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

Comparative analysis of the degree of patient satisfaction after breast-conserving surgery with or without oncoplastic surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Conservative surgery is the gold standard for the treatment of single and small tumors and, combined with the concept of oncoplastic tumors, brings good aesthetic results while maintaining cancer safety. The objective was to comparatively analyze the degree of satisfaction of patients undergoing breast conserving surgery (BCS), with and without oncoplastic surgery (OPS) using level II OPS techniques.

Methods

Review with a search in the databases MEDLINE (by PubMed), EMBASE, Clinical Trials, Scopus, Web of Science, BVS and Oppen gray. The meta-analysis of random effects was performed using the Der Simonian-Laird method considering the odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI).

Results

There was no statistically significant difference in the aesthetic outcome between women who underwent OPS and BCS (OR 0.90; 95% CI 0.62-1.30). The staging (OR 1.93; 95% CI 0.97-3.84; I 2 = 15.83%); tumor location [central (OR 1.28; 95% CI 0.06-27.49; I 2 = 17.63%); lower (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.21-2.65; I 2 = 2.21%); superior (OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.26-1.74; I 2 = 0.00%] and tumor size (OR 8.73; 95% CI -11.82-29.28; I 2 = 93.18%) showed no association with the type of BCS performed, with or without OPS. The degree of satisfaction remains even in cases of extreme oncoplasty.

Conclusion

The level of patient satisfaction in relation to BCS was similar to that of the group undergoing OPS, highlighting that OPS allows the patient's satisfaction rate to be maintained even in the case of large or multicentric tumors.

Identifying the Variables for Oncoplastic Reconstruction: Preoperative Assessment Tool for Breast Conserving Treatment

BACKGROUND

A wide range of surgical techniques has been described for breast conservation treatment (Oncoplasty) based on breast size and shape, as well as tumor size and location. However, there is a lack of standardization regarding the indications for oncoplastic reconstruction. This study aims to identify the presurgical parameters associated with poor cosmetic outcomes post-breast conserving treatment. We hope this preoperative model can assist in evaluating whether there is a need for oncoplastic intervention.

METHODS

The study group involved 136-adult females (age 35-77) who previously undergone breast conserving surgery and radiation, without oncoplastic intervention between 2007 and 2017. Patient demographics, medical and physical parameters were collected, and each patient filled Breast-QTM-questionnaire and six angles' photographs were taken. Patients' photographs were evaluated by 15 board-certified plastic surgeons. Both univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify potential confounders for poor outcome in each of the experts' and patients' average-grades.

RESULTS

Our analysis identified several variables correlated with poor surgical outcome: high BMI, high chest-wall-circumference, high breast-width and larger volume-removed. The general-aesthetic-result as evaluated by our experts was favorably influenced by an upper lateral quadrant tumor while the breast shape was negatively influenced by a lower medial quadrant tumor. Interestingly, no correlation was found between the patients' and panel's evaluations, nor did we find any clinically significant parameter related to the patients' reported well-being.

CONCLUSION

Patients with high BMI, high chest-wall-circumference, large breast-width and larger inferomedial tumors could benefit from early plastic surgery evaluation and intervention. Patient's psychosocial well-being as well as sexual well-being are independent from positive surgical outcome evaluated by plastic surgeons.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

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 .

Quantification of breast lymphoedema following conservative breast cancer treatment: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Breast lymphoedema is a possible side effect of breast conserving surgery, but it is poorly understood. This is due, in part, to difficulty assessing the breast. This systematic review described outcome measures that quantify breast lymphoedema signs and symptoms and evaluated the measurement properties for these outcome measures.

METHOD

Seven databases were searched using terms in four categories: breast cancer, lymphoedema and oedema, clinician reported (ClinROM) and patient reported outcome measures (PROM) and psychometric and measurement properties. Two reviewers independently reviewed studies and completed quality assessments. The Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) methodology was used for studies including measurement property evidence.

RESULTS

Fifty-six papers were included with thirteen questionnaires, eight patient-reported rating scales, seven physical measures, seven clinician-rating scales and four imaging techniques used to quantify breast lymphoedema. Based on COSMIN methodology, one ClinROM had sufficient reliability, ultrasound measuring dermal thickness. Tissue dielectric constant (TDC) measuring local tissue water had promising reliability. Four questionnaires had sufficient content validity (BLYSS, BLSQ, BrEQ and LYMQOL-Breast).

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrasound is recommended to reliably assess breast lymphoedema signs. No PROM can be recommended with confidence, but BLYSS, BLSQ, BrEQ and LYMQOL-Breast are promising. Further research is recommended to improve evidence of measurement properties for outcome measures.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

There are many approaches to assess breast lymphoedema, but currently, only ultrasound can be recommended for use, with others, such as TDC and questionnaires, showing promise. Further research is required for all approaches to improve evidence of measurement properties.

Quality of life and satisfaction of patients after oncoplastic or traditional breast-conserving surgery using the BREAST-Q (BCT module): a prospective study

INTRODUCTION

The oncoplastic conservative surgery was developed as a natural evolution of traditional surgery, attempting to improve the therapeutic and aesthetic outcomes where tumor resection could be followed by not-adequate results. Our primary aim is to evaluate how patient satisfaction and quality-of-life after conservative oncoplastic surgery, using BREAST-Q (BCT Module), change pre- and post-operatively. The secondary aim is to compare patient-reported outcome after oncoplastic or traditional conservative surgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We enrolled 647 patients who underwent traditional conservative surgery or oncoplastic surgery from January 2020 to December 2022. Only 232 women (35.9%) completed the BREAST-Q questionnaire on a web-based platform, at the preoperative phase and 3 months after treatment.

RESULTS

The average score of "Psychosocial well-being" and "Satisfaction with Breasts" 3 months after surgery showed a statistically significant improvement, while the average score for "Physical well-being: Chest" at 3 months showed a worsening compared to the baseline. "Sexual well-being" did not show statistically significant change. A significant difference between the post-operative outcome of oncoplastic surgery and traditional surgery was observed only for Physical well-being (better for traditional surgery).

CONCLUSIONS

The study showed significant improvement in patient-reported outcomes 3 months after the surgery, except for physical discomfort that increases especially after oncoplastic surgery. Furthermore, our data, as well as many others, point to the appropriateness of using OCS where there is an effective indication, while the perspective of patients cannot find significant superiority over TCS in any of the areas analyzed.

The Impact of Breast-Conserving Surgery Re-excision on Patient-Reported Outcomes Using the BREAST-Q

BACKGROUND

Approximately 14% of women undergoing breast-conserving surgery (BCS) require re-excision to achieve negative margins following the Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) and American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) margin guidelines, which may influence patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Few studies have assessed the impact of re-excision on PROs following BCS.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Women with stage 0-III breast cancer undergoing BCS who completed a BREAST-Q PRO measure from 2010 to 2016 were identified from a prospective database. Baseline characteristics were compared between women who underwent one BCS and those who underwent ≥ 1 re-excision surgery for positive margins (R-BCS). Linear mixed models were used to analyze associations between number of excisions and BREAST-Q scores over time.

RESULTS

Of 2543 eligible women, 1979 (78%) had one BCS and 564 (22%) had R-BCS. Younger age, lower BMI, surgery pre-SSO Invasive Guidelines issuance, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), multifocal disease, radiation therapy receipt, and endocrine therapy omission were more common in the R-BCS group. Breast satisfaction and sexual well-being were lower in the R-BCS group 2 years postoperatively. There were no differences in psychosocial well-being between groups over 5 years. On multivariable analysis, re-excision was associated with lower breast satisfaction and sexual well-being (p= 0.007 and p= 0.049, respectively), but there was no difference in psychosocial well-being (p= 0.250).

CONCLUSIONS

Women with R-BCS had lower breast satisfaction and sexual well-being 2 years postoperatively, but this difference did not remain long term. Psychosocial well-being in women who underwent one BCS were largely comparable over time to the R-BCS group. These findings may help in counseling women who are concerned about satisfaction and quality-of-life outcomes with BCS if re-excision is necessary.

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.

Aesthetic outcomes of breast-conserving surgery and oncoplastic surgery with the new scale named Quality of Life Questionnaire Breast Reconstruction Module-23

Purpose

Oncoplastic surgery (OPS) has been developed with the aim of improving breast-conserving surgery (BCS) to provide better aesthetic and functional outcomes for breast cancer patients. We aimed to compare overall quality of life (QoL) and satisfaction with breast reconstruction in patients undergoing BCS and OPS using the Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and recently validated QLQ-Breast Reconstruction module (QLQ-BRECON23).

Methods

A total of 87 patients were included in this single-center study between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2021; 43 underwent OPS (49.4%) and 44 underwent BCS (50.6%). The data on patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics were obtained from the prospectively collected database at the hospital. QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BRECON23 were used to evaluate psychosocial well-being, fatigue symptoms, overall QoL, sexual well-being, sensation of the operative area, and satisfaction with the reconstruction.

Results

According to QLQ-C30 evaluation there were significantly better outcomes for patients treated with OPS than BCS in terms of psychosocial well-being, fatigue symptoms, and overall QoL (P = 0.005, P = 0.016, and P = 0.004; respectively), according to QLQ-BRECON23 evaluation there were also significantly better outcomes in terms of sexual well-being, sensation of the operative area, and satisfaction of the reconstruction (P < 0.001, P = 0.002, and P < 0.001; respectively).

Conclusion

We found that the overall QoL and satisfaction with breast reconstruction in patients undergoing OPS are better than those undergoing BCS. Our study is critical because it is the first study comparing OPS and BCS using the QLQ-BRECON23, which was recently validated.

Cell-free biomimetic polyurethane-based scaffold for breast reconstruction following non-malignant lesion resection. A first-in-human study

BACKGROUND

Based on the volume of tissue removed, conservative surgery (BCS) cannot always guarantee satisfactory cosmetic results, unless resorting to more complex oncoplastic approaches. Investigating an alternative to optimize aesthetic outcomes minimizing surgical complexity, was the purpose of this study. We assessed an innovative surgical procedure based on the use of a biomimetic polyurethane-based scaffold intended for regenerating soft-tissue resembling fat, in patients undergoing BCS for non-malignant breast lesions. Safety and performance of the scaffold, and safety and feasibility of the entire implant procedure were evaluated.

METHODS

A volunteer sample of 15 female patients underwent lumpectomy with immediate device positioning, performing seven study visits with six-month follow-up. We evaluated incidence of adverse events (AEs), changes in breast appearance (using photographs and anthropomorphic measurements), interference with ultrasound and MRI (assessed by two independent investigators), investigator's satisfaction (through a VAS scale), patient's pain (through a VAS scale) and quality of life (QoL) (using the BREAST-Q© questionnaire). Data reported are the results of the interim analysis on the first 5 patients.

RESULTS

No AEs were device related nor serious. Breast appearance was unaltered and the device did not interference with imaging. High investigator's satisfaction, minimal post-operative pain and positive impact on QoL were also detected.

CONCLUSIONS

Albeit on a limited number of patients, data showed positive outcomes both in terms of safety and performance, paving the way to an innovative breast reconstructive approach with a potential remarkable impact on clinical application of tissue engineering.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04131972, October 18, 2019).

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.

Oncoplastic Augmentation Mastopexy in Breast Conservation Therapy: Retrospective Study and Postoperative Complications

BACKGROUND

Oncoplastic techniques, in conjunction with lumpectomy and adjuvant radiotherapy, have been demonstrated to achieve good aesthetic results and cancer outcomes in the treatment of patients with macromastia or significant ptosis. This study evaluated a series of patients undergoing breast conservation with concomitant oncoplastic-augmentation-mastopexy and a contralateral augmentation-mastopexy.

METHODS

Patients undergoing lumpectomy for breast conservation were identified via a retrospective chart review. Inclusion criteria included patients with ptosis and preexisting breast implants or insufficient breast volume undergoing oncoplastic implant placement/exchange and mastopexy. Demographic characteristics, operative details, and complications were assessed.

RESULTS

Thirty-four consecutive patients (64 breasts, 4 unilateral procedures) were included in the study. Average age was 51.4 years, average body mass index was 27, and 38.2% were smokers/former smokers. The average operative time was 2.5 hours. Furthermore, 38.2% of patients received chemotherapy, and 82.4% of patients received breast adjuvant radiotherapy. The average length of follow-up was 11.7 months. In the sample that received radiation, the capsular contracture rate was 25%, with a 7.1% contracture revision rate. For the entire group, a total of 8 patients (23.5%) underwent revisions for either positive margins (8.8%), capsular contracture (8.8%), implant loss (2.9%), or cosmetic concerns (2.9%). One patient developed a pulmonary embolism.

CONCLUSIONS

Oncoplastic-augmentation-mastopexy is a safe technique with acceptable complication rates. This technique is best used for breast cancer patients with breast ptosis and a paucity of breast volume or preexisting implants who wish to pursue breast-conserving therapy. The revision rates are acceptable compared with single-stage cosmetic augmentation procedures as well as other oncoplastic techniques described in the literature, but patients must be clearly counseled on contracture risk.

Effect of standardised surgical assessment and shared decision-making on morbidity and patient satisfaction after breast conserving therapy: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The role of oncoplastic breast conserving therapy (OPBCT) on physical function, morbidity and patient satisfaction has yet to be defined. Additionally, technique selection should be individualised and incorporate patient preference. The study aim was to investigate differences between "standard" (sBCT) and oncoplastic breast conservation (OPBCT) in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) when patients have been assessed in a standardised manner and technique selection has been reached through shared decision-making (SDM).

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study of 215 women treated at a tertiary referral centre. Standardised surgical assessment included breast and lesion volumetry, definition of resection ratio, patient-related risk factors and patient preference. Postoperative morbidity and patient satisfaction were assessed by validated PROs tools (Diseases of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand-DASH and Breast-Q). Patient experience was assessed by semi-structured interviews.

RESULTS

There was no difference of the median values between OPBCT and sBCT in postoperative morbidity of the upper extremity (DASH 3.3 vs 5, p = 0.656) or the function of the chest wall (Breast-Q 82 vs 82, p = 0.758). Postoperative satisfaction with breasts did not differ either (Breast-Q 65 vs 61, p = 0.702). On the individual level, women that opted for OPBCT after SDM had improved satisfaction when compared to baseline (+3 vs -1, p = 0.001). Shared decision-making changed patient attitude in 69.8% of patients, leading most often to de-escalation from mastectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings support that a combination of standardised surgical assessment and SDM allows for tailored treatment and de-escalation of oncoplastic surgery without negatively affecting patient satisfaction and morbidity.

Subaxillary Replacement Flap Compared with the Round Block Displacement Technique in Oncoplastic Breast Conserving Surgery: Functional Outcomes of a Feasible One Stage Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

For selected women diagnosed with breast cancer (BC), partial reconstructive techniques involve displacement or replacement procedures to improve cosmesis without compromising oncological safety. This study aims to evaluate the surgical outcomes of the round block (RB) compared with the subaxillary flap (SF) technique for patients with upper outer tumor.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Thirty-three patients treated with oncoplastic conserving surgery (15 RB and 18 SF) were enrolled in this retrospective study. After carrying out a comparison of baseline characteristics, all cases were recruited for postoperative evaluation of oncological and cosmetic parameters. Moreover, we investigated several scoring combinations to check whether they could discriminate surgeon and patient satisfaction according to different functional results.

RESULTS

Median age (p < 0.05), average tumor size (p > 0.05), estimated resection volume (p > 0.05), and nodal involvement (p > 0.05) were slightly higher in the SF group. A greater frequency of DCIS (p < 0.05) in the RB series correlated with reintervention for positive margins (p > 0.001). At a mean follow-up of 19 months, no locoregional recurrences were recorded and early and late complications were comparable (p > 0.05). The overall satisfaction with cosmesis was characterized by similar proportions of good results (p > 0.05), with some details more related to each procedure.

CONCLUSION

The proposed techniques represent effective solutions for reshaping that follows upper outer wide excision, achieving comparable complication rates, low reinterventions, and good aesthetic results in relation to technical and social functioning evaluations. However, it is crucial to establish a careful patient selection in order to manage correct surgical planning while predicting any potential sequelae or complication.

Oncoplastic Surgery and the Clinical Features of Breast Cancer—Relevant Factors Associated with Reoperation in Breast Oncoplastic Surgery

Oncoplastic breast surgery slowly becomes a part of routine breast cancer surgical management but evidence with regard to oncological safety remains limited. The aim of this study was to compare relevant factors associated with the particular type of breast carcinoma and the applied surgical techniques either with or without oncoplastic surgery. This retrospective study enrolled the breast cancer female patients who underwent breast-conserving therapy alone or with the oncoplastic surgery in the Department of Surgical Oncology at the Center of Oncology of the Lublin Region St. Jana from Dukli in the years 2008–2011. The study involves 679 breast cancer patients who underwent oncoplasty (n = 81) and the control group (n = 598). There is a significant relationship between the histological type of breast cancer (p = 0.00000) along with the expression of estrogen and/or progesterone receptors (p = 0.01285) and the usage of oncoplastic surgery in breast cancer patients. Interestingly, in the majority of cases, there was no need to conduct a reoperation. Oncoplastic surgery is an effective and safe strategy that might be favorable especially for those patients who are potential candidates for more invasive surgical methods. High-quality evidence to support the oncological safety and benefits of oncoplastic breast surgery is lacking.

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.

Outcome reporting in therapeutic mammaplasty: a systematic review

Background

Therapeutic mammaplasty (TM) is an oncological procedure which combines tumour resection with breast reduction and mastopexy techniques. Previous systematic reviews have demonstrated the oncological safety of TM but reporting of critically important outcomes, such as quality of life, aesthetic and functional outcomes, are limited, piecemeal or inconsistent. This systematic review aimed to identify all outcomes reported in clinical studies of TM to facilitate development of a core outcome set.

Methods

Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science were searched from inception to 5 August 2020. Included studies reported clinical outcomes following TM for adult women. Two authors screened articles independently for eligibility. Data were extracted regarding the outcome definition and classification type (for example, oncological, quality of life, etc.), time of outcome reporting and measurement tools.

Results

Of 5709 de-duplicated records, 148 were included in the narrative synthesis. The majority of studies (n = 102, 68.9 per cent) reported measures of survival and/or recurrence; approximately three-quarters (n = 75, 73.5 per cent) had less than 5 years follow-up. Aesthetic outcome was reported in half of studies (n = 75, 50.7 per cent) using mainly subjective, non-validated measurement tools. The time point at which aesthetic assessment was conducted was highly variable, and only defined in 48 (64.0 per cent) studies and none included a preoperative baseline for comparison. Few studies reported quality of life (n = 30, 20.3 per cent), functional outcomes (n = 5, 3.4 per cent) or resource use (n = 28, 18.9 per cent).

Conclusion

Given the oncological equivalence of TM and mastectomy, treatment decisions are often driven by aesthetic and functional outcomes, which are infrequently and inconsistently reported with non-validated measurement tools.

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 cancer patient-reported outcome of factors influencing cosmetic satisfaction after breast-conserving therapy

Background

The aim of this study was to investigate which factors patients considered to be important for determining the degree of cosmetic satisfaction with regards to perceived body image after previous breast-conserving therapy (BCT).

Methods

Outcomes considered relevant by the patients were first identified using interviews. A questionnaire based on this group input was then devised and added to the physician-based Sneeuw questionnaire. Next, a quantitative study using this questionnaire was conducted in Dutch patients treated at least 6 months earlier for (non-) invasive breast cancer by BCT. Exclusion criteria were: previous mastectomy or BCT of the contralateral breast, BCT with nipple resection, metastatic disease, local recurrence or (previous) plastic breast surgery. Descriptive statistics were used throughout.

Results

A total of 149 patients (aged 36–87 years) completed the questionnaire. From this focus group input, the top three factors in overall importance (important or very important) for satisfaction were: ‘wearability of bra’ (67%), ‘breast sensitivity’ (59%) and ‘asymmetry’ (51%). Younger patients (< 55 years) considered ‘breast size’ to be most important, whereas ‘wearability of bra’ was most frequently reported by older patients (> 55 years). Time since BCT did not significantly influence the rating of relevant factors.

Conclusion

Patients consider ‘wearability of bra’, ‘breast sensitivity’ and ‘asymmetry’ as the most important factors when assessing their satisfaction with regards to cosmetic outcome and body image. These factors should be addressed in routine clinical practice during (pre) counseling.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12282-021-01287-0.

Oncoplastic Surgery in Breast-Conserving Treatment: Patient Profile and Impact on Quality of Life

BACKGROUND

Breast-conserving treatment (BCT) provides better quality of life (QL) than mastectomy without reconstruction. Oncoplastic surgery (OS) encompasses a series of surgical techniques, increasing the indications for BCT, but few studies have evaluated the impact on QL in patients who undergo BCT with OS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective, cross-sectional study was conducted in women who underwent BCT. We evaluated the characteristics of patients who underwent BCT with and without OS and the associated QL. QL was assessed through the EORTC QLQ-30, EORTC QLQ-BR23, and Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale (BCTOS) questionnaires.

RESULTS

A total of 300 patients underwent BCT, 72 underwent breast OS, and 37 underwent bilateral surgery. Patients who underwent OS were younger (p = 0.004), had a higher level of education (p = 0.01), had a smaller time interval since the end of treatment (p = 0.02), had tumours with greater dimensions (p = 0.003), and were more likely to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy (p = 0.05). Based on the QL questionnaires, no difference was observed between the groups. Breast symmetry was not associated with high patient satisfaction (p = 0.55).

CONCLUSION

Despite the fact that OS was performed in patients with worse tumour conditions and in more demanding patients, OS allowed similar cosmetic results to classical BCT.

Oncoplastic breast surgery versus conventional breast conserving surgery - a prospective follow-up study of subjective loco-regional late morbidity

Background and aim: Few studies have focused on the symptoms of loco-regional morbidity in shoulders, arms, and breasts related to oncoplastic breast surgery (OPS). This study aimed to determine if a difference exists in the prevalence or variety of subjective symptoms of shoulder, arm, and breast morbidity in patients undergoing OPS compared with patients receiving conventional breast conserving surgery (C-BCS). Cosmetic result and body image were included as secondary endpoints.Methods: This prospective follow-up study with 18 months of questionnaire-based follow-up included women with breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ. They were divided into two groups - C-BCS or OPS - depending on type of surgery performed. Furthermore, patient, disease, and treatment characteristics were recorded.Results: Among 334 completers, 229 (69%) received C-BCS and 105 (31%) received OPS. Participants were comparable regarding age, comorbidity, BMI, re-excision rate (15-16%), and axillary surgery. As for tumor characteristics, a more advanced disease stage was shown in the OPS than in the C-BCS group with larger tumor and lumpectomy size, more multifocality, and the corresponding following systemic adjuvant therapy.The questionnaire revealed that the two groups were comparable with no significant differences in frequency or variety of symptoms of shoulder and arm morbidity. Overall, participants were highly satisfied with the cosmetic results in both groups and no significant inter-group differences were observed.Conclusion: In patients with larger tumors, breast conserving surgery utilizing oncoplastic techniques yields results regarding subjective shoulder, arm, and breast morbidity as well as cosmetic outcome comparable with those of C-BCS performed on smaller tumors.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, registration number: NCT02159274 (2014).HIGHLIGHTSSubjective symptoms of shoulder, arm, and breast morbidity are comparable when oncoplastic breast surgery is compared to conventional breast conserving surgery.The variety of symptoms of shoulder and arm morbidity following oncoplastic surgery does not differ from symptoms following conventional breast conserving surgery.The cosmetic outcome following oncoplastic breast surgery is comparable to breast conserving surgery without oncoplastic techniques.

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.

Surgery and health-related quality of life - A prospective follow up study on breast cancer patients in Finland

INTRODUCTION

The influence of different surgical approaches on breast cancer patients' Health-related Quality of life (HRQoL) is an important determinant when making decisions on the choice of treatment. Knowledge on how patients actually perceive different surgical treatments regarding long-term HRQoL is still scarce.

MATERIALS & METHODS

1065 patients with primary breast cancer operated on from 2008 to 2015 at Helsinki University Hospital, Finland were prospectively followed-up for two years. They filled in two HRQoL questionnaires, the EORTC QLQ C30 - BR 23 and the 15D, at baseline and at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months after surgery. Clinical data on treatments given and the course of recovery were collected from patient records. Patients were divided into four mutually exclusive groups according to surgical method: breast resection (n = 415), oncoplastic resection (n = 248), mastectomy (n = 351) and immediate reconstruction (n = 51). Clinical data were combined with HRQoL scores and analysed as multivariate modelling.

RESULTS

All groups experienced initially worsening overall HRQoL after baseline. Oncoplastic resection patients had the best body image and their HRQoL reached the highest level after treatments at 12 months whereas the reconstruction patients reached the highest HRQoL level first at 24 months. Mastectomy patients had the lowest scores throughout the 24-month follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Extensive surgery, in terms of immediate reconstruction, led to slower HRQoL recovery than oncoplastic techniques. Mastectomy patients are at risk of having the lowest HRQoL scores throughout their recovery after surgery.

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.

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.

Does regular quality control improve the quality of surgery in Slovenian breast cancer screening program?

Background The aim of our study was to evaluate the quality of surgery of Slovenian breast cancer screening program (DORA) using the requested EU standards. Furthermore, we investigated whether regular quality control over the 3-year period improved the quality of surgical management. Patients and methods Patients who required surgical management within DORA between January 1st, 2016 and December 31st, 2018 were included in the retrospective study. Quality indicators (QIs) were adjusted mainly according to European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists (EUSOMA) and European Breast Cancer Network (EBCN) recommendations. Five QIs for therapeutic and two for diagnostic surgeries were selected. Additionally, variability in achieving the requested QIs among surgeons was analysed. Results Between 2016 and 2018, 14 surgeons performed 1421 breast procedures in 1398 women. There were 1197 therapeutical (for proven breast cancer) and 224 diagnostic surgical interventions respectively. Overall, the minimal standard was met in two QIs for therapeutic and none for diagnostic procedures. A statistically significant improvement in three QIs for therapeutic and in one QI for diagnostic procedures was observed however, indicating that regular quality control improves the quality of surgery. A high variability in achieving the requested QIs was observed among surgeons, which remained high throughout the study period. Conclusions Adherence to all selected surgical QIs in patients from screening program is difficult to achieve, especially to those specifically defined for screen-detected lesions. Regular quality control may improve results over time. Reducing the number of surgeons dedicated to breast pathology may reduce variability of management inside the institution.

Patient-reported outcome after oncoplastic breast surgery compared with conventional breast-conserving surgery in breast cancer

INTRODUCTION

Oncoplastic breast surgery (OBS) has developed as an extension of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in an effort to improve esthetic and functional outcome following surgery for breast cancer. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the possible benefits of OBS, as compared with BCS, with regard to health-related quality of life (HRQoL), using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients treated with OBS (n = 200) and BCS (n = 1304) in the period 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2013 were identified in a research database and in the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (DBCG) registry. Data on patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics were retrieved from the DBCG registry. Patients were sent a survey including the Breast-Q™ BCT postoperative module and a study-specific questionnaire (SSQ) in 2016. A good outcome in the Breast-Q module was defined as above the median. OBS was compared to BCS using a logistic regression analysis, and then adjusted for potential confounders, yielding odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant better outcome considering the HRQoL domain "Psychosocial Well-being " for patients treated with OBS as compared with BCS (OR 2.15: 1.25-3.69). No statistically significant differences were found for the domains "Physical Well-being" (0.83: 0.50-1.39), "Satisfaction with Breast" (0.95: 0.57-1.59), or "Sexual Well-being" (1.42: 0.78-2.58).

CONCLUSION

The present study indicates better outcomes of HRQoL for breast cancer patients treated with OBS as compared to patients treated with BCS. There was no increase in physical discomfort among OBS patients despite more extensive surgery.

Psychometric validation of the Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale (BCTOS-12): a prospective cohort study

PURPOSE

The Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale (BCTOS) is a questionnaire to evaluate the aesthetic and functional outcome after breast conserving surgery (BCS). The original BCTOS with its 22 items on three subscales was refined to a shorter, improved, and easier to administer patient-reported outcome measure, the BCTOS-12. The BCTOS-12 consists of 12 items on two distinct subscales, the Functional Status and the Aesthetic Status. The aim of this study was to validate the BCTOS-12 in a prospective cohort.

METHODS

For this study, 239 breast cancer patients were included preoperatively, and 204 patients completed the BCTOS-12 and EORTC QLQ C30 BR23 shortly after their BCS, corresponding to a follow-up rate of 85%. The item-factor structure was examined by confirmatory factor analysis. The reliability was calculated by McDonald's Omega for estimating internal consistency. The convergent validity was assessed by Spearman's rank correlation coefficients between the related scales of the questionnaires.

RESULTS

The BCTOS-12 showed a robust item-factor structure and a good internal consistency with McDonald's Omega of 0.89 for the Aesthetic Status and 0.90 for the Functional Status. A high convergent and divergent validity was indicated by correlations between the subscales of the EORTC QLQ C30 BR23 and the BCTOS-12.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the results demonstrate a successful psychometric validation of the BCTOS-12. The BCTOS-12 is a refined, improved, and now validated, instrument. It can be used in clinical studies and routine management for the evaluation of the aesthetic and functional outcome after BCS.

Resection margins and local recurrences in breast cancer: Comparison between conventional and oncoplastic breast conserving surgery

BACKGROUND

This retrospective cohort study aims to compare surgical margins, reoperations and local recurrences after conventional or oncoplastic breast conservation surgery (BCS). Furthermore, we aim to investigate differences between various oncoplastic techniques.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We reviewed 1800 consecutive patients with primary invasive breast cancer (N = 1707) or ductal carcinoma in situ (N = 93) who underwent BCS at Helsinki University Hospital between 2010 and 2012.

RESULTS

Conventional BCS was performed in 1189 (66.1%) patients, oncoplastic BCS in 611 (33.9%). Various oncoplastic techniques were used. Patients with oncoplastic BCS had more often multifocal (p < 0.001), larger (p < 0.001), palpable tumours (p < 0.001) with larger resection specimens (p < 0.001). The amount of resected tissue varied substantially depending on the oncoplastic technique. Patients treated with oncoplastic BCS were younger (p < 0.001) and their tumours were more aggressive according to histological grade (p < 0.001), T-stage (p < 0.001), Ki-67 (p < 0.001) and lymph node status (p < 0.001). There was no difference, however, in surgical margins (p = 0.578) or reoperation rates (p = 0.430) between the groups. A total of 152 (8.4%) patients were reoperated because of insufficient margins, 96 (8.1%) in the conventional, 56 (9.2%) in the oncoplastic BCS group. The median follow-up time was 75 (2-94) months. There was no difference in local recurrence-free survival between the conventional and oncoplastic BCS groups (log-rank test, p = 0.172).

CONCLUSIONS

Oncoplastic BCS was used for larger, multifocal and more aggressive tumours. Nevertheless, no difference in reoperation rate or local recurrences were found. Oncoplastic BCS is as safe as conventional BCS enabling breast conserving for patients who otherwise were candidates for mastectomy.

Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery in Iceland: A Population-Based Study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In Iceland, oncoplastic breast-conservation surgery has been performed since 2008. The aim of this population-based study was to assess and compare the efficacy and patient satisfaction of standard breast-conservation surgery with oncoplastic breast-conservation surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a population-based, retrospective, observational cohort study on all women undergoing breast-conservation surgery in Iceland from the 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2014. A multivariate logistic regression and linear regression were performed to assess differences in outcomes and a patient satisfaction questionnaire was used to assess certain patient-related outcome measures.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

A total of 750 women underwent breast-conserving surgery, 665 had standard breast-conservation surgery and 85 oncoplastic breast-conservation surgery. Oncoplastic breast-conservation surgery was associated with a significantly larger mean size (2.4 cm vs 1.7 cm, p < 0.001) and weight (181.8 g vs 63.4 g, p < 0.001) of breast specimen excised when compared to standard breast-conservation surgery. After correcting for confounding factors, there was no significant difference in surgical margin involvement (odds ratio = 0.97, confidence interval = 0.44-1.97), frequency of complications (odds ratio = 1.06, confidence interval = 0.46-2.18), frequency of reoperations (odds ratio = 0.98; confidence interval = 0.50-1.81), or time to first adjuvant therapy (-0.23 days for oncoplastic breast-conservation surgery, p = 0.95). Patient satisfaction was high in both groups, although not statistically different (96% in oncoplastic breast-conservation surgery group vs 89% in the standard breast-conservation surgery group, p = 0.84). Our results show that oncoplastic breast-conservation surgery is at least as safe as standard breast-conservation surgery in selected cases and may be preferable in ductal carcinoma in situ.

Oncoplastic Breast Conserving Surgery: Aesthetic Satisfaction and Oncological Outcomes

Objective

Oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (BCS) involves radical excision of tumors while maintaining the natural breast contours. In this study, we present the results of the oncoplastic BCS surgeries performed in our clinic.

Material and Methods

13 breast cancer patients who had undergone oncoplastic BCS were included in this retrospective study. Postoperative photographs and retrospective chart reviews were used to evaluate the results. Aesthetic satisfaction level was verbally obtained from the patients.

Results

Oncoplastic BCS was performed using superomedial, superolateral, superior and inferior pedicles. All the patients were highly satisfied with the final aesthetic results and tumor free at the postoperative 12 months.

Conclusion

Oncoplastic BCS can achieve favorable results regarding the final aesthetic appearance and tumor control.