Correlation of the Oncoplastic Excision Volumes with the Aesthetic Outcomes for the Upper Outer Quadrant Breast Cancer | ||||
The Egyptian Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery | ||||
Article 2, Volume 45, Issue 2, April 2021, Page 59-65 PDF (5.44 MB) | ||||
Document Type: Original Article | ||||
DOI: 10.21608/ejprs.2021.173827 | ||||
View on SCiNiTO | ||||
Authors | ||||
Mohamed Ibrahim ; Mohamed Farag | ||||
The Department of General Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Fayoum University | ||||
Abstract | ||||
Background: Oncoplastic breast surgery (OBS) has emerged as more advanced surgical approaches which combine the principles of both the oncological and plastic surgeries to achieve those advanced results and to expand the tumour size indication in front of the conservative management. Methods: From July 2016 to March 2019, 200 patients presented with UOQ primary breast cancer including multifocal and post neoadjuvant cases with predicted excision volume (PEV) less than 35% were operated and enrolled in this prospective study. Aesthetic outcomes were objectively evaluated 6 months after surgery by the semi-automated Breast Cancer Conservative Treatment (BCCT) core software. Results: Total aesthetic results according to the objective BCCT core assessment were excellent in 41.5% (83 cases), good in 29.5% (59 cases), fair in 19.5% (39 cases), and poor in 9.5% (19 cases). More than 90% of the patients with EEV less than 10% have achieved excellent aesthetic results; EEV from 10 to 15% has achieved more than 60% good results; EEV from 15 to 20% has achieved around 50% fair results which have been approached the 70% in the 20 to 25% group; more than 40% poor results were noticed in the 25 to 30% EEV which were raised up to 75% in the 30 to 35% EEV. Conclusion: Excision volume ratio has become one of the main determinants of the aesthetic results; its preoperative value can refer to the most suitable oncoplastic surgical technique for each patient, expect the forthcoming discrepancy and the necessity for contralateral symmetrization. Current study has revealed the necessity of discrepancy corrective surgery or performing volume replacement reconstruction with the EEV more than 20% in the UOQ and from 15 to 20% in the fair results according to the patients' preference. | ||||
Full Text | ||||
Aesthetic outcomes – Oncoplastic surgery – | ||||
References | ||||
Fisher B., Anderson S., Bryant J., Margolese R., Deutsch M., Fisher E., Jeong J. and Wolmark N.: Twenty-Year Follow-up of a Randomized Trial Comparing Total Mastectomy, Lumpectomy, and Lumpectomy plus Irradiation for the Treatment of Invasive Breast Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 347 (16): pp. 1233-1241, 2002. 2- Kronowitz S., Feledy J., Hunt K., Kuerer H., Youssef A., Koutz C. and Robb G.: Determining the Optimal Approach to Breast Reconstruction after Partial Mastectomy. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 118 (3): pp. 814-815, 2006. 3- Struikmans H., Bartelink H., Horiot J., Poortmans P., Van den Bogaert W., Fourquet A., Jager J., Hoogenraad W., Bing Oei S., Wárlám-Rodenhuis C., Pierart M. and Collette L.: Impact of a higher radiation dose on local control and survival in breast-conserving therapy of early breast cancer: 10-year results of the Randomized Boost Versus No Boost. European Journal of Cancer Supplements, 25 (22): pp. 3259-3265, 2007. 4- Pukancsik D., Kelemen P., Újhelyi M., Kovács E., Udvarhelyi N., Mészáros N., Kenessey I., Kovács T., Kásler M. and Mátrai Z.: Objective decision making between conventional and oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy: An aesthetic and functional prospective cohort study. European Journal of Surgical Oncology, 43 (2): pp. 303-310, 2017. 5- Santos G., Urban C., Edelweiss M., Zucca-Matthes G., de Oliveira V., Arana G., Iera M., Rietjens M., de Lima R., Spautz C., Kuroda F., Anselmi K. and Capp E.: Long- Term Comparison of Aesthetical Outcomes After Oncoplastic Surgery and Lumpectomy in Breast Cancer Patients. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 22 (8): pp. 2500-2508, 2014. 6- Heil J., Czink E., Golatta M., Schott S., Hof H., Jenetzky E., Blumenstein M., Maleika A., Rauch G. and Sohn C.: Change of aesthetic and functional outcome over time and their relationship to quality of life after breast conserving therapy. European Journal of Surgical Oncology, 37 (2): pp. 116-121, 2011. 7- De Lorenzi F., Loschi P., Bagnardi V., Rotmensz N., Hubner G., Mazzarol G., Orecchia R., Galimberti V., Veronesi P., Colleoni M., Toesca A., Peradze N. and Mario R.: Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery for Tumors Larger than 2 Centimeters: Is it Oncologically Safe? A Matched-Cohort Analysis. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 23 (6): pp. 1852-1859, 2016. 8- Wijgman D., ten Wolde B., van Groesen N., Keemers- Gels M., van den Wildenberg F. and Strobbe L.: Short term safety of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery for larger tumors. European Journal of Surgical Oncology, 43 (4): pp. 665-671, 2017. 9- Ojala K., Meretoja T. and Leidenius M.: Aesthetic and functional outcome after breast conserving surgery - Comparison between conventional and oncoplastic resection. European Journal of Surgical Oncology, 43 (4): pp. 658-664, 2017. 10- Malycha P., Gough I., Margaritoni M., Deo S., Sandelin K., Buccimazza I. and Agarwal G.: Oncoplastic Breast Surgery: A Global Perspective on Practice, Availability, 64 Vol. 45, No. 2 / Oncoplastic Excision Volumes & Aesthetic Outcomes and Training. World Journal of Surgery, 32 (12): pp. 2570- 2577, 2008. 11- Pires D., Junior O., Valadares C. and Andrade R.: Training in oncoplastic and reconstructive breast surgery: Analysis of training in America and in the European Union with the brazilian reality. Revista Brasileira de Mastologia, 27 (2): pp. 164-171, 2017. 12- Campbell E. and Romics L.: Oncological safety and cosmetic outcomes in oncoplastic breast conservation surgery, a review of the best level of evidence literature. Breast Cancer: Targets and Therapy, 9: pp. 521-530, 2017. 13- Singletary S.: Surgical margins in patients with earlystage breast cancer treated with breast conservation therapy. The American Journal of Surgery, 184 (5): pp. 383- 393, 2002. 14- Masetti R., Di Leone A., Franceschini G., Magno S., Terribile D., Fabbri M. and Chiesa F.: Oncoplastic Techniques in the Conservative Surgical Treatment of Breast Cancer: An Overview. The Breast Journal, 12 (s2): pp. S174-S180, 2006. 15- Emiroglu M., Sert I. and Inal A.: The Role of Oncoplastic Breast Surgery in Breast Cancer Treatment. The Journal of Breast Health, 11 (1): pp. 1-9, 2015. 16- Lanitis S. and Hadjiminas D.: Oncoplastic surgery: Taking breast surgery to the next level. Hellenic Journal of Surgery, 84 (2): pp. 92-105, 2012. 17- Dahlbäck C., Manjer J., Rehn M. and Ringberg A.: Determinants for patient satisfaction regarding aesthetic outcome and skin sensitivity after breast-conserving surgery. World Journal of Surgical Oncology, 14 (1): pp. 17-28, 2016. 18- Dos Santos G. and Urban C.: Aesthetics and Quality of Life after Breast Reconstruction. In: C. Urban and M. Rietjens, ed., Oncoplastic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery, 1st ed. Milan: Springer-Verlag, pp. 431-440, 2013. 19- Down S., Jha P., Burger A. and Hussien M.: Oncological Advantages of Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery in Treatment of Early Breast Cancer. The Breast Journal, 19 (1), pp. 56-63, 2013. 20- Noguchi M., Yokoi-Noguchi M., Ohno Y., Morioka E., Nakano Y., Kosaka T. and Kurita T.: Oncoplastic breast conserving surgery: Volume replacement vs. volume displacement. European Journal of Surgical Oncology, 42 (7): pp. 926-934, 2016. 21- Lee A.: Why is carcinoma of the breast more frequent in the upper outer quadrant? A case series based on needle core biopsy diagnoses. The Breast, 14 (2): pp. 151-152, 2005. 22- Rummel S., Hueman M., Costantino N., Shriver C. and Ellsworth R.: Tumour location within the breast: Does tumour site have prognostic ability?. Ecancer Medical Science, 9 (552): pp. 1-10, 2015. 23- Cochrane R., Valasiadou P., Wilson A., Al-Ghazal S. and Macmillan R.: Cosmesis and satisfaction after breastconserving surgery correlates with the percentage of breast volume excised. British Journal of Surgery, 90 (12): pp. 1505-1509, 2003. 24- Chan S., Chueng P. and Lam S.: Cosmetic Outcome and Percentage of Breast Volume Excision in Oncoplastic Breast Conserving Surgery. World Journal of Surgery, 34 (7): pp. 1447-1452, 2009. 25- Kayar R., Civelek S., Cobanoglu M., Gungor O., Catal H. and Emiroglu M.: Five Methods of Breast Volume Measurement: A Comparative Study of Measurements of Specimen Volume in 30 Mastectomy Cases. Breast Cancer: Basic and Clinical Research, 5: pp. 43-52, 2011. 26- Cardoso J. and Cardoso M.: Towards an intelligent medical system for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 40 (2): pp. 115-126, 2007. 27- White J., Achuthan R., Turton P. and Lansdown M.: Breast Conservation Surgery: State of the Art. International Journal of Breast Cancer, 20 (11): pp. 1-10, 2011. 28- Yang J., Bae S., Chung H., Cho B., Park H. and Jung J.: The Usefulness of Oncoplastic Volume Displacement Techniques in the Superiorly Located Breast Cancers for Korean Patients with Small to Moderate-Sized Breasts. Annals of Plastic Surgery, 67 (5): pp. 474-480, 2011. 29- Munhoz A., Montag E. and Gemperli R.: Oncoplastic breast surgery: Indications, techniques and perspectives. Gland surgery, 2 (3): pp. 143-157, 2013. 30- Kalbhen C., McGill J., Fendley P., Corrigan K. and Angelats J.: Mammographic determination of breast volume: Comparing different methods. American Journal of Roentgenology, 173 (6): pp. 1643-1649, 1999. 31- Kim M., Sbalchiero J., Reece G., Miller M., Beahm E. and Markey M.: Assessment of Breast Aesthetics. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 121 (4): pp. 186e-194e, 2008. 32- Cardoso M., Cardoso J., Vrieling C., Macmillan D., Rainsbury D., Heil J., Hau E. and Keshtgar M.: Recommendations for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 135 (3): pp. 629-637, 2012. 33- Haloua M., Krekel N., Jacobs G., Zonderhuis B., Bouman M., Buncamper M., Niessen F., Winters H., Terwee C., Meijer S. and van den Tol M.: Cosmetic Outcome Assessment following Breast-Conserving Therapy: A Comparison between BCCT.core Software and Panel Evaluation. International Journal of Breast Cancer, pp. 1-7, 2014. 34- Cardoso M., Oliveira H. and Cardoso J.: Assessing cosmetic results after breast conserving surgery. Journal of Surgical Oncology, 110 (1): pp. 37-44, 2014. 35- Yu T., Eom K., Jang N., Kim K., Koo T., Kwon J., Kim B., Kang E., Kim S., Kim J. and Kim I.: Objective Measurement of Cosmetic Outcomes of Breast Conserving Therapy Using BCCT.core. Cancer Research and Treatment, 48 (2): pp. 491-498, 2016. 36- Campbell E. and Romics L.: Oncological safety and cosmetic outcomes in oncoplastic breast conservation surgery, a review of the best level of evidence literature. Breast Cancer: Targets and Therapy, 9: pp. 521-530, 2017. 37- Bulstrode N. and Shrotria S.: Prediction of cosmetic outcome following conservative breast surgery using breast volume measurements. The Breast, 10 (2): pp. 124- 126, 2001. 38- Masetti R., Di Leone A., Franceschini G., Magno S., Terribile D., Fabbri M. and Chiesa F.: Oncoplastic TechEgypt, J. Plast. Reconstr. Surg., April 2021 65 niques in the Conservative Surgical Treatment of Breast Cancer: An Overview. The Breast Journal, 12 (s2): pp. S174-S180, 2006. 39- Chan S., Chueng P. and Lam S.: Cosmetic Outcome and Percentage of Breast Volume Excision in Oncoplastic Breast Conserving Surgery. World Journal of Surgery, 34 (7): pp. 1447-1452, 2009. 40- Ogawa T., Hanamura N., Yamashita M., Kimura H. and Kashikura Y.: Breast-Volume Displacement Using an Extended Glandular Flap for Small Dense Breasts. Plastic Surgery International, pp. 1-7, 2011. 41- Emiroglu M., Sert I. and Inal A.: The Role of Oncoplastic Breast Surgery in Breast Cancer Treatment. The Journal of Breast Health, 11 (1): pp. 1-9, 2015 | ||||
Statistics Article View: 252 PDF Download: 369 |
||||