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 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 2/2017

Open Access 01-07-2017 | Clinical trial

The potential role of three-dimensional surface imaging as a tool to evaluate aesthetic outcome after Breast Conserving Therapy (BCT)

Authors: Rachel L. O’Connell, Rosa Di Micco, Komel Khabra, Lisa Wolf, Nandita deSouza, Nicola Roche, Peter A. Barry, Anna M. Kirby, Jennifer E. Rusby

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 2/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To establish whether objective measurements of symmetry of volume and shape using three-dimensional surface imaging (3D-SI) can be used as surrogate markers of aesthetic outcome in patients who have undergone breast conserving therapy (BCT).

Methods

Women who had undergone unilateral BCT in the preceding 1–6 years were invited to participate. Participants completed a satisfaction questionnaire (BREAST-Q) and underwent 3D-SI. Volume and surface symmetry were measured on the images. Assessment of aesthetic outcome was undertaken by a panel of clinicians. The Kruskal–Wallis test was used to assess the relationship between volume and shape symmetry measurements with the panel score. Spearman’s rho correlations were used to assess the relationship between the measurements and patient satisfaction.

Results

200 women participated. Median volume symmetry was 87% (IQR 78–93) and shape symmetry was 5.9 mm (IQR 4.2–8.0). The participants were grouped according to panel assessment of aesthetic outcome (poor, fair, good, excellent) and the median volume and shape symmetry was calculated for each group. Volume symmetry significantly differed between the groups. Post hoc pairwise comparisons demonstrated that these differences existed between panel scores of fair versus good and good versus excellent. Median shape symmetry also differed according to patient panel groups with four significant pairwise comparisons between poor versus good, poor versus excellent, fair versus good and fair versus excellent. There was a significant but weak correlation of both volume symmetry and surface asymmetry with BREAST-Q scores (correlation coefficients 0.187 and −0.229, respectively).

Conclusion

Breast volume and shape symmetry are both associated with panel assessment scores and patient satisfaction. The objective volume and shape symmetry measures were strongly associated with panel assessment scores, such that a 3D-SI tool could replace panel assessment as a faster and more objective method of evaluating aesthetic outcomes.
Literature
1.
Lawrence GKO, Lagord C, Cheung S, Sidhu J, Sagar C (2011) The second all breast cancer report. Focussing on inequalities: variation in breast cancer outcomes with age and deprivation. National Cancer Intelligence Network, London
2.
Fisher B, Jeong JH, Anderson S, Bryant J, Fisher ER, Wolmark N (2002) Twenty-five-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing radical mastectomy, total mastectomy, and total mastectomy followed by irradiation. N Engl J Med 347(8):567–575CrossRefPubMed
3.
Veronesi U, Banfi A, Del Vecchio M, Saccozzi R, Clemente C, Greco M et al (1986) Comparison of Halsted mastectomy with quadrantectomy, axillary dissection, and radiotherapy in early breast cancer: long-term results. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol. 22(9):1085–1089CrossRefPubMed
4.
UK CR (2013) Breast Cancer Statistics: Cancer Research UK
5.
Al-Ghazal SK, Fallowfield L, Blamey RW (1999) Does cosmetic outcome from treatment of primary breast cancer influence psychosocial morbidity? Eur J Surg Oncol 25(6):571–573CrossRefPubMed
6.
Waljee JF, Hu ES, Ubel PA, Smith DM, Newman LA, Alderman AK (2008) Effect of esthetic outcome after breast-conserving surgery on psychosocial functioning and quality of life. J Clin Oncol 26(20):3331–3337CrossRefPubMed
7.
Heil J, Holl S, Golatta M, Rauch G, Rom J, Marmé F 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
8.
Cardoso MJ, Oliveira H, Cardoso J (2014) Assessing cosmetic results after breast conserving surgery. JSurgOncol 110(1):37–44
9.
Chen CM, Cano SJ, Klassen AF, King T, McCarthy C, Cordeiro PG et al (2010) Measuring quality of life in oncologic breast surgery: a systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures. Breast J. 16(6):587–597CrossRefPubMed
10.
Cohen WA, Mundy LR, Ballard TN, Klassen A, Cano SJ, Browne J et al (2015) The BREAST-Q in surgical research: a review of the literature 2009–2015. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 69:149–162CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Kanatas A, Velikova G, Roe B, Horgan K, Ghazali N, Shaw RJ et al (2012) Patient-reported outcomes in breast oncology: a review of validated outcome instruments. Tumori 98(6):678–688PubMed
12.
Pusic AL, Chen CM, Cano S, Klassen A, McCarthy C, Collins ED et al (2007) Measuring quality of life in cosmetic and reconstructive breast surgery: a systematic review of patient-reported outcomes instruments. Plast Reconstr Surg 120(4):823–837CrossRefPubMed
13.
Harris JR, Levene MB, Svensson G, Hellman S (1979) Analysis of cosmetic results following primary radiation therapy for stages I and II carcinoma of the breast. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 5(2):257–261CrossRefPubMed
14.
Sneeuw KC, Aaronson NK, Yarnold JR, Broderick M, Regan J, Ross G et al (1992) Cosmetic and functional outcomes of breast conserving treatment for early stage breast cancer. 1. comparison of patients’ ratings, observers’ ratings, and objective assessments. Radiother Oncol 25(3):153–159CrossRefPubMed
15.
Fitzal F, Krois W, Trischler H, Wutzel L, Riedl O, Kuhbelbock U et al (2007) The use of a breast symmetry index for objective evaluation of breast cosmesis. Breast 16(4):429–435CrossRefPubMed
16.
Cardoso MJ, Cardoso J, Amaral N, Azevedo I, Barreau L, Bernardo M et al (2007) Turning subjective into objective: the BCCT.core software for evaluation of cosmetic results in breast cancer conservative treatment. Breast 16(5):456–461CrossRefPubMed
17.
Cardoso JS, Cardoso MJ (2007) Towards an intelligent medical system for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment. Artif Intell Med 40(2):115–126CrossRefPubMed
18.
Hidalgo DA, Sinno S (2016) Current trends and controversies in breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 137(4):1142–1150CrossRefPubMed
19.
O’Connell RL, Stevens RJ, Harris PA, Rusby JE (2015) Review of three-dimensional (3D) surface imaging for oncoplastic, reconstructive and aesthetic breast surgery. Breast 24(4):331–342CrossRefPubMed
20.
Kovacs L, Eder M, Hollweck R, Zimmermann A, Settles M, Schneider A et al (2007) Comparison between breast volume measurement using 3D surface imaging and classical techniques. Breast 16(2):137–145CrossRefPubMed
21.
Henseler H, Khambay BS, Bowman A, Smith J, Paul SJ, Oehler S et al (2011) Investigation into accuracy and reproducibility of a 3D breast imaging system using multiple stereo cameras. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 64(5):577–582CrossRefPubMed
22.
Yip JM, Mouratova N, Jeffery RM, Veitch DE, Woodman RJ, Dean NR (2012) Accurate assessment of breast volume: a study comparing the volumetric gold standard (direct water displacement measurement of mastectomy specimen) with a 3D laser scanning technique. Ann Plast Surg 68(2):135–141CrossRefPubMed
23.
Losken A, Seify H, Denson DD, Paredes AA Jr, Carlson GW (2005) Validating three-dimensional imaging of the breast. Ann Plast Surg 54(5):471–476CrossRefPubMed
24.
Rao AK, Karanas Y, Galdino GM, Girod SC (2003) Three-dimensional photography for calculating pre- and post-operative volume in breast surgery. In: Lemke HU, Inamura K, Doi K, Vannier MW, Farman AG, Reiber JHC (eds) Cars 2003: computer assisted radiology and surgery, proceedings. International congress series, vol, 1256, p 1355
25.
Koch MC, Adamietz B, Jud SM, Fasching PA, Haeberle L, Karbacher S et al (2011) Breast volumetry using a three-dimensional surface assessment technique. Aesthet Plast Surg 35(5):847–855CrossRef
26.
Veitch D, Burford K, Dench P, Dean N, Griffin P (2012) Measurement of breast volume using body scan technology(computer-aided anthropometry). Work 41(Suppl 1):4038–4045PubMed
27.
Thomson JG, Liu YJ, Restifo RJ, Rinker BD, Reis A (2009) Surface area measurement of the female breast: phase I. Validation of a novel optical technique. Plast Reconstr Surg 123(5):1588–1596CrossRefPubMed
28.
Lewis P, Mattison G, Kim H, Gupta S (2014) Evaluation of 3D photographic imaging to measure differential volumes in reconstructed breast tissue. J Invest Med 62(1):238
29.
Henseler H, Smith J, Bowman A, Khambay BS, Ju X, Ayoub A et al (2012) Investigation into variation and errors of a three-dimensional breast imaging system using multiple stereo cameras. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 65(12):e332–e337CrossRefPubMed
30.
Rose MA, Olivotto I, Cady B, Koufman C, Osteen R, Silver B et al (1989) Conservative surgery and radiation therapy for early breast cancer. Long-term cosmetic results. Arch Surg 124(2):153–157CrossRefPubMed
31.
Haviland JS, Owen JR, Dewar JA, Agrawal RK, Barrett J, Barrett-Lee PJ et al (2013) The UK Standardisation of Breast Radiotherapy (START) trials of radiotherapy hypofractionation for treatment of early breast cancer: 10-year follow-up results of two randomised controlled trials. Lancet Oncol 14(11):1086–1094CrossRefPubMed
32.
Bentzen SM, Agrawal RK, Aird EG, Barrett JM, Barrett-Lee PJ, Bliss JM et al (2008) The UK Standardisation of Breast Radiotherapy (START) Trial B of radiotherapy hypofractionation for treatment of early breast cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet 371(9618):1098–1107CrossRefPubMed
33.
Bentzen SM, Agrawal RK, Aird EG, Barrett JM, Barrett-Lee PJ, Bliss JM et al (2008) The UK Standardisation of Breast Radiotherapy (START) Trial A of radiotherapy hypofractionation for treatment of early breast cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 9(4):331–341CrossRefPubMed
34.
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(2):345–353CrossRefPubMed
35.
Aaronson N, Alonso J, Burnam A, Lohr KN, Patrick DL, Perrin E et al (2002) Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res 11(3):193–205CrossRefPubMed
36.
37.
O’Connell RL, Di Micco R, Khabra K, O’Flynn EA, deSouza N, Roche N et al (2016) Initial experience of the BREAST-Q breast-conserving therapy module. Breast Cancer Res Treat 160:79–89CrossRefPubMed
38.
Henseler H, Smith J, Bowman A, Khambay BS, Ju X, Ayoub A et al (2013) Subjective versus objective assessment of breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 66(5):634–639CrossRefPubMed
39.
Yip JM, Watson DI, Tiggemann M, Hsia S, Smallman AE, Dean NR (2015) Determinants of breast reconstruction outcome: how important is volume symmetry? J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 68(5):679–685CrossRefPubMed
40.
Henseler H, Kuznetsova A, Vogt P, Rosenhahn B (2014) Validation of the Kinect device as a new portable imaging system for three-dimensional breast assessment. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 67:483–488CrossRefPubMed
41.
Hoeffelin H, Jacquemin D, Defaweux V, Nizet JL (2014) A methodological evaluation of volumetric measurement techniques including three-dimensional imaging in breast surgery. Biomed Res Int 2014:573249CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
42.
Patete P, Riboldi M, Spadea MF, Catanuto G, Spano A, Nava M et al (2009) Motion compensation in hand-held laser scanning for surface modeling in plastic and reconstructive surgery. Ann Biomed Eng 37(9):1877–1885CrossRefPubMed
43.
Wheat JS, Choppin S, Goyal A (2014) Development and assessment of a Microsoft Kinect based system for imaging the breast in three dimensions. Med Eng Phys 36(6):732–738CrossRefPubMed
44.
Pöhlmann ST, Hewes J, Williamson AI, Sergeant JC, Hufton A, Gandhi A, Taylor CJ, Astley SM (2014) Breast volume measurement using a games console input device, breast imaging. breast volume measurement using a games console input device. Breast Imaging 8539:666–678
Metadata
Title
The potential role of three-dimensional surface imaging as a tool to evaluate aesthetic outcome after Breast Conserving Therapy (BCT)
Authors
Rachel L. O’Connell
Rosa Di Micco
Komel Khabra
Lisa Wolf
Nandita deSouza
Nicola Roche
Peter A. Barry
Anna M. Kirby
Jennifer E. Rusby
Publication date
01-07-2017
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 2/2017
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4256-y

Other articles of this Issue 2/2017

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 2/2017 Go to the issue

Clinical trial

Effects of metformin versus placebo on vitamin B12 metabolism in non-diabetic breast cancer patients in CCTG MA.32

Preclinical study

Development of mammary hyperplasia, dysplasia, and invasive ductal carcinoma in transgenic mice expressing the 8p11 amplicon oncogene NSD3

Review

The role of quantitative estrogen receptor status in predicting tumor response at surgery in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy

Preclinical study

Phenotypic characterisation of breast cancer: the role of CDC42

Brief Report

Characterization of a new BRCA1 rearrangement in an Italian woman with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome

Epidemiology

Mammographic breast density and breast cancer risk in a Mediterranean population: a nested case–control study in the EPIC Florence cohort
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