Impact of Oncoplastic Surgery on Oncologic Outcomes in Patients with Breast Cancer

Background

For patients with breast cancer, oncoplastic surgery (OPS) serves as a valuable technique that allows for immediate reconstruction at the time of resection. While the aim of OPS is to improve breast cosmesis, it is critical to ensure OPS does not negatively impact appropriate cancer treatment.

Methods

Based on current literature, this study provides a broad overview on the potential oncologic advantages of OPS for patients diagnosed with breast cancer.

Results

OPS has been shown to be a safe and reliable approach with oncologic advantages. More specifically, OPS broadens the indications for breast conservation therapy (BCT); allows for a more generous margin of resection, thus decreasing rates of re-excision; and provides the opportunity to sample additional breast tissue, which may detect occult disease. Reduction mammaplasty may also decrease the risk for developing breast cancer. Importantly, in the era of multimodality therapy, long-term oncologic outcomes and postoperative surveillance algorithms appear to be similar when comparing patients who undergo OPS and BCT.

Conclusions

For patients with breast cancer, oncoplastic surgery has emerged as a valuable technique to improve breast cosmesis while achieving optimal oncologic outcomes. As the landscape of breast oncology continues to evolve, it is critical for a multidisciplinary team to be involved to guide management and reconstructive strategies.

Oncoplastic surgery for breast cancer: Global perspectives and trends

Oncoplastic surgery (OPS) is a form of breast conservation that combines definitive oncologic resection with optimal aesthetic outcomes. Various definitions exist, with most focusing on volume displacement techniques to close the lumpectomy defect and redistribute the remaining breast volume over the preserved breast. Although its oncologic safety has been well demonstrated, uptake into practice varies globally. This article details the definition, safety, training opportunities, and practice patterns of OPS on a global scale.

The effects of breast reduction with superomedial and inferior pedicle techniques on radiological breast imaging

BACKGROUND

Several breast reduction techniques have been introduced, and the reliability of these techniques has been demonstrated in clinical practice. However, it is still controversial how patients should be evaluated radiologically both preoperative and postoperative. This study aims to compare the radiological findings seen following reduction mammoplasty with two different techniques (inferior pedicle and superomedial pedicle), in connection with the surgical steps.

METHODS

Medical records of 141 patients and a total of 278 breasts who underwent breast reduction with the diagnosis of macromastia were retrospectively analyzed. Demographic and operative data such as age, type of pedicle, preoperative and postoperative nipple-areola complex (NAC) position, and NAC transfer distance were recorded. Radiological evaluation was performed by two radiologists experienced in breast imaging by reinterpreting preoperative and postoperative mammography images.

RESULTS

The rate of postoperative structural distortion (p < 0.001), thickened areola (p = 0.011), and retroareolar fibrotic band (p < 0.001) were observed to be significantly higher in the superomedial group. The risk of fat necrosis increases as the NAC transfer distance increases and a value of >9.5 cm in the NAC transfer distance can be considered as the cutoff value in terms of fat necrosis development, especially in those using superomedial pedicle technique.

CONCLUSION

Surgical technique-specific benign radiological changes occur following reduction mammoplasty. However, these changes do not significantly affect the Breast imaging, reporting, and data system category. The localization of fat necrosis differs depending on the surgical technique, and the risk of fat necrosis increases as the NAC transfer distance increases, especially in those who have undergone superomedial pedicle breast reduction surgery.

Breast Cancer After Reduction Mammoplasty: A Population-Based Analysis of Incidence, Treatment and Screening Patterns

Background

The risk of breast cancer may be decreased in women who undergo reduction mammoplasty. The purpose of this study was to describe the incidence and treatment of breast cancer after reduction mammoplasty and to better understand the use of breast cancer screening modalities in these patients.

Methods

This population-based retrospective analysis utilized the Discharge Abstract Database held by the Canadian Institute for Health Information and the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System to identify all women aged 20 years or older who underwent reduction mammoplasty in Alberta, Canada. The incidence and treatment of breast cancer were compared among patients who underwent reduction mammoplasty and age-sex-matched controls. Imaging utilization, including the use of mammography, ultrasound, and breast biopsy, was also compared.

Results

Between 2003 and 2007, 8021 patients over 20 years old underwent reduction mammoplasty in Alberta. Patients were followed for an average of 12.6 years. Eighty-nine (1.1%) patients who underwent reduction mammoplasty developed breast cancer after surgery, compared to 453 (1.9%) controls (P < 0.0001). Among patients diagnosed with breast cancer, there was no difference in patient and tumor characteristics. Women who underwent reduction mammoplasty were more likely to undergo mastectomy for cancer (41.6% vs 1.5%; P < 0.0001) and were more likely to undergo mammography (66.7% vs 58.7%; P < 0.0001), ultrasound (29.2% vs 26.2%; P < 0.0001) and biopsy for benign disease (7.2% vs 6%, P < 0.0001) compared to controls.

Conclusions

Despite an increased frequency of breast cancer screening, the incidence of breast cancer is lower after reduction mammoplasty compared with women who did not undergo breast reduction. After a diagnosis of breast cancer, surgical treatment patterns differ between groups, whereby mastectomy is more common after reduction mammoplasty.

Breast Radiotherapy after Oncoplastic Surgery-A Multidisciplinary Approach

Oncoplastic breast surgery encompasses a range of techniques used to provide equitable oncological outcomes compared with standard breast surgery while, simultaneously, prioritizing aesthetic outcomes. While the outcomes of oncoplastic breast surgery are promising, it can add an extra complexity to the treatment paradigm of breast cancer and impact on decision-making surrounding adjuvant therapies, like chemotherapy and radiotherapy. As such, early discussions at the multidisciplinary team meeting with surgeons, medical oncologists, and radiation oncologists present, should be encouraged to facilitate best patient care.

Innovative Standards in Oncoplastic Breast Conserving Surgery: From Radical Mastectomy to Extreme Oncoplasty

BACKGROUND

Oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (OBCS), which is the current procedure of choice for eligible BC patients, describes a philosophy that prioritizes oncologic and cosmetic outcomes. However, knowledge gaps regarding training, acceptance, and practice preclude standardization and make it difficult to design algorithmic guidelines to optimize individualized management in the era of precision medicine.

SUMMARY

The harmony between patient expectations and oncologic goals creates the state of the art of OBCS. Nevertheless, to achieve these goals, multidisciplinary approach is a must. Surgical decisions require a comprehensive evaluation including patient factors, tumor biology, genetics, technical considerations, and adjunct therapies. Moreover, the quality-of-life (QOL) issues should be considered as the highest level of priority with a shared decision making instituted on realistic discussions with the patient.

KEY MESSAGES

The standardization in OBCS should be initiated via defining a breast surgeon who should gain theorical and practical competence on techniques via national or international educational programs. The algorithmic patient assessment with appropriate documentation before and after surgery should be established. A simple and safe global lexicon should be designed regarding techniques to be proposed and quality metrics to be considered. Additionally, international multicenter prospective trials should be instituted to overcome knowledge gaps. It is evident that OBCS is the perfect union of science with art. Nevertheless, at the very end, the question is not the nature of the surgeon/artist who would be the extremist, the innovator, or the conservative, but the patient's satisfaction, prognosis, and QOL that conclude the cascade of state of the art of OBCS.

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.

Improving Results in Oncoplastic Surgery

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

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

SUMMARY

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

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.

Natural course of fat necrosis after breast reconstruction: a 10-year follow-up study

Background

Although fat necrosis is a minor postoperative complication after breast reconstruction, occasionally it mimics to tumor recurrence in patients with breast cancer. Therefore, the surgeon should distinguish between benign fat necrosis and true local recurrence. The authors evaluated the clinical characteristics of fat necrosis after breast reconstruction and investigated the natural course of fat necrosis.

Methods

Between 2007 and 2013, a total of 362 patients underwent breast reconstruction after partial or total mastectomy for breast cancer in Kyungpook National University Hospital. Clinicopathologic characteristics and the occurrence of fat necrosis were assessed during surveillance for 10 years of mean follow-up period.

Results

There were 42 cases (11.6%) of fat necrosis after breast reconstruction with partial or total mastectomy which were confirmed by needle or excision biopsy. The fat necrosis was resolved after a mean period of 45.9 months (SD, ± 42.1) and 26 cases (61.9%) of fat necrosis were almost completely resolved (less than 5 mm) during 10-year follow-up period.

Conclusion

Based on the natural course of fat necrosis, the fat necrosis after breast reconstruction can be only monitored, if pathologic confirmation was done. More than half of the cases will be resolved within 2–3 years.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-07881-x.

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.

The Role of Oncoplastic Surgery for Breast Cancer

OPINION STATEMENT

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Postoperative Cancer Surveillance Following Oncoplastic Surgery with Latissimus Dorsi Flap: a Matched Case-Control Study

BACKGROUND

The latissimus dorsi (LD) myocutaneous flap is a widely used local option in oncoplastic surgery for avoiding breast deformities; however, concerns exist regarding its influence in monitoring recurrence. In this study, we evaluated the impact of this flap on postoperative cancer surveillance.

METHODS

Each patient receiving oncoplastic surgery with LD flap after partial mastectomy were matched in age, cancer stage, and body mass index with patients receiving partial mastectomy alone. Twenty-nine patients with the oncoplastic LD flap received 99 mammograms and 139 ultrasonograms, while 29 patients with partial mastectomy alone underwent 92 mammograms and 129 ultrasonograms. Mammographic and ultrasonographic findings were classified by Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category and reviewed. Any recommendations for additional evaluation and recurrence were documented.

RESULTS

During an average follow-up period of 44 months, although the oncoplastic group demonstrated more newly developed benign calcifications (control 14% vs. oncoplastic 41%; p = 0.019) on mammography, the percentage of recall for additional imaging in category 0, and the short-interval follow-up in category 3, was not different between the control and oncoplastic group. Regarding ultrasonography, BI-RADS category was also not different between the two groups; however, the control group showed more fluid collections than the oncoplastic group (control 21% vs. oncoplastic 0%; p = 0.023). One case of local recurrence was observed in the control group.

CONCLUSION

Although there was an increase in benign calcifications in the oncoplastic group, there were no additional abnormal findings requiring further intervention. We concluded that the LD flap for oncoplastic surgery does not interfere with cancer surveillance, and even decreases the rate of fluid collection.

Follow-up of patients undergoing oncoplastic surgery - more palpable masses and benign biopsies

BACKGROUND

Oncoplastic reconstruction is increasingly used in the management of women undergoing breast conserving surgery. We examined the findings on breast exam and imaging of patients who underwent breast conservation with or without oncoplastic reconstruction.

OBJECTIVE

We hypothesized that patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction would present with more palpable and imaging abnormalities compared to lumpectomy alone and undergo therefore more biopsies.

METHODS

All patients undergoing breast conservation with oncoplastic reconstruction for breast cancer between 2009 and 2014 were included in the study group. The control group was created by matching 4 women that underwent lumpectomy alone during the same week to each patient in the study group. The two groups were compared regarding demographics, tumor characteristics, post-operative complaints, breast exam, imaging and biopsies done during follow-up.

RESULTS

The study group included 67 women who had lumpectomy and immediate oncoplastic reconstruction and 268 women that underwent lumpectomy alone.Patients undergoing immediate oncoplastic reconstruction had more advanced disease; larger mean tumor size (3.1 cm versus 1.9 cm, P < 0.001), higher rate of involved lymph nodes (48% versus 26%; P < 0.001) and use of neoadjuvant treatment (39% versus 15%; P < 0.001).After oncoplastic reconstruction, new lumps (18% versus 5%; P = 0.004) were found more frequently, and there was a higher rate of women undergoing biopsies (31% versus 11%; P < 0.001). This finding remained significant after controlling for age, type of tumor, use of neoadjuvant treatment and volume of tissue removed. Over ninety percent of biopsies in the oncoplastic group were benign, most commonly-fat necrosis (N = 15, 60% of the biopsies).

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate oncoplastic reconstruction is associated with increased palpable masses and imaging abnormalities, requiring biopsies. Patients and clinicians should be aware of the benign nature of most of these findings.

Updated Evidence on the Oncoplastic Approach to Breast Conservation Therapy

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