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
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 5/2016

01-05-2016 | Reconstructive Oncology

Change of Patient-Reported Aesthetic Outcome Over Time and Identification of Factors Characterizing Poor Aesthetic Outcome After Breast-Conserving Therapy: Long-Term Results of a Prospective Cohort Study

Authors: André Hennigs, MD, Hannah Biehl, Geraldine Rauch, PhD, Michael Golatta, MD, Patrik Tabatabai, MD, Christoph Domschke, MD, Sarah Schott, MD, Markus Wallwiener, MD, Florian Schütz, MD, Christof Sohn, MD, Jörg Heil, MD

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 5/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

We analyzed the change of aesthetic outcome (AO) over time and explored factors characterizing poor AO after breast-conserving surgery (BCS).

Methods

This prospective single-center cohort study included 849 patients preoperatively planned for BCS between September 2007 and December 2011. Long-term follow-up was made once in 2013. AO was measured by the Aesthetic Status (AS) of the Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale questionnaire. Clinical, surgical, and pathologic variables were evaluated to identify predictors of poor AO. We applied single factor variance analyses and univariable logistic regression analyses for outcome analysis.

Results

The long-term follow-up rate in 2013 was 73 % (621 nonrecurrent with final BCS). A poor or fair AO was reported in 30 (4.8 %) and 98 (15.8 %) of these 621 patients, respectively. Single factor variance analysis showed a negative impact of higher specimen weight on AO (p < 0.001). Univariable logistic regression analysis revealed the following risk factors for poor AO: radial breast incision [odds ratio (OR) 1.97], periareolar incision (OR 1.85), fishmouth-shaped incision with resection of the nipple–areola complex (OR 8.12), impaired wound healing (OR 3.14), and seroma (OR 2.16). No patient rating her AO as fair or poor shortly after BCS improved in the long-term follow-up.

Conclusions

The incidence of poor AO is relatively rare but increases in the long-term follow-up. Patients experiencing poor AO after BCS are likely to remain unsatisfied with the outcome over time. Factors predicting unfavorable AO can assist preoperative planning with regards to the choice between simple breast conserving techniques or more complex oncoplastic procedures.
Literature
1.
Clarke M, Collins R, Darby S, et al. Effects of radiotherapy and of differences in the extent of surgery for early breast cancer on local recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet. 2005;366(9503):2087–106.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, 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;347:1233–41.CrossRefPubMed
3.
van Dongen JA, Voogd AC, Fentiman IS, et al. 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. 2000;92:1143–50.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Kuroi K, Shimozuma K, Ohsumi S, Imai H, Ono M. Current status of health outcome assessment of medical treatment in breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2007;14:74–80.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L, 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;347:1227–32.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Heil J, Holl S, Golatta M, et al. 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. 2010;19:470–4.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Waljee JF, Hu ES, Ubel PA, Smith DM, Newman LA, Alderman AK. Effect of esthetic outcome after breast-conserving surgery on psychosocial functioning and quality of life. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3331–7.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Cochrane RA, Valasiadou P, Wilson AR, Al-Ghazal SK, Macmillan RD. Cosmesis and satisfaction after breast-conserving surgery correlates with the percentage of breast volume excised. Br J Surg. 2003;90:1505–9.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Fedorcik GG, Sachs R, Goldfarb MA. Oncologic and aesthetic results following breast-conserving therapy with 0.5 cm margins in 100 consecutive patients. Breast J. 2006;12:208–11.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Taylor ME, Perez CA, Halverson KJ, et al. Factors influencing cosmetic results after conservation therapy for breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995;31:753–64.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Wang HT, Barone CM, Steigelman MB, et al. Aesthetic outcomes in breast conservation therapy. Aesthet Surg J. 2008;28:165–70.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Wazer DE, DiPetrillo T, Schmidt-Ullrich R, et al. Factors influencing cosmetic outcome and complication risk after conservative surgery and radiotherapy for early-stage breast carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 1992;10:356–63.PubMed
13.
Ozmen T, Polat AV, Polat AK, Bonaventura M, Johnson R, Soran A. Factors affecting cosmesis after breast conserving surgery without oncoplastic techniques in an experienced comprehensive breast center. Surgeon. 2015;13(3):139–44.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Stanton AL, Krishnan L, Collins CA. Form or function? Part 1. Subjective cosmetic and functional correlates of quality of life in women treated with breast-conserving surgical procedures and radiotherapy. Cancer. 2001;91:2273–81.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Kreienberg R, Albert AS, Follmann M, et al. German S3 guideline: diagnosis, therapy, and follow-up of breast cancer. 2012.
16.
Foersterling E, Golatta M, Hennigs A, et al. 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. 2014;110:801–6.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Cardoso MJ, Cardoso JS, Vrieling C, et al. Recommendations for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;135(3):629–37.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Heil J, Dahlkamp J, Golatta M, et al. Aesthetics in breast conserving therapy: do objectively measured results match patients’ evaluations? Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(1):134–8.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Amichetti M, Busana L, Caffo O. Long-term cosmetic outcome and toxicity in patients treated with quadrantectomy and radiation therapy for early-stage breast cancer. Oncology. 1995;52:177–81.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Heil J, Czink E, Golatta M, et al. Change of aesthetic and functional outcome over time and their relationship to quality of life after breast conserving therapy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011;37(2):116–21.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Van Limbergen E, Rijnders A, van der Schueren E, Lerut T, Christiaens R. Cosmetic evaluation of breast conserving treatment for mammary cancer. 2. A quantitative analysis of the influence of radiation dose, fractionation schedules and surgical treatment techniques on cosmetic results. Radiother Oncol. 1989;16:253–67.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Christiaens MR, Cataliotti L, Fentiman I, et al. Comparison of the surgical procedures for breast conserving treatment of early breast cancer in seven EORTC centres. Eur J Cancer. 1996;32A:1866–75.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Association of Breast Surgery at B. Surgical guidelines for the management of breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2009;35(suppl 1):1–22.CrossRef
24.
Waljee JF, Hu ES, Newman LA, Alderman AK. Predictors of breast asymmetry after breast-conserving operation for breast cancer. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;206:274–80.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Change of Patient-Reported Aesthetic Outcome Over Time and Identification of Factors Characterizing Poor Aesthetic Outcome After Breast-Conserving Therapy: Long-Term Results of a Prospective Cohort Study
Authors
André Hennigs, MD
Hannah Biehl
Geraldine Rauch, PhD
Michael Golatta, MD
Patrik Tabatabai, MD
Christoph Domschke, MD
Sarah Schott, MD
Markus Wallwiener, MD
Florian Schütz, MD
Christof Sohn, MD
Jörg Heil, MD
Publication date
01-05-2016
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 5/2016
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4943-z

Other articles of this Issue 5/2016

Annals of Surgical Oncology 5/2016 Go to the issue

Gastrointestinal Oncology

Laparoscopy is Safe and Accurate to Evaluate Peritoneal Surface Metastasis Prior to Cytoreductive Surgery

Gastrointestinal Oncology

Malignant Peritoneal Mesothelioma: Characterization of the Inflammatory Response in the Tumor Microenvironment

Breast Oncology

Use of a Magnetic Tracer for Sentinel Lymph Node Detection in Early-Stage Breast Cancer Patients: A Meta-analysis

Gastrointestinal Oncology

Can a Benefit be Expected from Surgical Debulking of Unresectable Pseudomyxoma Peritonei?

Breast Oncology

Axillary Staging After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer: A Pilot Study Combining Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy with Radioactive Seed Localization of Pre-treatment Positive Axillary Lymph Nodes

Colorectal Cancer

Prognostic Relevance of Mucinous Subtype in a Population-based Propensity Score Analysis of 40,083 Rectal Cancer Patients