Oncoplastic Surgery: Does Patient and Medical Specialty Influences the Evaluation of Cosmetic Results?

Extreme oncoplasty: past, present and future

Breast surgery has evolved from mastectomy to breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Breast oncoplastic surgery later emerged with the inclusion and development of techniques used in plastic surgery for breast neoplasms. Recently, a new paradigm has been considered for mastectomy candidates with large multifocal and multicentric tumours, designated extreme oncoplasty (EO), which has allowed new techniques to be applied to tumours that would have been ineligible for BCS before. There are few publications and no uniform descriptions grouping all the technical possibilities and new indications together. We performed this a review with the objective of evaluating the indications and surgeries performed in the EO context, representing a new perspective for BCS. We observed new indications as extensive microcalcifications, locally advanced breast carcinoma with partial response to chemotherapy, small to moderate-sized non-ptotic central tumours and extreme ptosis. Small breasts are able for EO since the presence of ptosis. New surgeries are reported as disguised geometric compensation, perforators flaps, local/regional flaps, latissimus dorsi miniflap and partial breast amputation. It is important to decrease barriers to oncoplastic surgery if we want to increase the use of EO and BCS rates.

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.

Factors associated with unsatisfactory cosmetic results in oncoplastic surgery

INTRODUCTION

Oncoplastic surgery (OS) has expanded the indications for breast-conserving surgery associated with an adequate aesthetic result. However, few studies have described the factors associated with unsatisfactory cosmetic outcomes from this surgical modality.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a cross-sectional prospective study that included patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery (BCS) with or without OS. The patients self-evaluated the cosmetic results of the breasts posttreatment and had them photographed. The photos were analyzed by BCCT.core. Individual and treatment factors (local and systemic) for all patients were evaluated. These factors were dichotomized according to the use of OS and to the cosmetic result (satisfactory and unsatisfactory). Categorical variables were tested for association with surgical outcome using the chi-square test while numerical variables using the Mann-Whitney U test. Variables with p <0,2 were selected for multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 300 patients evaluated, 72 (24,0%) underwent OS. According to the patient self-evaluations, an unsatisfactory cosmetic result from OS was significantly associated with younger age at diagnosis, higher body mass index (BMI) at the time of evaluation, larger tumor size and greater weight of the surgical specimen. According to the BCCT.core, only the laterality of the tumor (left) was significantly associated with an unsatisfactory cosmetic result. In logistic regression, considering OS as a control variable, the risk of an unsatisfactory outcome according to patient self-evaluation was related to the tumor ≥ T2 odds ratio (OR) 1,85 (1,027-3,34) and age at diagnosis < 40 [OR 5,0 (1,84-13,95)]. However, according to the software, the variables were associated with an increased risk of an unsatisfactory outcome were the time interval between surgery and evaluation [OR 1,27 (1,16-1,39)], the presence of lymphedema [OR 2,97 (1,36-6,46)], surgical wound infection [OR 3,6 (1,22-11,16)], tumor location on the left side [OR 3,06 (1,69-5,53)], overweight [OR 2,93 (1,48-5,8)] and obesity [OR 2,52 (1,2-5,31)].

CONCLUSION

There is no standard methodology for breast cosmesis evaluation, which influences the factors associated with unsatisfactory results. Younger patients and those with increased BMI, left breast cancer and extensive resections tend to present with unsatisfactory cosmetic results when OS is performed.

Does breast oncoplastic surgery improve quality of life?

Breast Oncoplastic Surgery (OS) has established itself as a safe procedure associated with the treatment of breast cancer, but the term is broad, encompassing procedures associated with breast-conserving surgeries (BCS), conservative mastectomies and fat grafting. Surgeons believe that OS is associated with an increase in quality of life (QOL), but the diversity of QOL questionnaires and therapeutic modalities makes it difficult to assess from the patient's perspective. To answer this question, we performed a search for systematic reviews on QOL associated with different COM procedures, and in their absence, we selected case-control studies, discussing the main results. We observed that: (1) Patients undergoing BCS or breast reconstruction have improved QoL compared to those undergoing mastectomy; (2) In patients undergoing BCS, OS has not yet shown an improvement in QOL, a fact possibly influenced by patient selection bias; (3) In patients undergoing mastectomy with reconstruction, the QoL results are superior when the reconstruction is performed with autologous flaps and when the areola is preserved; (4) Prepectoral implants improves QOL in relation to subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction; (5) ADM do not improves QOL; (6) In patients undergoing prophylactic mastectomy, satisfaction is high with the indication, but the patient must be informed about the potential complications associated with the procedure; (7) Satisfaction is high after performing fat grafting. It is observed that, in general, OS increases QOL, and when evaluating the procedures, any preservation or repair, or the use of autologous tissues, increases QOL, justifying OS.

Assessing Interobserver Variability of Cosmetic Outcome Assessment in Breast Cancer Patients Undergoing Breast-Conservation Surgery

BACKGROUND

Inter-rater reliability between breast surgical oncologists and reconstructive surgeons using cosmesis scales, and the correlation between their observations and patients' own subjective assessments, is poorly understood.

METHODS

Patients undergoing BCS in a prospective trial rated their cosmetic outcome on a Likert scale (poor/fair/good/excellent) at the postoperative and 1-year time points; photographs were also taken. Three breast surgical oncologists (not involved in these cases) and two reconstructive surgeons were asked to independently rate cosmesis using the Harvard/NSABP/RTOG scale.

RESULTS

Overall, 55 and 17 patients had photographs and Likert self-evaluations at the postoperative and 1-year time points, respectively. There was poor agreement between surgeon and patient ratings postoperatively [kappas - 0.042 (p = 0.659), 0.069 (p = 0.226), and 0.076 (p = 0.090) for the breast surgical oncologists; and 0.018 (p = 0.689) and 0.112 (p = 0.145) for the reconstructive surgeons], and poor interobserver agreement between surgeons of the same specialty (kappa - 0.087, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.091 to - 0.082, p = 0.223 for breast surgical oncologists; and kappa - 0.150, 95% CI - 0.157 to - 0.144, p = 0.150, for reconstructive surgeons). At 1 year, the interobserver agreement between breast surgical oncologists was better (kappa 0.507, 95% CI 0.501-0.512, p < 0.001); however, there was still poor correlation between the reconstructive surgeons (kappa - 0.040, 95% CI - 0.049 to - 0.031, p = 0.772). Agreement between surgeon and patient ratings remained poor at this time point [kappas - 0.115 (p = 0.477), 0.177 (p = 0.245), and 0.101 (p = 0.475) for breast surgical oncologists; and 0.335 (p = 0.037) and -0.118 (p = 0.221) for reconstructive surgeons].

CONCLUSION

Despite gradation scales for measuring cosmesis after BCS, high levels of agreement between surgeons is lacking and these do not always reflect patients' subjective assessments.