The influence of simultaneous integrated boost, hypofractionation and oncoplastic surgery on cosmetic outcome and PROMs after breast conserving therapy

The 2024 Assisi think tank on breast cancer: Focus on the use of a tumour bed boost after breast conserving therapy

At the Fifth Assisi Think Tank Meeting (ATTM) on breast cancer, one key topic was the role of tumor bed boost in invasive breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ. The need for a tumor bed boost after whole breast irradiation is controversial. A literature review assessed boost indications, target volume definition, techniques, dose fractionation, and ongoing trials. Findings indicated that while a boost halves the risk of local recurrence at 10 years, it also leads to worsened cosmetic outcomes and increased fibrosis without improving overall survival. Therefore, we would recommend to omit the boost if the estimated reduction in local recurrence at 10 years is less than 3 %, and to apply shared decision-making with patients, if the boost is expected to reduce the local recurrence rate with >3 % at 10 years. Future research will focus on identifying patient subgroups that can safely omit the boost and improving boost volume precision.

Safety of Reduction Mammaplasty and Mastopexy After Breast Conservation Therapy and Radiation Therapy: A Case Series

BACKGROUND

Conservative surgery and radiotherapy (CS + RT) have become the standard of care for early-stage breast cancer as an alternative to mastectomy. With the increasing rate of obesity and incidence of macromastia, surgeons increasingly encounter patients with a history of breast radiation desiring breast reduction. However, elective breast surgery after irradiation remains to be controversial due to known adverse effects of radiation, especially on wound healing, and unknown effects of lumpectomy on traditional pedicle choices. Herein, we present our experiences and outcomes of reduction mammaplasties and mastopexies in patients with breast cancer previously treated with CS + RT.

METHODS

Between 2009 and 2020, 13 patients undergoing reduction mammaplasty or mastopexy, who have previously underwent CS + RT with or without axillary surgery, were included in this study. Surgical techniques and complications, including delayed wound healing, infection, fat necrosis, and nipple-areolar necrosis, were recorded and analyzed based on the irradiated versus nonirradiated sides.

RESULTS

Of the 13 patients, delayed wound healing occurred in 7% on the irradiated side and 15% on the nonirradiated sides (P > 0.05). No significant correlation was observed between the number of complications and time of elective breast surgery from the last radiation therapy. Complications between irradiated and nonirradiated breasts did not significantly differ in both the reduction mammaplasty and mastopexy groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Reduction mammaplasty and mastopexy in patients with a history of lumpectomy and breast irradiation can be safely performed and should be considered in those experiencing macromastia or asymmetry post-CS + RT.

Optimal radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery for early breast cancer: A network meta-analysis of 23,418 patients

PURPOSE

In order to explore whether partial breast irradiation can replace hypofractionated whole breast irradiation and whether the former two are superior to conventional fractionated whole breast irradiation, we conducted a network meta-analysis based on the data from the latest randomized controlled trials to evaluate the efficacy of these radiotherapy modalities.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Data from eligible studies were analyzed to determine the published events for ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence, distant metastasis, total deaths, and non-breast cancer-related deaths. In the case of low or high heterogeneity, the fixed-effect or random-effect model was used for statistical analysis respectively. NMA was performed by using the node-splitting model for two-category data among three radiotherapies based on a Bayesian method.

RESULTS

A total of 23,418 patients were included in 16 studies. For ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence, both pairwise (OR=1.9; CI95%: 1.2 -2.8; p<0.05) and indirect (OR=1.7; CI95%: 1.2 -2.4; p<0.05) comparison of three radiotherapies by network meta-analysis showed that conventional fractionated whole breast irradiation was significantly better than partial breast irradiation. Indirect comparison of three radiotherapies by network meta-analysis showed that hypofractionated whole breast irradiation was significantly better than partial breast irradiation (OR=1.6; CI95%: 1.0 -2.5; p<0.05). Network and paired meta-analyses found no significant differences in other endpoints among the three radiotherapies.

CONCLUSION

Overall, this network meta-analysis showed that partial breast irradiation was related to the increase of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence compared with hypofractionated or conventional fractionated whole breast irradiation in patients with early-stage breast cancer.

[The Significance of Oncoplastic Breast Reconstruction After Tumorectomy in Surgical Breast Cancer Therapy]

Breast-conserving therapy (BCT), meaning tumorectomy in combination with systemic therapy and locoregional radiation therapy has become the preferred method to treat early-stage breast cancer. With excellent long-term recurrence-free and overall survival rates, breast surgeons today must deliver du- rable and aesthetically appealing results that guarantee a good quality of life to meet the high patient expectations. Oncoplas- tic breast surgery (OPBS) is an innovative approach to improve the overall results of BCT. Often carried out by a team of a plastic surgeon and an oncologic breast surgeon, OPBS can actively prevent breast deformities without compromising oncological safety. In the following, an overview of the principles and techniques of oncoplastic breast surgery will be given due to its ever-increasing significance and its advantages and dis- advantages will be discussed in the context of reconstructive breast surgery.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Moderately hypofractionated post-operative radiation therapy for breast cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Introduction

We provide a critical assessment regarding current evidence for the use of moderately hypofractionated irradiation for patients with breast cancer. The aim of the study was to summarize the available evidence regarding outcomes after moderately hypofractionated compared with conventional radiation doses in the post-operative treatment of patients with breast cancer.

Material and methods

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS databases were searched until March 25, 2021. All randomized phase 3 clinical trials that compared moderately hypofractionated with conventional radiation doses in the post-operative treatment of patients with breast cancer were selected. This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement.

Results

Eight clinical trials satisfied the eligibility criteria and were the focus of the analysis. A total of 12,139 breast cancer patients was randomly assigned for moderately hypofractionated compared with conventional irradiation. Meta-analysis of the trials regarding local recurrence, loco-regional recurrence, disease-free survival, and overall survival outcomes did not demonstrate any significant difference between moderately hypofractionated irradiation and conventional radiation doses groups. The rate of severe side effects was low in both groups; acute and late side effects and cosmesis were similar or even tended to be lower after moderately hypofractionated than after conventional irradiation.

Conclusions

Moderately hypofractionated is at least as effective and safe as conventional radiation irradiation regimens and should be considered as a treatment option for most, if not all, breast cancer patients.

•

Evidence for the use of moderately hypofractionated RT (MHRT) for breast cancer.

•

Meta-analysis of clinical trials.

•

MHRT is at least as safe and effective as conventionally fractionated regimens.

Expert Discussion: Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy - Standard for All Indications?

n/a

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.

Breast reconstruction and radiation therapy: An Italian expert Delphi consensus statements and critical review

Breast conserving surgery (BCS) plus radiation therapy (RT) or mastectomy have shown comparable oncological outcomes in early-stage breast cancer and are considered standard of care treatments. Postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) targeted to both the chest wall and regional lymph nodes is recommended in high-risk patients. Oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (OBCS) represents a significant recent improvement in breast surgery. Nevertheless, it represents a challenge for radiation oncologists as it triggers different decision-making strategies related to treatment volume definition and target delineation. Hence, the choice of the best combination and timing when offering RT to breast cancer patients who underwent or are planned to undergo reconstruction procedures should be carefully evaluated and based on individual considerations. We present an Italian expert Delphi Consensus statements and critical review, led by a core group of all the professional profiles involved in the management of breast cancer patients undergoing reconstructive procedures and RT. The report was structured as to consider the main recommendations on breast reconstruction and RT and analyse the current open issues deserving investigation and consensus. We used a three key-phases and a Delphi process. The final expert panel of 40 colleagues selected key topics as identified by the core group of the project. A final consensus on 26 key statements on RT and breast reconstruction after three rounds of the Delphi voting process and harmonisation was reached. An accompanying critical review of available literature was summarized. A clear communication and cooperation between surgeon and radiation oncologist is of paramount relevance both in the setting of breast reconstruction following mastectomy when PMRT is planned and when extensive glandular rearrangements as OBCS is performed. A shared-decision making, relying on outcome-based and patient-centred considerations, is essential, while waiting for higher level-of-evidence data.

Hypofractionated breast irradiation: a multidisciplinary review of the Senonetwork study group

The multidisciplinary management represents a crucial part of the care for cancer patients, resulting in better clinical and process outcomes, with evidence of improved survival among different cancer primary sites, including breast. According with international recommendations established by the European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists (EUSOMA), all breast-cancer patients have to be evaluated by a multidisciplinary team including radiologist, pathologist, surgeon, medical oncologist and radiation oncologist. Thus, variations in clinical practice of each specialty should be discussed and shared with all team members to guarantee a fruitful cooperation among the involved specialists. During the last decades, radiation treatment was deeply changed by the evidence-based adoption of hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT) as standard of treatment in patients with early-stage breast cancer undergoing conservative surgery. Moreover, mature randomized data have showed that partial breast irradiation (PBI) is an effective and safe alternative to whole breast irradiation in selected patients with low-risk early-stage breast cancer. Based on this background, we reviewed indications and critical issues of HFRT and PBI analyzing impact of their adoption from a multidisciplinary perspective.

Two-year toxicity of simultaneous integrated boost in hypofractionated prone breast cancer irradiation: Comparison with sequential boost in a randomized trial

INTRODUCTION

A simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) leads to less acute toxicity. Less is known for late toxicity due to SIB. In this first and only randomized trial, two-years toxicity is analysed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Physician-assessed toxicity, using the LENT SOMA scale, and photographs, analysed with the BCCT.core software, was examined for 150 patients, randomized between SIB and sequential boost (SEB).

RESULTS

Differences in physician-assessed two-years toxicity and photographic analysis between SIB and SEB are very small and not significant.

CONCLUSION

There is no indication that a SIB leads to an excess in toxicity or worse cosmetic outcome at 2 years.

The use of moderately hypofractionated post-operative radiation therapy for breast cancer in clinical practice: A critical review

Post-operative radiation therapy (RT) reduces loco-regional recurrence rates and mortality in most patients with non-metastatic breast cancer. The aim of this critical review is to provide an overview of the applicability of moderately hypofractionated RT for breast cancer patients, focusing on factors influencing clinical decision-making. An international group of radiation oncologists agreed to assess, integrate, and interpret the existing evidence into a practical report to guide clinicians in their daily management of breast cancer patients. We conclude that moderately hypofractionated RT to the breast, chest wall (with/without breast reconstruction), and regional lymph nodes is at least as safe and effective as conventionally fractionated regimens and could be considered as the treatment option for the vast majority of the patients.For those who are still concerned about its generalised application, we recommend participating in ongoing trials comparing moderately hypofractionated RT to conventionally fractionated RT for breast cancer patients in some clinical circumstances.

Optimise not compromise: The importance of a multidisciplinary breast cancer patient pathway in the era of oncoplastic and reconstructive surgery

Modern breast cancer care is a complex multidisciplinary undertaking in which the integrated function of multiple constituent parts is critical, and where changes to one therapeutic component may profoundly influence the delivery and outcomes of another. Oncoplastic and reconstructive breast surgery has evolved in the era of longer survival rates for women with breast cancer and aims to enhance oncological and cosmetic outcomes. However, concurrently there has been an expansion in the indications for post-mastectomy radiation therapy (Abdulkarim et al., 2011; Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG), 2014; Poortmans et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2011), the recognition of several biologically distinct breast cancer subtypes (Perou et al., 2000; Sørlie et al., 2001, 2003; Cheang et al., 2008, 2009; Sotiriou et al., 2003; Millar et al., 2011; Blows et al., 2010; Schnitt, 2010; Haque et al., 2012; Dai et al., 2015) and the development of recommendations for prophylactic surgery for high-risk women, including BRCA-mutation carriers (James et al., 2006; Domchek et al., 2010). Primary systemic therapy is increasingly utilised yet has varying efficacy depending on tumour biology (Cortazar et al., 2014). In this paper we review the evidence which informs the multidisciplinary team opinion in the era of oncoplastic and reconstructive breast surgery. We aim to describe an optimal multidisciplinary approach which balances competing risks of multimodal therapies to optimise oncological and cosmetic outcomes.

The COSMAM TRIAL a prospective cohort study of quality of life and cosmetic outcome in patients undergoing breast conserving surgery

Background

Cosmetic result in breast cancer surgery is gaining increased interest. Currently, some 30–40% of the patients treated with breast conserving surgery (BCS) are dissatisfied with their final cosmetic result. In order to prevent disturbing breast deformity oncoplastic surgical techniques have been introduced. The extent of different levels of oncoplastic surgery incorporated in breast conserving surgery and its value with regard to cosmetic outcome, patient satisfaction and quality of life remains to be defined. The aim of this prospective cohort study is to investigate quality of life and satisfaction with cosmetic result in patients with breast cancer, undergoing standard lumpectomy versus level I or II oncoplastic breast conserving surgery.

Methods

Female breast cancer patients scheduled for BCS, from 18 years of age, referred to our outpatient clinic from July 2015 are asked to participate in this study. General, oncologic and treatment information will be collected. Patient satisfaction will be scored preceding surgery, and at 1 month and 1 year follow up. Photographs of the breast will be used to score cosmetic result both by the patient, an independent expert panel and BCCT.Core software. Quality of life will be measured by using the BREAST-Q BCT, EORTC-QLQ and EQ-5D-5 L questionnaires.

Discussion

The purpose of this prospective study is to determine the clinical value of different levels of oncoplastic techniques in breast conserving surgery, with regard to quality of life and cosmetic result. Analysis will be carried out by objective measurements of the final cosmetic result in comparison with standard breast conserving surgery. The results of this study will be used to development of a clinical decision model to guide the use oncoplastic surgery in future BCS.

Trial registration

Central Commission of Human Research (CCMO), The Netherlands: NL54888.015.15.

Medical Ethical Commission (METC), Maxima Medical Centre, Veldhoven, The Netherlands: 15.107.

Dutch Trial Register: NTR5665, retrospectively registered, 02-25-2016.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-018-4368-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Dosimetric comparison of simultaneous integrated boost versus concomitant electron boost in radiotherapy treatment of breast cancer

Background

The aim of this study was to compare the dosimetric parameters and effects of simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) and traditional sequential electron boost, after helical tomotherapy, because of the lack of studies in this field in the current literature.

Methods

Computed tomographic data of 14 patients who received SIB in 2012–2015 were collected from Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital. New tomotherapy with SIB plans and tomotherapy with sequential boost plans were generated for each patient, and results were compared.

Results

Conformation number, mean dose, dose received by 95% volume (both sides), ipsilateral lung volume receiving 20 Gy (V20) and skin dose (right side) were found to be significantly better for SIB (p<0·05), however coverage index and gross target volume dose showed no significant difference, and heart dose was significantly higher for SIB on the right side.

Conclusion

Tomotherapy with SIB may be able to offer less organ at risk dose (except for the heart), while maintaining the ability to deliver adequate dose coverage.

Does an integrated boost increase acute toxicity in prone hypofractionated breast irradiation? A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The safety of a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) in combination with prone hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation (WBI) was investigated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

167 patients were randomized between WBI with a sequential boost (SeB) or SIB. All patients were treated in prone position to 40.05Gy in 15 fractions to the whole breast. In the control arm, a SeB of 10Gy in 4 fractions (negative surgical margins) or 14.88Gy in 6 fractions (transsection) was prescribed. In the experimental arm a SIB of 46.8 or 49.95Gy (negative and positive surgical margins, respectively) was prescribed.

RESULTS

Patient age was the only significantly different parameter between treatment arms with patients in the SIB arm being slightly older. In both arms, 6/83 patients developed moist desquamation. Grade 2/3 dermatitis was significantly more frequent in the SeB arm (38/83vs 24/83 patients, p=0.037). In the SIB and SeB arm, respectively, 36 patients (43%) and 51 patients (61%) developed pruritus (p=0.015). The incidence of oedema was lower in the SIB arm (59vs 68 patients), but not statistically significant (p=0.071).

CONCLUSIONS

The primary endpoint, moist desquamation, was not significantly different between treatment arms.

Aesthetic and functional outcome after breast conserving surgery - Comparison between conventional and oncoplastic resection

BACKGROUND

Recent studies implicate that oncoplastic breast cancer surgery provides better aesthetic outcome than conventional resection. Several factors have been associated with poor aesthetic outcome. This study aims to compare patient-reported aesthetic and functional outcome after conventional and oncoplastic resection and to evaluate prognostic factors for poor aesthetic outcome in a population-based setting.

METHODS

637 patients having breast conserving treatment (BCT) due to unilateral primary breast cancer at a single hospital district during 2010 were included. Aesthetic and functional outcome were evaluated using two questionnaires three years after surgery.

RESULTS

Questionnaires were returned by 379 (59%) patients; 293 (77%) of these had conventional and 86 (23%) oncoplastic resection. Patients in oncoplastic resection group had larger tumour diameter (p < 0.001), larger resection specimens (p < 0.001), and more often multifocal tumours (p = 0.032), node positive cancer (p = 0.029) and lower quadrant tumour localization (p = 0.007). Aesthetic outcome according to BCTOS questionnaire was good in 284 (75%) patients; 52 (61%) patients in the oncoplastic group and 230 patients (81%) in the conventional resection group, p < 0.001. Larger tumour diameter (p = 0.033), multifocality (p = 0.022), weight of resection specimen (<0.001) and oncoplastic surgery (p < 0.001) were predicting poor aesthetic outcome, when all patients were included. Tumour multifocality (p = 0.013) remained predictor of poor aesthetic outcome in conventional resection group but not in oncoplastic resection group.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient satisfaction to aesthetic outcome after BCT is high. Conventional resection provides good aesthetic outcome in appropriately selected patients. Oncoplastic resection enables BCT in patients with larger and multifocal tumours with favourable aesthetic outcome.