Systematization of Oncoplastic Surgery: Selection of Surgical Techniques and Patient-Reported Outcome in a Cohort of 1,035 Patients
- PMID: 25672561
- PMCID: PMC4565865
- DOI: 10.1245/s10434-015-4396-4
Systematization of Oncoplastic Surgery: Selection of Surgical Techniques and Patient-Reported Outcome in a Cohort of 1,035 Patients
Abstract
Introduction: Functional and aesthetic outcome after breast-conserving surgery are vital endpoints for patients with primary breast cancer. A large variety of oncoplastic techniques exist; however, it remains unclear which techniques yield the highest rates of local control at first surgery, omission of reexcision or subsequent mastectomy, and merits the highest degree of patient satisfaction.
Methods: In this retrospective case cohort trial with a customized investigational questionnaire for assessment of patient satisfaction with the surgical result, we analyzed 1,035 patients with primary, unilateral breast cancer and oncoplastic surgery from 2004 to 2009.
Results: Analysis of patient reported outcome (PRO) revealed that 88 % of the cohort was satisfied with their aesthetic result using oncoplastic techniques following the concept presented. These results also were achieved in difficult tumor localizations, such as upper inner and lower inner quadrant. Conversion rate from breast-conserving therapy to secondary mastectomy was low at 7.2 % (n = 68/944 patients). The systematization of oncoplastic techniques presented-embedded in a multimodal concept of breast cancer therapy-facilitates tumor control with a few number of uncomplicated techniques adapted to tumor site and size with a median resection of 32 (range 11-793) g. Five-year recurrence rate in our cohort was 4.0 %.
Conclusions: Patient's satisfaction was independent from age, body mass index, resection volume, tumor localization, and type of oncoplastic surgery (p > 0.05). We identified postoperative pain as an important negative impact factor on patient's satisfaction with the aesthetic result (p = 0.0001).
Figures



Similar articles
-
Aesthetic and functional outcome after breast conserving surgery - Comparison between conventional and oncoplastic resection.Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017 Apr;43(4):658-664. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.11.019. Epub 2016 Dec 18. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017. PMID: 28040314
-
Determinants for patient satisfaction regarding aesthetic outcome and skin sensitivity after breast-conserving surgery.World J Surg Oncol. 2016 Dec 7;14(1):303. doi: 10.1186/s12957-016-1053-8. World J Surg Oncol. 2016. PMID: 27923403 Free PMC article.
-
Cosmetic outcome and percentage of breast volume excision in oncoplastic breast conserving surgery.World J Surg. 2010 Jul;34(7):1447-52. doi: 10.1007/s00268-009-0278-x. World J Surg. 2010. PMID: 19936979
-
A systematic review of oncoplastic volume replacement breast surgery: oncological safety and cosmetic outcome.Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2022 Jan;104(1):5-17. doi: 10.1308/rcsann.2021.0012. Epub 2021 Nov 12. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2022. PMID: 34767472 Free PMC article.
-
Standardization of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery.Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017 Jul;43(7):1236-1243. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2017.01.006. Epub 2017 Jan 31. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017. PMID: 28214053 Review.
Cited by
-
Toolbox to Reduce Lumpectomy Reoperations and Improve Cosmetic Outcome in Breast Cancer Patients: The American Society of Breast Surgeons Consensus Conference.Ann Surg Oncol. 2015 Oct;22(10):3174-83. doi: 10.1245/s10434-015-4759-x. Epub 2015 Jul 28. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015. PMID: 26215198 Free PMC article.
-
Response to Letter: Evolving Trends in Breast Surgery: Oncoplastic to Onco-Aesthetic Surgery.Arch Plast Surg. 2017 Jan;44(1):86. doi: 10.5999/aps.2017.44.1.86. Epub 2017 Jan 20. Arch Plast Surg. 2017. PMID: 28194355 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Modern Breast Cancer Surgery 1st Central-Eastern European Professional Consensus Statement on Breast Cancer.Pathol Oncol Res. 2022 Jun 15;28:1610377. doi: 10.3389/pore.2022.1610377. eCollection 2022. Pathol Oncol Res. 2022. PMID: 35783360 Free PMC article.
-
Position statement on defining and standardizing an oncoplastic approach to breast-conserving surgery in Canada.Curr Oncol. 2019 Jun;26(3):e405-e409. doi: 10.3747/co.26.4195. Epub 2019 Jun 1. Curr Oncol. 2019. PMID: 31285685 Free PMC article.
-
Rates of re-excision and conversion to mastectomy after breast-conserving surgery with or without oncoplastic surgery: a nationwide population-based study.Br J Surg. 2020 Dec;107(13):1762-1772. doi: 10.1002/bjs.11838. Epub 2020 Aug 6. Br J Surg. 2020. PMID: 32761931 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Losken A, Dugal CS, Styblo TM, Carlson GW. A meta-analysis comparing breast conservation therapy alone to the oncoplastic technique. Ann Plast Surg. 2013. - PubMed
-
- 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):1233–1241. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa022152. - DOI - PubMed
-
- van Dongen JA, Voogd AC, Fentiman IS, Legrand C, Sylvester RJ, Tong D, 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(14):1143–1150. doi: 10.1093/jnci/92.14.1143. - DOI - PubMed
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical