Oncoplastic Breast Surgery Compared to Conventional Breast-Conserving Surgery With Regard to Oncologic Outcome

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.

Oncoplastic versus conventional breast-conserving surgery in breast cancer: a pooled analysis of 6941 female patients

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer in women. In the past few years, surgical interventions for breast cancer have experienced massive changes from radical excision to conserving approaches. In this study, we aim to compare the two breast surgery interventions, including conventional breast-conserving surgery (CBCS) versus oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OPBCS).

METHODS

We searched on PubMed, Web of Science (WOS), Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane till 2 October 2021. All relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies were included. The data were extracted and pooled using Review Manager software (RevMan 5.4).

RESULTS

The pooled meta-analysis of the included studies showed that OPBCS was significantly superior to CBCS in most of the outcomes. Re-excision significantly favoured CBCS (RR = 0.49, 95% CI [0.37, 0.63], P < 0.00001). However, local recurrence (RR = 0.55, 95% CI [0.27, 1.09], P = 0.09), close surgical margins (RR = 0.37, 95% CI [0.14, 1.00], P = 0.05) and end up to the risk of mastectomy (RR = 0.73, 95% CI [0.54, 97], P = 0.06) showed no significant difference between both techniques. Notably, while performing a sensitivity analysis, other outcomes as local recurrence, significantly showed favourable results towards OPBCS. In terms of safety outcomes, there was no significant difference between OPBCS and CBCS.

CONCLUSION

We recommend the oncoplastic approach rather than the conventional one in females with breast cancer. Re-excision rates showed better results following OPBCS.

Comparison of patient-reported outcomes among different types of oncoplastic breast surgery procedures

BACKGROUND

This study aims to compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after different types of oncoplastic surgery (OPS) procedures and correlate the results with previously published normative data from women with no prior history of breast cancer (BC) and breast surgery.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study of patients with stage I-II BC undergoing a specific selection of OPS procedures from 04/2012 to 12/2018 by three breast surgeons at a single tertiary referral hospital in Switzerland. PROs were evaluated using the postoperative BREAST-Q questionnaire.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-seven patients met the inclusion criteria and were surveyed. All OPS techniques achieved comparably elevated scores in satisfaction with breasts, psychosocial, and sexual well-being. Compared to normative data of healthy women, all OPS groups postoperatively achieved significantly better satisfaction with breasts, psychosocial, and sexual well-being.

CONCLUSION

This study shows high PROs across all types of OPS, which were superior to normative data from healthy women. Our findings confirm that OPS is associated with high quality of life and patient satisfaction.

Comparison of Long-Term Oncological Outcomes in Oncoplastic Breast Surgery and Conventional Breast-Conserving Surgery for Breast Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

PURPOSE

The oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OPS) technique, combined with the principles of oncological safety and plastic surgery, results in complete tumor resection while preserving the natural appearance of the breast. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term oncological results after OPS compared with conventional breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for early breast cancer.

METHODS

The medical records of patients who underwent breast cancer surgery and adjuvant radiation therapy at Seoul National University Hospital between 2011 and 2014 were reviewed. Ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR)-free survival rate and recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates were compared between the OPS and BCS groups.

RESULTS

One-to-one propensity score matching was conducted, yielding 371 patients in each group. The mean tumor distance from the nipple was shorter, and the mean retrieved specimen size and pathologic tumor size, including ductal carcinoma in situ, were larger in the OPS group than in the conventional BCS group (p < 0.001). Surgical margin positivity was not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.777). The surgical technique was not significantly associated with IBTR (OPS versus conventional BCS, 5-year survival rate, 96.9% vs. 98.6%; p = 0.355) and RFS (5-year survival rate, 92.9% vs. 94.5%; p = 0.357) on the log-rank test. Multivariate analysis revealed that OPS versus conventional BCS was not significantly associated with survival outcomes.

CONCLUSION

We observed no significant differences in long-term IBTR and RFS between the OPS and conventional BCS groups in this retrospective analysis. OPS can be an oncologically and surgically safe alternative option for conventional BCS for early breast cancer.

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 Repair in Breast Conservation: Comprehensive Evaluation of Techniques and Oncologic Outcomes of 937 Patients

BACKGROUND

Breast-conserving surgery, especially with oncoplastic breast surgery (OBS), is becoming the standard of care in the surgical management of breast cancer. We investigated the applied technique of OBS and oncologic outcomes in a large series of patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study was conducted between January 2008 and June 2018 in two centers in Iran. Patients underwent OBS. Early and late postoperative complications, oncologic outcomes, and follow-up data were documented.

RESULTS

Nine hundred thirty-seven patients with a mean ± standard deviation age of 48.1 ± 11.3 underwent OBS. Most of the patients were diagnosed with early-stage disease, of which the most common pathology was invasive ductal carcinoma (83.3%). Lateral oncoplasty was the most commonly used OBS technique (324 cases, 34.6%). The most common complication was seroma formation. Reduction-type OBS technique had the highest rate of complications (13.1%). Thirty-four patients (5.4%) experienced local recurrence, with a median recurrence time of 26.4 months. Nine patients (1.3%) died from cancer recurrence.

CONCLUSION

OBS is a safe procedure with minor complications and good oncologic outcomes. These techniques can be applied to most patients who are candidates for breast-conserving surgery.