Simultaneous Symmetry Procedure in Patients Undergoing Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery: An Evaluation of Patient Desire and Revision Rates

Association of immediate symmetrizing oncoplastic surgery with patient-reported outcomes in patients with breast cancer - A retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Oncoplastic breast surgery (OPS) with immediate symmetrization is commonly performed. However, its impact on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) remains uncertain.

METHODS

Patients with stage 0-III breast cancer who underwent OPS (including oncoplastic breast conserving surgery, or nipple- or skin-sparing mastectomy) at a Swiss university hospital between 01/2013-12/2023 who completed a postoperative BREAST-Q questionnaire were identified from a prospectively maintained database. A generalized linear model was used to detect differences in PROs between those who underwent unilateral versus immediate symmetrizing surgery.

RESULTS

Of 441 eligible patients, 333 (75.5 ​%) underwent unilateral OPS, while 108 (24.5 ​%) underwent bilateral OPS. Median time to PRO assessment was 35.1 months (Q1-Q3 13.4-49.5). No differences in PROs were identified between patients who underwent unilateral versus bilateral OPS. Short-term surgical morbidity was more common in patients who underwent symmetrizing surgery, which negatively impacted PROs.

CONCLUSION

The present study did not demonstrate any impact of immediate symmetrization on PROs.

Comparing Costs: Does Extreme Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery Confer a Cost Benefit When Compared with Mastectomy and Reconstruction?

INTRODUCTION

Extreme oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (eOBCS) describes the application of OBCS to patients who would otherwise need a mastectomy, and its safety has been previously described.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to compare the costs of eOBCS and mastectomy.

METHODS

We reviewed our institutional database to identify breast cancer patients treated surgically from 2018 to 2023. We included patients with a large disease span (≥5 cm) and multifocal/multicentric disease. Patients were grouped by their surgical approach, i.e. eOBCS or mastectomy. The direct costs of care were determined and compared; however, indirect costs were not included.

RESULTS

Eighty-six patients met the inclusion criteria, 10 (11.6%) of whom underwent mastectomy and 76 (88.4%) who underwent eOBCS. Six mastectomy patients (60%) had reconstruction and 6 (60%) underwent external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). Reconstructions were completed in a staged fashion, and the mean cost of the index operation (mastectomy and tissue expander) was $17,816. These patients had one to three subsequent surgeries to complete their reconstruction, at a mean cost of $45,904. The mean cost of EBRT was $5542. Thirty-four eOBCS patients (44.7%) underwent 44 margin re-excisions, including 6 (7.9%) who underwent mastectomy. Sixty (78.9%) of the eOBCS patients had EBRT. The mean cost of their index operation was $6345; the mean cost of a re-excision was $3615; the mean cost of their mastectomies with reconstruction was $49,400; and the mean cost of EBRT was $6807. The cost of care for eOBCS patients remained lower than that for mastectomy patients, i.e. $17,318 versus $57,416.

CONCLUSION

eOBCS is associated with a lower cost than mastectomy and had a low conversion rate to mastectomy.

Breast Conservation Project: Clinical Outcomes of Extreme Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Therapy Versus Mastectomy for Large and Multiple Lesions

INTRODUCTION

Patients with multiple or large malignant breast lesions are classically considered mastectomy candidates, but extreme oncoplastic breast-conservation surgery (eOBCS) has become an alternative approach. There is a paucity of outcomes data comparing eOBCS with mastectomy.

METHODS

We reviewed our prospectively maintained, single-institution database. We included patients with non-metastatic breast cancer with multiple ipsilateral or single large (≥ 5 cm) malignant breast lesions identified preoperatively who underwent either eOBCS or mastectomy. Patient demographics, clinicopathologic features, and surgical, oncologic, and cosmetic outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

Seventy-six (88%) patients underwent eOBCS and 10 (12%) underwent mastectomy. Median follow-up was 24.8 months. Mastectomy patients had larger lesions than eOBCS patients (median 70 mm vs. 32.5 mm; p = 0.06). Six (60%) index mastectomy patients underwent at least one additional surgery. For eOBCS patients, 34 (44%) required re-excision, 7 of whom underwent more than one subsequent surgery to obtain negative margins, and 6 (7.9%) ultimately underwent mastectomy. For patients undergoing additional surgery (n = 40), median time between index and final operation was 315 days for mastectomy versus 21 days for eOBCS patients (p < 0.001). Mastectomy patients more frequently experienced complications (p = 0.001) and underwent cosmetic revision (p < 0.001). There was no difference in cosmetic scores, and eOBCS patients reported less pain (p = 0.009). There were two local and three distant recurrences in the eOBCS cohort and one distant recurrence in the mastectomy group.

CONCLUSION

Breast conservation was attainable in over 90% of eOBCS patients. Increased postoperative complications and discomfort and longer duration of surgical treatment in mastectomy patients without oncologic superiority should drive informed patient discussions.