Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 1/2020

Open Access 01-02-2020 | Breast Surgery | Epidemiology

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

Authors: Michael Rose, Henry Svensson, Jürgen Handler, Ute Hoyer, Anita Ringberg, Jonas Manjer

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

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.
Literature
1.
Wolmark N et al (2002) Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347:1233–1241CrossRef
2.
Blichert-Toft M et al (2008) Long-term results of breast conserving surgery vs. mastectomy for early stage invasive breast cancer: 20-Year follow-up of the Danish randomized DBCG-82TM protocol. Acta Oncol 47:672–681CrossRef
3.
Christiansen P et al (2017) Breast conserving surgery versus mastectomy: overall and relative survival—a population based study by the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (DBCG ) Supplementary material. Acta Oncol 57:1–3
4.
Weber WP et al (2017) Standardization of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol 43:1236–1243CrossRef
5.
Berry MG, Fitoussi AD, Curnier A, Couturaud B, Salmon RJ (2010) Oncoplastic breast surgery: a review and systematic approach. J Plast Reconstr Aesth Surg 63:1233–1243CrossRef
6.
Campbel EJ, Romics L (2017) Oncological safety and cosmetic outcomes in oncoplastic breast conservation surgery, a review of the best level of evidence literature. Breast Cancer 9:521–530
7.
Clough KB, Kaufman GJ, Nos C, Buccimazza I, Sarfati IM (2010) Improving breast cancer surgery: a classification and quadrant per quadrant atlas for oncoplastic surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 17:1375–1391CrossRef
8.
O’Connell RL et al (2016) Initial experience of the BREAST-Q breast-conserving therapy module. Breast Cancer Res Treat 160:79–89CrossRef
9.
Vesprini D et al (2017) Patient-reported outcomes following breast conservation therapy and barriers to referral for partial breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 141:1–9
10.
Rose M, Manjer J, Ringberg A, Svensson H (2014) Surgical strategy, methods of reconstruction, surgical margins and postoperative complications in oncoplastic breast surgery. Eur J Plast Surg 37:205–214CrossRef
11.
Losken A, Dugal CS, Styblo TM, Carlson GW (2014) A meta-analysis comparing breast conservation therapy alone to the oncoplastic technique. Ann Plast Surg 72:145–149CrossRef
12.
Wang K, Huang Y-J, Zhang L-L, Chen J-Y, Yang C-Q (2018) Comparison of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery and breast-conserving surgery alone: a meta-analysis. J Breast Cancer 21:321CrossRef
13.
Spautz C et al (2014) Long-term comparison of aesthetical outcomes after oncoplastic surgery and lumpectomy in breast cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol 22:2500–2508PubMed
14.
Massa M, Meszaros P, Baldelli I, Bisso N, Franchelli S (2015) Aesthetic evaluation in oncoplastic and conservative breast surgery: a comparative analysis. J Plast Reconstr Surg 3:e339
15.
Ojala K, Meretoja TJ, Leidenius MHK (2017) Aesthetic and functional outcome after breast conserving surgery—comparison between conventional and oncoplastic resection. Eur J Surg Oncol 43:658–664CrossRef
16.
Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Klok JA, Cordeiro PG, Cano SJ (2009) Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: The BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg 124:345–353CrossRef
17.
Fuzesi S, Cano SJ, Klassen AF, Atisha D, Pusic AL (2017) Validation of the electronic version of the BREAST-Q in the army of women study. Breast 33:44–49CrossRef
18.
Chatterjee A et al (2019) A consensus definition and classification system of oncoplastic surgery developed by the american society of breast surgeons. Ann Surg Oncol 26:3436–3444CrossRef
19.
Paramanathan N et al (2017) Patient-reported outcomes are better after oncoplastic breast conservation than after mastectomy and autologous reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 5:e1419
20.
Di Micco R et al (2017) Bilateral mammoplasty for cancer: surgical, oncological and patient-reported outcomes. Eur J Surg Oncol 43:68–75CrossRef
21.
22.
23.
24.
McCulley SJ, Schaverien MV, Tan VKM, Macmillan RD (2015) Lateral thoracic artery perforator (LTAP) flap in partial breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg 68:686–691CrossRef
25.
Rose M, Svensson H (2012) Tunnelled lateral fasciocutaneous thoracodorsal flap with a skin island in breast reconstruction in oncoplastic breast surgery. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 46:404–409CrossRef
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
Liu LQ, Branford OA, Mehigan S (2018) BREAST-Q measurement of the patient perspective in oncoplastic breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 6:e1904
32.
Cohen WA et al (2016) The BREAST-Q in surgical research: a review of the literature 2009–2015. J Plast Reconstr Aesth Surg 69:149–162CrossRef
33.
Stolpner I et al (2019) Clinical validation of the BREAST-Q Breast-conserving therapy module. Ann Surg Oncol 26:2759–2767CrossRef
34.
Acea-Nebril B et al (2017) The role of oncoplastic breast reduction in the conservative management of breast cancer: complications, survival, and quality of life. J Surg Oncol 115:679–686CrossRef
35.
Dahlbäck C, Ullmark JH, Rehn M, Ringberg A, Manjer J (2017) Aesthetic result after breast-conserving therapy is associated with quality of life several years after treatment. Swedish women evaluated with BCCT.core and BREAST-Q™. Breast Cancer Res Treat 164:679–687CrossRef
36.
Lagendijk M et al (2018) Patient-reported outcome measures may add value in breast cancer surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 25:3563–3571CrossRef
37.
Morley R, Leech T (2019) Optimal assessment tools in assessing breast surgery: patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) vs objective measures. Gland Surg 8:1–9CrossRef
38.
Cronin-Fenton DP et al (2017) Validity of Danish Breast Cancer Group (DBCG) registry data used in the predictors of breast cancer recurrence (ProBeCaRe) premenopausal breast cancer cohort study. Acta Oncol 56:1155–1160CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Patient-reported outcome after oncoplastic breast surgery compared with conventional breast-conserving surgery in breast cancer
Authors
Michael Rose
Henry Svensson
Jürgen Handler
Ute Hoyer
Anita Ringberg
Jonas Manjer
Publication date
01-02-2020
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 1/2020
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-020-05544-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 1/2020 Go to the issue

Preclinical study

Symptom cluster of pain, fatigue, and psychological distress in breast cancer survivors: prevalence and characteristics

Clinical trial

The generalisability of randomised clinical trials: an interim external validity analysis of the ongoing SENOMAC trial in sentinel lymph node-positive breast cancer

Preclinical Study

Cytotoxic T cell depletion with increasing epithelial abnormality in women with benign breast disease

Letter to the Editor

RE: Mismatch repair protein loss in breast cancer: clinicopathological associations in a large British Columbia cohort

Preclinical study

Squamous cell carcinoma of the breast, are there two entities with distinct prognosis? A series of 39 patients

Preclinical study

Significance of glucocorticoid signaling in triple-negative breast cancer patients: a newly revealed interaction with androgen signaling
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits