Top

Published in:

01-08-2015 | Breast Oncology

Long-Term Comparison of Aesthetical Outcomes After Oncoplastic Surgery and Lumpectomy in Breast Cancer Patients

Authors: Gabriela Santos, MD, PhD, Cicero Urban, MD, PhD, Maria Isabel Edelweiss, MD, PhD, Gustavo Zucca-Matthes, MD, PhD, Vilmar Marques de Oliveira, MD, PhD, Gabriel Hubner Arana, MD, Marco Iera, MD, Mario Rietjens, MD, PhD, Rubens Silveira de Lima, MD, Cleverton Spautz, MD, Flávia Kuroda, MD, Karina Anselmi, MD, Edison Capp, MD, PhD

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 8/2015

Abstract

Background

Lumpectomy may result in major deformities and asymmetries in approximately one-third of patients. Although oncoplastic surgery (OP) could be a useful alternative to avoid them, lack of strong data is causing some debate. The purpose of this study was to compare aesthetic outcomes in patients undergoing OP versus lumpectomy using three different assessment methods.

Methods

A total of 122 patients were included in this cross-sectional multicentric study; 57 underwent OP (46.7 %), and 65 underwent lumpectomy (53.3 %). Two breast surgeons and two plastic surgeons from different institutions using the Garbay scale independently evaluated aesthetic outcomes. BCCT.core software was applied in both groups, and the patients evaluated their aesthetic outcomes answering a questionnaire about their satisfaction rate.

Results

OP group had a higher proportion of excellent aesthetic results according to the BCCT.core software analysis (p = 0.028) and the specialists (p = 0.002). Multifactorial analyses showed that age ≥70 years (RP = 6.02; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.73–21.0; p = 0.005), tumors in the medial, inferior, and central quadrants (RP = 4.21; 95 % CI 1.88–9.44; p < 0.001), and large breasts (RP = 7.55; 95 % CI 2.48–23.0; p < 0.001) were significant risk factors for poor aesthetic outcomes after lumpectomy. The patients classified their results as better than those by the specialists and by the software, with no statistical difference between the groups.

Conclusions

Excellent aesthetic results were more frequent in the OP group according to BCCT.core software analysis and specialists. In addition, some clinical conditions and tumor locations in the breast can be considered risky factors for poor aesthetic outcomes in lumpectomy.

Veiga DF, Veiga-Filho J, Ribeiro LM, Archangelo-Junior I, Mendes DA, Andrade VO, et al. Evaluations of aesthetic outcomes of oncoplastic surgery by surgeons of different gender and specialty: a prospective controlled study. Breast. 2011;20(5):407–12.PubMedCrossRef

Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L, Greco M, Saccozzi R, Luini A, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(16):1227–32.PubMedCrossRef

Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, Margolese RG, Deutsch M, Fisher ER, et al. 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. 2002;347(16):1233–41.PubMedCrossRef

Cardoso MJ, Cardoso J, Amaral N, Azevedo I, Barreau L, Bernardo M, et al. Turning subjective into objective: the BCCT.core software for evaluation of cosmetic results in breast cancer conservative treatment. Breast. 2007;16(5):456–61.PubMedCrossRef

Garbay JR, Rietjens M, Petit JY. Esthetic results of breast reconstruction after amputation for cancer. 323 cases. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 1992;21(4):405–12.PubMed

Veiga DF, Neto MS, Garcia EB, Filho JV, Juliano Y, Ferreira LM, et al. Evaluations of the aesthetic results and patient satisfaction with the late pedicled TRAM flap breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2002;48(5):515–20.PubMedCrossRef

Lowery JC, Wilkins EG, Kuzon WM, Davis JA. Evaluations of aesthetic results in breast reconstruction: an analysis of reliability. Ann Plast Surg. 1996;36(6):601–6; discussion 7.PubMedCrossRef

Heil J, Dahlkamp J, Golatta M, Rom J, Domschke C, Rauch G, et al. Aesthetics in breast conserving therapy: do objectively measured results match patients’ evaluations? Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(1):134–8.PubMedCrossRef

Cardoso MJ, Cardoso J, Santos AC, Barros H, Cardoso de Oliveira M. Interobserver agreement and consensus over the esthetic evaluation of conservative treatment for breast cancer. Breast. 2006;15(1):52–7.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Curran D, van Dongen JP, Aaronson NK, Kiebert G, Fentiman IS, Mignolet F, et al. Quality of life of early-stage breast cancer patients treated with radical mastectomy or breast-conserving procedures: results of EORTC Trial 10801. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), Breast Cancer Co-operative Group (BCCG). Eur J Cancer. 1998;34(3):307–14.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Kronowitz SJ, Feledy JA, Hunt KK, Kuerer HM, Youssef A, Koutz CA, et al. Determining the optimal approach to breast reconstruction after partial mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;117(1):1–11; discussion 2–4.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Asgeirsson KS, Rasheed T, McCulley SJ, Macmillan RD. Oncological and cosmetic outcomes of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2005;31(8):817–23.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Berry MG, Fitoussi AD, Curnier A, Couturaud B, Salmon RJ. Oncoplastic breast surgery: a review and systematic approach. J Plast Reconstr Aesth Surg. 2010;63(8):1233–43.CrossRef

14.

Chang E, Johnson N, Webber B, Booth J, Rahhal D, Gannett D, et al. Bilateral reduction mammoplasty in combination with lumpectomy for treatment of breast cancer in patients with macromastia. Am J Surg. 2004;187(5):647–50; discussion 50–1.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Clough KB, Lewis JS, Couturaud B, Fitoussi A, Nos C, Falcou MC. Oncoplastic techniques allow extensive resections for breast-conserving therapy of breast carcinomas. Ann Surg. 2003;237(1):26–34.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

16.

Dixon JM, Venizelos B, Chan P. Latissimus dorsi mini-flap: a technique for extending breast conservation. Breast. 2002;11(1):58–65.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Galimberti V, Zurrida S, Zanini V, Callegari M, Veronesi P, Catania S, et al. Central small size breast cancer: how to overcome the problem of nipple and areola involvement. Eur J Cancer. 1993;29A(8):1093–6.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Gendy RK, Able JA, Rainsbury RM. Impact of skin-sparing mastectomy with immediate reconstruction and breast-sparing reconstruction with miniflaps on the outcomes of oncoplastic breast surgery. Br J Surg. 2003;90(4):433–9.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Kat CC, Darcy CM, O’Donoghue JM, Taylor AR, Regan PJ. The use of the latissimus dorsi musculocutaneous flap for immediate correction of the deformity resulting from breast conservation surgery. Br J Plast Surg. 1999;52(2):99–103.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Masetti R, Pirulli PG, Magno S, Franceschini G, Chiesa F, Antinori A. Oncoplastic techniques in the conservative surgical treatment of breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2000;7(4):276–80.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Nano MT, Gill PG, Kollias J, Bochner MA. Breast volume replacement using the latissimus dorsi miniflap. ANZ J Surg. 2004;74(3):98–104.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Newman LA, Kuerer HM, McNeese MD, Hunt KK, Gurtner GC, Vlastos GS, et al. Reduction mammoplasty improves breast conservation therapy in patients with macromastia. Am J Surg. 2001;181(3):215–20.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Noguchi M, Taniya T, Miyazaki I, Saito Y. Immediate transposition of a latissimus dorsi muscle for correcting a postquadrantectomy breast deformity in Japanese patients. Int Surg. 1990;75(3):166–70.PubMed

24.

Nos C, Fitoussi A, Bourgeois D, Fourquet A, Salmon RJ, Clough KB. Conservative treatment of lower pole breast cancers by bilateral mammoplasty and radiotherapy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1998;24(6):508–14.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Papp C, Wechselberger G, Schoeller T. Autologous breast reconstruction after breast-conserving cancer surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998;102(6):1932–6; discussion 7–8.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Petit J, Rietjens M, Garusi C. Breast reconstructive techniques in cancer patients: which ones, when to apply, which immediate and long term risks? Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2001;38(3):231–9.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Spear SL, Pelletiere CV, Wolfe AJ, Tsangaris TN, Pennanen MF. Experience with reduction mammaplasty combined with breast conservation therapy in the treatment of breast cancer. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;111(3):1102–9.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Urban C, Lima R, Schunemann E, Spautz C, Rabinovich I, Anselmi K. Oncoplastic principles in breast conserving surgery. Breast. 2011;20(Suppl 3):S92–5.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Veronesi U, Zurrida S. Breast conservation: current results and future perspectives at the European Institute of Oncology. Int J Cancer. 2007;120(7):1381–6.PubMedCrossRef

30.

Haloua MH, Krekel NM, Winters HA, Rietveld DH, Meijer S, Bloemers FW, et al. A systematic review of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery: current weaknesses and future prospects. Ann Surg. 2013;257(4):609–20.PubMedCrossRef

31.

Losken A, Ghazi B. An update on oncoplastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129(2):382e–3e.PubMedCrossRef

32.

Cardoso MJ, Cardoso JS, Vrieling C, Macmillan D, Rainsbury D, Heil J, et al. Recommendations for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;135(3):629–37.PubMedCrossRef

33.

Christie D, O’Brien M, Christie J, Kron T, Ferguson S, Hamilton C, et al. A comparison of methods of cosmetic assessment in breast conservation treatment. Breast. 1996;5:358–67.CrossRef

34.

Clarke D, Martinez A, Cox RS. Analysis of cosmetic results and complications in patients with stage I and II breast cancer treated by biopsy and irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1983;9(12):1807–13.PubMedCrossRef

35.

Cardoso MJ, Cardoso JS, Wild T, Krois W, Fitzal F. Comparing two objective methods for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;116(1):149–52.PubMedCrossRef

36.

Vrieling C, Collette L, Bartelink E, Borger JH, Brenninkmeyer SJ, Horiot JC, et al. Validation of the methods of cosmetic assessment after breast-conserving therapy in the EORTC “boost versus no boost” trial. EORTC Radiotherapy and Breast Cancer Cooperative Groups. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;45(3):667–76.PubMedCrossRef

Title: Long-Term Comparison of Aesthetical Outcomes After Oncoplastic Surgery and Lumpectomy in Breast Cancer Patients
Authors: Gabriela Santos, MD, PhD
Cicero Urban, MD, PhD
Maria Isabel Edelweiss, MD, PhD
Gustavo Zucca-Matthes, MD, PhD
Vilmar Marques de Oliveira, MD, PhD
Gabriel Hubner Arana, MD
Marco Iera, MD
Mario Rietjens, MD, PhD
Rubens Silveira de Lima, MD
Cleverton Spautz, MD
Flávia Kuroda, MD
Karina Anselmi, MD
Edison Capp, MD, PhD
Publication date: 01-08-2015
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 8/2015
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-4301-6

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Long-Term Comparison of Aesthetical Outcomes After Oncoplastic Surgery and Lumpectomy in Breast Cancer Patients

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 8/2015

Inflammatory Breast Cancer: Patterns of Failure and the Case for Aggressive Locoregional Management

Morbidity Associated with Concomitant Thyroid Surgery in Patients with Primary Hyperparathyroidism

Deviation from the Standard of Care for Early Breast Cancer in the Elderly: What are the Consequences?

Cytoreductive Surgery Plus Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Pseudomyxoma Peritonei Arising from Urachus

Characteristics of Multifocal and Multicentric Breast Cancers

Presence of Concomitant Non-muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer in Chinese Patients with Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: Risk Factors, Characteristics, and Predictive Value