Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 2/2015

01-09-2015 | Clinical trial

Long-term objective esthetic outcome after breast-conserving therapy

Authors: André Hennigs, Benjamin Hartmann, Geraldine Rauch, Michael Golatta, Patrik Tabatabai, Christoph Domschke, Sarah Schott, Florian Schütz, Christof Sohn, Joerg Heil

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 2/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

The prediction of unfavorable long-term esthetic outcome (AO) is important for patient consultation. We aimed to analyze variables characterizing the improvement and impairment of AO over time after breast-conserving surgery. A subgroup of a prospective, monocenter cohort study was analyzed to evaluate the results of the BCCT.core software (Breast Cancer Conservative Treatment.cosmetic results) which was used to objectively assess the AO before (n = 356), shortly after (n = 294) and in median 3 years after surgery (n = 356). We analyzed potential influencing factors (such as body mass index, (y)pT-stage, weight of resected specimen, etc.) on the AO using logistic regression analyses (n = 256). Finally, we tried to characterize groups of patients with improving or impaired AO over time (n = 294). Predictors for an unfavorable AO were an axillary lymphadenectomy (OR = 4.05), a tumor in the 12 o’clock position (OR = 2.22), a tumor stage larger or equal to (y)pT2 stage (OR = 2.11), and a surgical specimen weight >75 g (OR = 2.71). Patients with lower specimen weight were more likely to improve in the long-term follow-up (p = 0.018), whereas patients with a higher (y)pT-stage tended to become impaired with time. Although overall AO decreased over time, nearly half of the patients with an unfavorable AO shortly after surgery improved in the long-term follow-up. Predictors of unfavorable AO can be used in patient consultation preoperatively to prepare them for the postsurgical period and/or to recommend surgical alternatives (e.g., more complex oncoplastic techniques). Knowledge of improvement and impairment may help patients and physicians in the postsurgical consultation setting.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Mitov FS, Molov VV (2006) Breast-conserving surgery in early-stage breast cancer (indications, local recurrences, survival, cosmetic results). Folia Med (Plovdiv) 48(1):23–30 Mitov FS, Molov VV (2006) Breast-conserving surgery in early-stage breast cancer (indications, local recurrences, survival, cosmetic results). Folia Med (Plovdiv) 48(1):23–30
2.
go back to reference Fowble B et al (1996) The impact of tamoxifen on breast recurrence, cosmesis, complications, and survival in estrogen receptor-positive early-stage breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 35(4):669–677CrossRefPubMed Fowble B et al (1996) The impact of tamoxifen on breast recurrence, cosmesis, complications, and survival in estrogen receptor-positive early-stage breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 35(4):669–677CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference van Dongen JA et al (2000) Long-term results of a randomized trial comparing breast-conserving therapy with mastectomy: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 10801 trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 92(14):1143–1150CrossRefPubMed van Dongen JA et al (2000) Long-term results of a randomized trial comparing breast-conserving therapy with mastectomy: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 10801 trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 92(14):1143–1150CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Fisher B 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(16):1233–1241CrossRefPubMed Fisher B 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(16):1233–1241CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Driul L et al (2013) New surgical trends in breast cancer treatment: conservative interventions and oncoplastic breast surgery. Minerva Ginecol 65(3):289–296PubMed Driul L et al (2013) New surgical trends in breast cancer treatment: conservative interventions and oncoplastic breast surgery. Minerva Ginecol 65(3):289–296PubMed
6.
go back to reference Waljee JF et al (2008) Effect of esthetic outcome after breast-conserving surgery on psychosocial functioning and quality of life. J Clin Oncol 26(20):3331–3337CrossRefPubMed Waljee JF et al (2008) Effect of esthetic outcome after breast-conserving surgery on psychosocial functioning and quality of life. J Clin Oncol 26(20):3331–3337CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Heil J (2010) Change of aesthetic and functional outcome over time and their relationship to quality of life after breast conserving therapy. Eur J Surg Oncol 37:116CrossRefPubMed Heil J (2010) Change of aesthetic and functional outcome over time and their relationship to quality of life after breast conserving therapy. Eur J Surg Oncol 37:116CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Andrade WN, Semple JL (2006) Patient self-assessment of the cosmetic results of breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 117(1):44–47 discussion 48-9CrossRefPubMed Andrade WN, Semple JL (2006) Patient self-assessment of the cosmetic results of breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 117(1):44–47 discussion 48-9CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Al-Ghazal SK, Blamey RW (1999) Cosmetic assessment of breast-conserving surgery for primary breast cancer. Breast 8(4):162–168CrossRefPubMed Al-Ghazal SK, Blamey RW (1999) Cosmetic assessment of breast-conserving surgery for primary breast cancer. Breast 8(4):162–168CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Heil J et al (2012) Objective assessment of aesthetic outcome after breast conserving therapy: subjective third party panel rating and objective BCCT.core software evaluation. Breast 21(1):61–65CrossRefPubMed Heil J et al (2012) Objective assessment of aesthetic outcome after breast conserving therapy: subjective third party panel rating and objective BCCT.core software evaluation. Breast 21(1):61–65CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Cardoso MJ (2007) Turning subjective into objective: The BCCT.core software for evaluation of cosmetic results in breast cancer conservative treatment. Breast 16:456CrossRefPubMed Cardoso MJ (2007) Turning subjective into objective: The BCCT.core software for evaluation of cosmetic results in breast cancer conservative treatment. Breast 16:456CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Cardoso MJ et al (2009) Comparing two objective methods for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment. Breast Cancer Res Treat 116(1):149–152CrossRefPubMed Cardoso MJ et al (2009) Comparing two objective methods for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment. Breast Cancer Res Treat 116(1):149–152CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Heil J (2010) Aesthetics in breast conserving therapy: do objectively measured results Match patients’ evaluations. Ann Surg Oncol 18:134CrossRefPubMed Heil J (2010) Aesthetics in breast conserving therapy: do objectively measured results Match patients’ evaluations. Ann Surg Oncol 18:134CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Cardoso MJ et al (2012) Recommendations for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment. Breast Cancer Res Treat 135(3):629–637CrossRefPubMed Cardoso MJ et al (2012) Recommendations for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment. Breast Cancer Res Treat 135(3):629–637CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Heil J et al (2010) Aesthetic and functional results after breast conserving surgery as correlates of quality of life measured by a German version of the Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale (BCTOS). Breast 19(6):470–474CrossRefPubMed Heil J et al (2010) Aesthetic and functional results after breast conserving surgery as correlates of quality of life measured by a German version of the Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale (BCTOS). Breast 19(6):470–474CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Hoffmann J, Wallwiener D (2009) Classifying breast cancer surgery: a novel, complexity-based system for oncological, oncoplastic and reconstructive procedures, and proof of principle by analysis of 1225 operations in 1166 patients. BMC Cancer 9:108CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Hoffmann J, Wallwiener D (2009) Classifying breast cancer surgery: a novel, complexity-based system for oncological, oncoplastic and reconstructive procedures, and proof of principle by analysis of 1225 operations in 1166 patients. BMC Cancer 9:108CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
go back to reference Wockel A, Kreienberg R (2008) First Revision of the German S3 Guideline ‘Diagnosis, Therapy, and Follow-Up of Breast Cancer’. Breast Care (Basel) 3(2):82–86CrossRef Wockel A, Kreienberg R (2008) First Revision of the German S3 Guideline ‘Diagnosis, Therapy, and Follow-Up of Breast Cancer’. Breast Care (Basel) 3(2):82–86CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Preuss J, Lester L, Saunders C (2012) BCCT.core—can a computer program be used for the assessment of aesthetic outcome after breast reconstructive surgery? Breast 21(4):597–600CrossRefPubMed Preuss J, Lester L, Saunders C (2012) BCCT.core—can a computer program be used for the assessment of aesthetic outcome after breast reconstructive surgery? Breast 21(4):597–600CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Cardoso MJ et al (2008) Is face-only photographic view enough for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment? Breast Cancer Res Treat 112(3):565–568CrossRefPubMed Cardoso MJ et al (2008) Is face-only photographic view enough for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment? Breast Cancer Res Treat 112(3):565–568CrossRefPubMed
21.
22.
go back to reference Cardoso MJ et al (2007) Factors determining esthetic outcome after breast cancer conservative treatment. Breast J 13(2):140–146CrossRefPubMed Cardoso MJ et al (2007) Factors determining esthetic outcome after breast cancer conservative treatment. Breast J 13(2):140–146CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Foersterling E et al (2014) Predictors of early poor aesthetic outcome after breast-conserving surgery in patients with breast cancer: initial results of a prospective cohort study at a single institution. J Surg Oncol 110(7):801–806CrossRefPubMed Foersterling E et al (2014) Predictors of early poor aesthetic outcome after breast-conserving surgery in patients with breast cancer: initial results of a prospective cohort study at a single institution. J Surg Oncol 110(7):801–806CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Kelly DA et al (2012) Outcome analysis of 541 women undergoing breast conservation therapy. Ann Plast Surg 68(5):435–437CrossRefPubMed Kelly DA et al (2012) Outcome analysis of 541 women undergoing breast conservation therapy. Ann Plast Surg 68(5):435–437CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Wang HT et al (2008) Aesthetic outcomes in breast conservation therapy. Aesthet Surg J 28(2):165–170CrossRefPubMed Wang HT et al (2008) Aesthetic outcomes in breast conservation therapy. Aesthet Surg J 28(2):165–170CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Long-term objective esthetic outcome after breast-conserving therapy
Authors
André Hennigs
Benjamin Hartmann
Geraldine Rauch
Michael Golatta
Patrik Tabatabai
Christoph Domschke
Sarah Schott
Florian Schütz
Christof Sohn
Joerg Heil
Publication date
01-09-2015
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 2/2015
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-015-3540-y

Other articles of this Issue 2/2015

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 2/2015 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

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