were included. We recorded 89 cosmetic sequelae: 55 deformities (type II), 29 asymmetries (type I), and 5 type III defects. The incidence of cosmetic sequelae at 10 years for levels 1 and 2 oncoplastic procedures was 11.5% and 20.0%, respectively. The level 2 techniques and the postoperative complications increased the risk of cosmetic sequelae. Patients with cosmetic sequelae did not achieve significant improvements in breast satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Cosmetic sequelae affect up to 17% of oncoplastic procedures. Most of them appear during the first 5 years. Cosmetic sequelae and their predisposing factors should be part of the shared decision-making process with patients, as well as part of the training programs for breast surgeons.

The Role of Oncoplastic Surgery for Breast Cancer

OPINION STATEMENT

Oncoplastic surgery (OPS) expands the indications and possibilities of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) by allowing for a wider cancer resection than lumpectomy. Ongoing investigation and reporting of OPS outcomes along with improvements in comprehensive training in breast surgical oncology will impact on awareness and lead to increased adoption of these techniques. Indications for OPS include concern about clear margins, poor tumor location (upper inner pole and lower quadrant), multifocality, need for skin excision, and poor candidacy for mastectomy and reconstruction. OPS has been proven to be oncological safe with comparable rates of complications, positive margins, and re-excisions with BCS. Additionally, OPS has a positive impact on the quality of life and self-esteem when compared with those patients that underwent BCT.

Rates of re-excision and conversion to mastectomy after breast-conserving surgery with or without oncoplastic surgery: a nationwide population-based study

Background

There is no consensus regarding the impact of oncoplastic surgery (OPS) on rates of re‐excision and conversion to mastectomy following breast‐conserving surgery (BCS). Here these two outcomes after BCS and OPS were compared in a nationwide population‐based setting.

Methods

In Denmark, all OPS is registered and categorized into volume displacement, volume reduction or volume replacement. Patients who underwent BCS or OPS between 2012 and 2018 were selected from the Danish Breast Cancer Group database. Multivariable analyses were performed to adjust for confounders, and propensity score matching to limit potential confounding by indication bias.

Results

A total of 13 185 patients (72·5 per cent) underwent BCS and 5003 (27·5 per cent) OPS. Volume displacement was used in 4171 patients (83·4 per cent), volume reduction in 679 (13·6 per cent) and volume replacement in 153 (3·1 per cent). Re‐excision rates were 15·6 and 14·1 per cent after BCS and OPS respectively. After adjusting for confounders, patients were less likely to have a re‐excision following OPS than BCS (odds ratio (OR) 0·80, 95 per cent c.i. 0·72 to 0·88), specifically after volume displacement and reduction. The rate of conversion to mastectomy was similar after OPS and BCS (3·2 versus 3·7 per cent; P = 0·105), but with a lower risk in adjusted analysis (OR 0·69, 0·58 to 0·84), specifically after volume displacement and reduction procedures. Findings were similar after propensity score matching.

Conclusion

A modest decrease in re‐excision rate and less frequent conversion to mastectomy were observed after OPS compared with BCS.

Modern surgical treatment of breast cancer

Breast cancer is the most frequent cancer in women all over the world. The prognosis is generally good, with a five-year overall survival rate above 90% for all stages. It is still the second leading cause of cancer-related death among women. Surgical treatment of breast cancer has changed dramatically over the years. Initially, treatment involved major surgery with long hospitalization, but it is now mostly accomplished as an outpatient procedure with a quick recovery. Thanks to well-designed retrospective and randomly controlled prospective studies, guidelines are continually changing. We are presently in an era where safely de-escalating surgery is increasingly emphasized. Breast cancer is a heterogenous disease, where a "one-size-fits-all" treatment approach is not appropriate. There is often more than one surgical solution carrying equal oncological safety for an individual patient. In these situations, it is important to include the patient in the treatment decision-making process through well informed consent. For this to be optimal, the physician must be fully updated on the surgical options. A consequence of an improved prognosis is more breast cancer survivors, and therefore physical appearance and quality of life is more in focus. Modern breast cancer treatment is increasingly personalized from a surgical point of view but is dependent on a multidisciplinary approach. Detailed algorithms for surgery of the breast and the axilla are required for optimal treatment and quality control. This review illustrates how breast cancer treatment has changed over the years and how the current standard is based on high quality scientific research.

Therapeutic mammaplasty is a safe and effective alternative to mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic mammaplasty (TM) may be an alternative to mastectomy, but few well designed studies have evaluated the success of this approach or compared the short-term outcomes of TM with mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). Data from the national iBRA-2 and TeaM studies were combined to compare the safety and short-term outcomes of TM and mastectomy with or without IBR.

METHODS

The subgroup of patients in the TeaM study who underwent TM to avoid mastectomy were identified, and data on demographics, complications, oncology and adjuvant treatment were compared with those of patients undergoing mastectomy with or without IBR in the iBRA-2 study. The primary outcome was the percentage of successful breast-conserving procedures in the TM group. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications and time to adjuvant therapy.

RESULTS

A total of 2916 patients (TM 376; mastectomy 1532; mastectomy and IBR 1008) were included in the analysis. Patients undergoing TM were more likely to be obese and to have undergone bilateral surgery than those having IBR. However, patients undergoing mastectomy with or without IBR were more likely to experience complications than the TM group (TM: 79, 21·0 per cent; mastectomy: 570, 37·2 per cent; mastectomy and IBR: 359, 35·6 per cent; P < 0·001). Breast conservation was possible in 87·0 per cent of patients who had TM, and TM did not delay adjuvant treatment.

CONCLUSION

TM may allow high-risk patients who would not be candidates for IBR to avoid mastectomy safely. Further work is needed to explore the comparative patient-reported and cosmetic outcomes of the different approaches, and to establish long-term oncological safety.

Is oncoplastic breast conserving surgery oncologically safe? A meta-analysis of 18,103 patients

BACKGROUND

Oncoplastic Breast Conserving Surgery (OBCS) allows adequate resection margins of tumours unsuitable for standard breast conserving surgery (SBCS) whilst allowing for better cosmesis and reduced morbidity when compared to mastectomy. However, there is limited evidence on its oncological safety.

METHODS

This study aims to compare oncological safety of OBCS with SBCS and mastectomy by examining the relative risk of cancer recurrence and re-operation rates through meta-analysis.

RESULTS

18 studies met the search criteria including 18,103 patients. The primary outcome measure (recurrence) was not significantly different between OBCS and SBCS or mastectomy (RR 0.861; 95% CI 0.640-1.160; p = 0.296). The secondary outcome measure (re-operation) initially achieved significance in favour of OBCS (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.46-0.89; p = 0.01). However, after adjustment for publication bias this was attenuated to insignificance between the two study groups (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.56-1.31; p = 0.44).

CONCLUSIONS

For both cancer recurrence and re-operation rate, there was no significant difference between OBCS and traditional techniques. OBCS is of comparable oncological safety to more established surgical procedures and a useful option in suitable patients.

Paving the way for changing perceptions in breast surgery: a systematic literature review focused on oncological and aesthetic outcomes of oncoplastic surgery for breast cancer

BACKGROUND

The emphasis on aesthetic outcomes and quality of life after breast cancer surgery has motivated breast surgeons to develop oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (OPS). Training programs are still rare in most countries, and there is little standardization, which challenges the scientific evaluation of these techniques. This systematic review aims to assess oncological and cosmetic outcomes of OPS.

METHODS

After a strict selection process with precise inclusion and exclusion criteria, oncologic and aesthetic outcomes of oncoplastic surgery were searched, using the MEDLINE database up to September 30th, 2017. Available published literature was classified in levels of evidence. After a thorough screening process, only studies with the best level of evidence were included on selection. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were not included for methodological reasons.

RESULTS

Titles and abstracts of 2.854 citations were identified and after screening 15 prospective studies including 1.391 patients were reviewed and scored in detail. Local relapse was found in 2.8% of cases with a wide range of follow-up (from 6 to 74 months). Close margins were retrieved in 11% of cases and positive margins in 9.4% of cases. Mastectomy was implemented in 6.9% of breast cancer patients to whom OPS was performed. Good cosmetic outcomes were detected in 90.2% of patients undergoing OPS, leaving open issues for who should perform cosmetic evaluation and which method should be used.

CONCLUSION

Tumor margins, mastectomy rates, and cosmetic outcomes of OPS have to be further improved by standardizing various aspects of OPS. Research efforts should focus on level I evidence assessing both oncological and aesthetic outcomes of OPS and survival rates.

Paradigm shift in the local treatment of breast cancer: mastectomy to breast conservation surgery

There have been fundamental changes in the approach to breast cancer management over the last century but the primary objective of achieving oncological safety remains unchanged. This evolution is highlighted with a summary of the key evidences in support of the oncological safety of breast conserving surgery (BCS) in early breast cancer (EBC) management. We will also discuss the increasingly pivotal role that neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) may play, in the local treatment of EBC and locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) and the long-term surgical and oncological outcomes.

Comparison of Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery and Breast-Conserving Surgery Alone: A Meta-Analysis

Purpose

The use of oncoplastic reconstruction for breast-conserving surgery (BCS) extends benefits beyond merely minimizing poor cosmetic results. However, the feasibility and oncological safety of oncoplastic surgery (OPS) are controversial.

Methods

This meta-analysis aimed to compare the short-term and long-term oncological outcomes of BCS alone and BCS plus OPS. Relevant studies published before July 2017 in the Embase, the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Web of Science databases were screened and collected. The meta-analysis was performed using STATA software (Stata Corp.).

Results

A total of 3,789 patients from 11 studies were included, with 2,691 patients in the BCS-alone group and 1,098 patients in the BCS plus OPS group. The demographics were similar between both groups, and no significant difference was observed in pathological T and N stages between the two groups. Re-excision was less common (relative risk [RR], 0.66; p=0.009) and the positive-margin rate was lower, but not significantly (RR, 0.83; p=0.191), in the BCS plus OPS group than in the BCS-alone group. The local and distal recurrence rates were similar in both groups. Both disease-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96-1.49; p=0.112) and overall survival (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.76-1.69; p=0.527) did not differ between the two groups.

Conclusion

A combination of BCS and OPS is preferred over BCS alone for decreasing re-excisions and provides similar long-term survival as BCS alone in patients with breast cancer.

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.

Wide Local Excision Versus Oncoplastic Breast Surgery: Differences in Surgical Outcome for an Assumed Margin (0, 1, or 2 mm) Distance

INTRODUCTION

Oncoplastic breast surgery (OBS) can be applied in larger tumors or in patients with high tumor-to-breast ratio without compromising oncologic safety. Inherent larger excisions may increase the probability of clear margins. We compare postoperative outcomes between simple wide local excision (WLE) and OBS assuming 3 different margin distances.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Single oncoplastic surgeon data between April 2014 and September 2016, including tumor and treatment details, for WLE or OBS were reviewed. Relative incidence of margin positivity at 3 assumed distinct margin distances (2, 1, and 0 mm) and reexcision rates were compared. Statistical comparisons were performed by the Student t and chi-square tests.

RESULTS

Available data from 201 patients revealed similar patient age and respective tumor phenotypes between 2 cohorts (166 WLE and 35 OBS). Though both the preoperative (30 vs. 16 mm, P < .001) and postoperative tumor (30 vs. 19 mm, P = .001) sizes were greater in the OBS group, margin positivity rates were significantly lower, at 1 mm (5.7% vs. 20.8%, P = .036). Though similar rates of reexcision were observed, completion mastectomies were required in 5.4% of WLE versus 0 OBS. Similar rates of margin positivity and reexcision were observed between mammoplasties and chest wall perforator flaps.

CONCLUSION

OBS is not inferior to standard WLE at providing a safe and clear oncologic margin regardless of margin distance (up to 2 mm) despite larger tumor size. The additional benefit of improved cosmesis, particularly in patients with larger tumor-to-breast ratio, offers a suitable and safe alternative, thus increasing patient choice and reducing the incidence of reexcision and completion mastectomy.

Landscape of oncoplastic breast surgery across Poland

Oncoplastic and reconstructive techniques are essential tools in the armamentarium of contemporary breast surgeons. The aim of the study was to identify oncoplastic reconstructive patterns in breast cancer centers across Poland. A questionnaire of 18 questions was sent by email to the members of the Polish Society of Surgical Oncology and the Polish Society of Plastic, Reconstructive and Esthetic Surgery via their dedicated websites. The numbers of breast cancer patients operated on in each center ranged from 120 to 904 per year. Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) predominated in all but one center (range 50-70%). Immediate breast reconstructions (IBR) accounted for 6-42% of procedures, The most frequent type of IBR was either a two-stage expander followed by a permanent implant or one-stage implant- based with or without synthetic mesh. The most frequent type of delayed breast reconstruction (DBR) was a two-stage expander followed by implant-based reconstruction. None of the surveyed cancer centers performed free flap reconstruction. Deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps were performed in the plastic surgery department. Reconstructions based on pedicled flaps were performed in cancer centers. Acellular dermal matrices (ADM) and fat transfer were used in selected centers. In the clinical scenario of adjuvant radiotherapy, delayed breast reconstruction was favored. The full range of oncoplastic BCS was performed. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) and complications were assessed. Our findings can act as a platform for further improvement in skills, certification, data collection and audit, including patient reported expectation measures. There is also an urgent need to address pan-European inconsistencies in procedural reimbursement.

Updated Evidence on the Oncoplastic Approach to Breast Conservation Therapy

The oncoplastic approach to breast conservation therapy has become a useful and popular option for women with breast cancer who wish to preserve their breast. The initial driving forces were aimed at minimizing the potential for a breast conservation therapy deformity; however, various other benefits have been identified that include broadening the indications for breast conservation therapy in some patients and improved margin control. The various techniques can be categorized into glandular rearrangement techniques such as breast reductions usually in patients with larger breasts or flap reconstruction such as the latissimus dorsi muscle usually in patients with smaller breasts. As the acceptance continues to increase, we are starting to see more outcomes evidence in terms of patient satisfaction, quality of life, complications, and recurrence, to further support the safety and efficacy of the oncoplastic approach.

Oncological safety and cosmetic outcomes in oncoplastic breast conservation surgery, a review of the best level of evidence literature

Oncoplastic breast conservation surgery (OBCS) is increasingly becoming part of routine breast cancer surgical management. OBCS may be viewed as an extension of standard breast conservation surgery for resecting tumors of larger sizes without compromising on cosmetic outcome, or as an alternative to mastectomy. High quality evidence to support the oncological safety and benefits of OBCS is lacking. This review will focus on the best available level of evidence and address key issues regarding oncological safety in OBCS, such as tumor resection margins and re-excision rates, local recurrence and patient outcome, postoperative complications and adjuvant therapy delivery, and briefly discuss cosmetic outcome in OBCS. Comparative observational studies and systematic review report no poorer outcomes compared with standard breast conservation surgery. More evidence needs to be generated to support the oncological safety and improved aesthetic outcome. Prospective data collection will significantly contribute to the generation of stronger evidence.