How safe is oncoplastic breast conservation?: Comparative analysis with standard breast conserving surgery

Wide Local Excision Versus Oncoplastic Breast Surgery: Differences in Surgical Outcome for an Assumed Margin (0, 1, or 2 mm) Distance

INTRODUCTION

Oncoplastic breast surgery (OBS) can be applied in larger tumors or in patients with high tumor-to-breast ratio without compromising oncologic safety. Inherent larger excisions may increase the probability of clear margins. We compare postoperative outcomes between simple wide local excision (WLE) and OBS assuming 3 different margin distances.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Single oncoplastic surgeon data between April 2014 and September 2016, including tumor and treatment details, for WLE or OBS were reviewed. Relative incidence of margin positivity at 3 assumed distinct margin distances (2, 1, and 0 mm) and reexcision rates were compared. Statistical comparisons were performed by the Student t and chi-square tests.

RESULTS

Available data from 201 patients revealed similar patient age and respective tumor phenotypes between 2 cohorts (166 WLE and 35 OBS). Though both the preoperative (30 vs. 16 mm, P < .001) and postoperative tumor (30 vs. 19 mm, P = .001) sizes were greater in the OBS group, margin positivity rates were significantly lower, at 1 mm (5.7% vs. 20.8%, P = .036). Though similar rates of reexcision were observed, completion mastectomies were required in 5.4% of WLE versus 0 OBS. Similar rates of margin positivity and reexcision were observed between mammoplasties and chest wall perforator flaps.

CONCLUSION

OBS is not inferior to standard WLE at providing a safe and clear oncologic margin regardless of margin distance (up to 2 mm) despite larger tumor size. The additional benefit of improved cosmesis, particularly in patients with larger tumor-to-breast ratio, offers a suitable and safe alternative, thus increasing patient choice and reducing the incidence of reexcision and completion mastectomy.

Systematic review of the impact of breast-conserving surgery on cancer outcomes of multiple ipsilateral breast cancers

Background

The clinical effectiveness of treating ipsilateral multifocal (MF) and multicentric (MC) breast cancers using breast‐conserving surgery (BCS) compared with the standard of mastectomy is uncertain. Inconsistencies relate to definitions, incidence, staging and intertumoral heterogeneity. The primary aim of this systematic review was to compare clinical outcomes after BCS versus mastectomy for MF and MC cancers, collectively defined as multiple ipsilateral breast cancers (MIBC).

Methods

Comprehensive electronic searches were undertaken to identify complete papers published in English between May 1988 and July 2015, primarily comparing clinical outcomes of BCS and mastectomy for MIBC. All study designs were included, and studies were appraised critically using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. The characteristics and results of identified studies were summarized.

Results

Twenty‐four retrospective studies were included in the review: 17 comparative studies and seven case series. They included 3537 women with MIBC undergoing BCS; breast cancers were defined as MF in 2677 women, MC in 292, and reported as MIBC in 568. Six studies evaluated MIBC treated by BCS or mastectomy, with locoregional recurrence (LRR) rates of 2–23 per cent after BCS at median follow‐up of 59·5 (i.q.r. 56–81) months. BCS and mastectomy showed apparently equivalent rates of LRR (risk ratio 0·94, 95 per cent c.i. 0·65 to 1·36). Thirteen studies compared BCS in women with MIBC versus those with unifocal cancers, reporting LRR rates of 2–40 per cent after BCS at a median follow‐up of 64 (i.q.r. 57–73) months. One high‐quality study reported 10‐year actuarial LRR rates of 5·5 per cent for BCS in 300 women versus 6·5 per cent for mastectomy among 887 women.

Conclusion

The available studies were mainly of moderate quality, historical and underpowered, with limited follow‐up and biased case selection favouring BCS rather than mastectomy for low‐risk patients. The evidence was inconclusive, weakening support for the St Gallen consensus and supporting a future randomized trial.

Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery in Iceland: A Population-Based Study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In Iceland, oncoplastic breast-conservation surgery has been performed since 2008. The aim of this population-based study was to assess and compare the efficacy and patient satisfaction of standard breast-conservation surgery with oncoplastic breast-conservation surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a population-based, retrospective, observational cohort study on all women undergoing breast-conservation surgery in Iceland from the 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2014. A multivariate logistic regression and linear regression were performed to assess differences in outcomes and a patient satisfaction questionnaire was used to assess certain patient-related outcome measures.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

A total of 750 women underwent breast-conserving surgery, 665 had standard breast-conservation surgery and 85 oncoplastic breast-conservation surgery. Oncoplastic breast-conservation surgery was associated with a significantly larger mean size (2.4 cm vs 1.7 cm, p < 0.001) and weight (181.8 g vs 63.4 g, p < 0.001) of breast specimen excised when compared to standard breast-conservation surgery. After correcting for confounding factors, there was no significant difference in surgical margin involvement (odds ratio = 0.97, confidence interval = 0.44-1.97), frequency of complications (odds ratio = 1.06, confidence interval = 0.46-2.18), frequency of reoperations (odds ratio = 0.98; confidence interval = 0.50-1.81), or time to first adjuvant therapy (-0.23 days for oncoplastic breast-conservation surgery, p = 0.95). Patient satisfaction was high in both groups, although not statistically different (96% in oncoplastic breast-conservation surgery group vs 89% in the standard breast-conservation surgery group, p = 0.84). Our results show that oncoplastic breast-conservation surgery is at least as safe as standard breast-conservation surgery in selected cases and may be preferable in ductal carcinoma in situ.

Health-related quality of life in different states of breast cancer - comparing different instruments

BACKGROUND

The prognosis of breast cancer has improved significantly during the last few decades increasing the interest in health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The aim of this study was to compare the HRQoL scores produced by different instruments and to shed light on their validity in various states of breast cancer by studying the association of cancer-related symptoms with HRQoL.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An observational, cross-sectional study of breast cancer patients treated in the Helsinki and Uusimaa Hospital District from September 2009 to April 2011. A total of 840 patients completed three HRQoL questionnaires: the EQ-5D-3L (including VAS), 15D and EORTC QLQ-30 and a questionnaire concerning sociodemographic factors. Patients were divided into five mutually exclusive groups: primary treatment (n = 118), recovery (6-18 months from diagnosis) (n = 150), remission (>18 months) (n = 382), metastatic disease (n = 176) and palliative care (n = 14). The association of HRQoL with sociodemographic and clinical factors and cancer-related symptoms, screened by the EORTC QLQ-30, was studied by multivariate modeling using stepwise linear regression analysis.

RESULTS

HRQoL scores were the best at the time closest to diagnosis and deteriorated with disease progression. The EQ-5D had a pronounced ceiling effect with 40.8% of the respondents scoring 1 (perfect health) compared to 6% for the 15D and 5.6% for VAS. In regression analyses, pain, fatigue and financial difficulties were the most important predictors of lower HRQoL. The 15D showed better discriminatory power and content validity. The EORTC QLQ-C30 functioning deteriorated in advanced states of the disease with physical, social and role functioning being the most affected. Insomnia, fatigue and pain were the most commonly reported symptoms in all groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Different HRQoL instruments produce notably different HRQoL scores. The EQ-5D has a pronounced ceiling effect. Pain and fatigue are the most common symptoms associated with poor HRQoL in all disease states.

Central round block repair of large breast resection defects: oncologic and aesthetic outcomes

Background

The central round block repair is a volume displacement technique to reconstruct large wide local excision (WLE) defects in breasts with moderate ptosis or hypertrophy. There are limited published data on the outcomes of this technique.

Methods

Data were collected prospectively for 57 consecutive patients and follow up information obtained from patient records. The volume of breast resection was estimated geometrically from mammography. Aesthetic outcomes were assessed from clinical measurements and panel review of patient photographs.

Results

The median age was 51 [22-86] years and follow-up 5 (1.9-8.4) years. The median specimen resection weight was 50 [25-361] g and tumour size 25 [10-75] mm. Estimated volume of breast excised was 17.8% (6-31%). In total, 12/57 patients had incomplete margins: five patients had re-excision to achieve clear margins and seven required mastectomy. Two patients had local recurrence during the follow-up period, five developed distant metastases. Aesthetic data were completed for 35/50 patients. Twelve (34%) had no measurable asymmetry and 31 (89%) had a nipple position within 2 cm of the original height. Only two patients requested symmetrising surgery.

Conclusions

Central round block reconstruction of large defects after WLE is a safe technique with good aesthetic outcomes. Contralateral symmetrising surgery is not usually required.

Staged approach to partial breast reconstruction to avoid mastectomy in women with breast cancer

BACKGROUND

The lateral chest wall perforator flaps (CWPF) offer an excellent option for partial breast reconstruction (PBR) in women undergoing breast conservation surgery (BCS) for laterally placed tumours in small to moderate non-ptotic breasts.

METHODS

A total of 20 patients underwent PBR with lateral CWPF over the last 4 years, as two-stage approach. This approach was undertaken for patients with high tumour to breast ratio (>30% predicted resection) in an attempt to avoid mastectomy. The reconstruction was carried out 2-4 weeks after wide local excision in order to ensure clear margins prior to undertaking PBR.

RESULTS

Twenty-three women were selected for attempt at BCS with 2-stage approach. Three patients had extensive disease so they were then counseled for mastectomy after the first surgery and 20 patients had successful BCS. Out of 20 patients, 13 were symptomatic and 7 were screen-detected with mean age of 49 years. The median tumour size on pre-op imaging was 43 mm (23-75 mm). A percentage of 50% women with unifocal cancers undergoing primary surgery had disease overestimated on pre-op imaging. The complication rate was low. Good to excellent aesthetic outcomes were reported in 90% cases. Patients reported high satisfaction scores.

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend considering two-stage approach in selected women with high tumour-breast ratio to ensure successful BCS prior to PBR. This approach facilitates BCS and avoids mastectomy in borderline cases, particularly lobular cancers, DCIS, bifocal cancers and post neoadjuvant chemotherapy where pre-operative disease estimation could be challenging. Our small series has shown that this approach results in safe oncological surgery with good aesthetic outcomes in the selected group of women.

Oncological safety and cosmetic outcomes in oncoplastic breast conservation surgery, a review of the best level of evidence literature

Oncoplastic breast conservation surgery (OBCS) is increasingly becoming part of routine breast cancer surgical management. OBCS may be viewed as an extension of standard breast conservation surgery for resecting tumors of larger sizes without compromising on cosmetic outcome, or as an alternative to mastectomy. High quality evidence to support the oncological safety and benefits of OBCS is lacking. This review will focus on the best available level of evidence and address key issues regarding oncological safety in OBCS, such as tumor resection margins and re-excision rates, local recurrence and patient outcome, postoperative complications and adjuvant therapy delivery, and briefly discuss cosmetic outcome in OBCS. Comparative observational studies and systematic review report no poorer outcomes compared with standard breast conservation surgery. More evidence needs to be generated to support the oncological safety and improved aesthetic outcome. Prospective data collection will significantly contribute to the generation of stronger evidence.

Oncoplastic round block technique has comparable operative parameters as standard wide local excision: a matched case-control study

BACKGROUND

Although oncoplastic breast surgery is used to resect larger tumors with lower re-excision rates compared to standard wide local excision (sWLE), criticisms of oncoplastic surgery include a longer-albeit, well concealed-scar, longer operating time and hospital stay, and increased risk of complications. Round block technique has been reported to be very suitable for patients with relatively smaller breasts and minimal ptosis. We aim to determine if round block technique will result in operative parameters comparable with sWLE.

METHODS

Breast cancer patients who underwent a round block procedure from 1st May 2014 to 31st January 2016 were included in the study. These patients were then matched for the type of axillary procedure, on a one to one basis, with breast cancer patients who had undergone sWLE from 1st August 2011 to 31st January 2016. The operative parameters between the 2 groups were compared.

RESULTS

22 patients were included in the study. Patient demographics and histologic parameters were similar in the 2 groups. No complications were reported in either group. The mean operating time was 122 and 114 minutes in the round block and sWLE groups, respectively (P=0.64). Length of stay was similar in the 2 groups (P=0.11). Round block patients had better cosmesis and lower re-excision rates. A higher rate of recurrence was observed in the sWLE group.

CONCLUSION

The round block technique has comparable operative parameters to sWLE with no evidence of increased complications. Lower re-excision rate and better cosmesis were observed in the round block patients suggesting that the round block technique is not only comparable in general, but may have advantages to sWLE in selected cases.

Coming of age of oncoplastic breast surgery

For every breast surgeon's toolbox

No Association of Positive Superficial and/or Deep Margins with Local Recurrence in Invasive Breast Cancer Treated with Breast-Conserving Surgery

PURPOSE

We evaluated the effect of positive superficial and/or deep margin status on local recurrence (LR) in invasive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving surgery (BCS) followed by radiotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In total, 3,403 stage 1 and 2 invasive breast cancer patients treated with BCS followed by radiotherapy from January 2000 to December 2008 were included in this study. These patients were divided into three groups according to margin status: clear resection margin status for all sections (group 1, n=3,195); positive margin status in superficial and/or deep sections (group 2, n=121); and positive peripheral parenchymal margin regardless of superficial and/or deep margin involvement (group 3, n=87). The LR-free survival between these three groups was compared and the prognostic role of margin status was analyzed.

RESULTS

Across all groups, age, tumor size, nodal status, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status did not significantly differ. High grade, positive extensive intraductal component, hormone receptor positivity, hormone therapy received, and chemotherapy not received were more prevalent in groups 2 and 3 than in group 1. Five-year LR rates in groups 1, 2, and 3 were 1.9%, 1.7%, and 7.7%, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that group 3 was a significant predictor for LR (hazard ratio [HR], 4.78; p < 0.001), but that positive superficial and/or deep margin was not (HR, 0.66; p=0.57).

CONCLUSION

Superficial and/or deep margin involvement following BCS is not an important predictor for LR.

Oncoplastic breast conservation surgery is oncologically safe when compared to wide local excision and mastectomy

BACKGROUND

Support for the oncological safety of oncoplastic breast conservation surgery (OBCS) is mostly based on evidence comparing recurrence rates after OBCS to wide local excision (WLE). However, OBCS is often indicated for larger cancers and oncological results should also be compared to patients treated with mastectomy. In this study we compared recurrence and survival following OBCS, mastectomy and WLE.

METHODS

Patients treated with OBCS between 2009 and 2012 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. For comparison, consecutive patients treated with WLE or mastectomy with or without immediate reconstruction (Ms ± IR) over the same time period were identified. Histological variables of patients were compared using Fisher Exact or Chi squared tests, and recurrence and survival were compared using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression survival analysis.

RESULTS

980 patients' data were analysed (OBCS: n = 104; WLE: n = 558; Ms ± IR: n = 318). Tumour size, grade, nodal status, ER, and PR expression of patients treated with OBCS were all significantly more adverse compared with patients treated with WLE (p < 0.001). These histological variables were similar in patients treated with Ms ± IR and OBCS. 5-year local recurrence rates were similar in all three groups (WLE: 3.4 per cent, OBCS: 2 per cent, Ms ± IR: 2.6 per cent; log rank = 0.973), while distant recurrence rates were higher after Ms ± IR and OBCS (Ms ± IR:13.1 per cent, OBCS:7.5 per cent, WLE:3.3 per cent; log rank: p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

OBCS is oncologically safe in patients even when histological results are similar to patients treated with Ms ± IR.

Aesthetic and functional outcome after breast conserving surgery - Comparison between conventional and oncoplastic resection

BACKGROUND

Recent studies implicate that oncoplastic breast cancer surgery provides better aesthetic outcome than conventional resection. Several factors have been associated with poor aesthetic outcome. This study aims to compare patient-reported aesthetic and functional outcome after conventional and oncoplastic resection and to evaluate prognostic factors for poor aesthetic outcome in a population-based setting.

METHODS

637 patients having breast conserving treatment (BCT) due to unilateral primary breast cancer at a single hospital district during 2010 were included. Aesthetic and functional outcome were evaluated using two questionnaires three years after surgery.

RESULTS

Questionnaires were returned by 379 (59%) patients; 293 (77%) of these had conventional and 86 (23%) oncoplastic resection. Patients in oncoplastic resection group had larger tumour diameter (p < 0.001), larger resection specimens (p < 0.001), and more often multifocal tumours (p = 0.032), node positive cancer (p = 0.029) and lower quadrant tumour localization (p = 0.007). Aesthetic outcome according to BCTOS questionnaire was good in 284 (75%) patients; 52 (61%) patients in the oncoplastic group and 230 patients (81%) in the conventional resection group, p < 0.001. Larger tumour diameter (p = 0.033), multifocality (p = 0.022), weight of resection specimen (<0.001) and oncoplastic surgery (p < 0.001) were predicting poor aesthetic outcome, when all patients were included. Tumour multifocality (p = 0.013) remained predictor of poor aesthetic outcome in conventional resection group but not in oncoplastic resection group.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient satisfaction to aesthetic outcome after BCT is high. Conventional resection provides good aesthetic outcome in appropriately selected patients. Oncoplastic resection enables BCT in patients with larger and multifocal tumours with favourable aesthetic outcome.

Oncoplastic breast surgery in the setting of breast-conserving therapy: A systematic review

Breast-conserving therapy (BCT), or breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiation therapy, has become a standard treatment alternative to mastectomy for women with early-stage breast cancer after many long-term studies have reported comparable rates of overall survival and local control. Oncoplastic breast surgery in the setting of BCT consists of various techniques that allow for an excision with a wider margin and a simultaneous enhancement of cosmetic sequelae, making it an ideal breast cancer surgery. Because of the parenchymal rearrangement that is routinely involved in oncoplastic techniques, however, the targeted tissue can be relocated, thus posing a challenge to localize the tumor bed for radiation planning. The goals of this systematic review are to address the challenges, outcomes, and cosmesis of oncoplastic breast surgery in the setting of BCT.

The role of oncoplastic breast conserving treatment for locally advanced breast tumors. A matching case-control study

Background

Breast conserving surgery (BCS) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NC) in patients with locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) is an infrequent procedure. In these patients the association with BCS and oncoplastic surgery (OS) is reported as a possible procedure in case-series, but there are limited case-control studies.

Methods

A matched case-control study evaluated LABC submitted to NC and BCS. We evaluated 78 patients submitted to doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide regimen followed by paclitaxel regimen. The match case-control proportion was 2:1 and the patients were selected by tumor size, clinical T stage and year of diagnosis.

Results

52 underwent classic BCS and 26 OS. The average size tumor was 5.25 cm and 88.5% of the tumors were larger than 3 cm. The clinical and pathological group characteristics were similar, except the weight of surgical specimens (p = 0.004), and surgical margins (p = 0.06), which were higher in OS group. The rate of complete pathologic response was 26.9%. 97.4% received postoperative radiotherapy. At 67.1 months of follow up, 10.2% had local recurrence (LR) and 12.8% locoregional recurrence (LRR) and 19.2% died because disease progression. The overall survival at 60 months was 81.7%. After surgery the disease free-survival at 60 months was 76.5%. The was no difference between groups related to pathologic response (p = 0.42), LR (p = 0.71), LRR (p = 1.00), overall survival (p = 0.99) and disease specific survival (p = 0.87).

Conclusion

This study corroborates the fact that OS is a safety procedure for LABC, offering the similar oncologic results observed in patients submitted to classic BCS.

•

A matched case-control study evaluates oncoplastic techniques for locally advanced breast cancer.

•

The size of tumors were bigger than other series.

•

The matched case-control study was selected base on tumor size and year of diagnosis to decrease possible bias selection.

•

The security of this procedure was evaluated based a long follow up.

•

Oncoplastic surgery has the same results than conventional breast conserving surgery for locally advanced breast tumors.

Operative and Oncologic Outcomes in 9861 Patients with Operable Breast Cancer: Single-Institution Analysis of Breast Conservation with Oncoplastic Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Oncoplastic reconstruction is an approach that enables patients with locally advanced or adversely located tumors to undergo breast conserving surgery (BCS). The objectives were to identify the use of BCS with oncoplastic reconstruction (BCS + R) and determine the operative and oncologic outcomes compared with other breast surgical procedures for breast cancer.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study interrogated a single institution's prospectively maintained databases to identify patients who underwent surgery for breast cancer between 2007 and 2014. Surgeries were categorized as BCS, BCS + R, total mastectomy (TM), or TM with immediate reconstruction (TM + R). Demographic and clinicopathologic characteristics and postoperative complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

There were 10,607 operations performed for 9861 patients. Median follow-up was 3.4 years (range, 0-9.1 years). The use of BCS + R had a nearly fourfold increase in the percentage of all breast cancer surgeries during the study period; 75 % of patients who underwent BCS + R had a T1 or T2 tumor. There was no difference in the use of BCS + R compared with BCS for any quadrant of the breast except the lower outer quadrant (11.1 vs. 6.8 %; p < .0001). BCS + R had a lower rate of seroma formation (13.4 vs. 18 %; p = .002) and positive or close margins compared with BCS (5.8 vs. 8.3 %; p = .04). There was no difference in overall survival or recurrence-free survival when comparing BCS and BCS + R.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing BCS + R are not disadvantaged in terms of complications and short-term (3-year) outcomes compared with BCS patients or patients who underwent TM.

Oncoplastic breast conserving surgery: Volume replacement vs. volume displacement

Oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (BCS) has emerged as a third option between conventional BCS and mastectomy. Oncoplastic BCS includes two fundamentally different approaches: volume replacement and volume displacement. The former involves partial mastectomy and immediate reconstruction of the breast with the transposition of autologous tissue from elsewhere, while the latter involves partial mastectomy and using the remaining breast tissue to fill the defect resulting from extirpation of the tumor. There are several benefits associated with oncoplastic BCS. First, it allows partial mastectomy without cosmetic penalties, and can achieve better cosmetic outcomes than total mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction. Second, it avoids the need for total mastectomy in an increasing number of patients without compromising local control. Third, partial breast reconstruction is less extensive and has fewer complications than conventional procedures. Partial mastectomy and partial breast reconstruction can be carried out either simultaneously as a one-stage procedure, or using a two-stage approach. Although patients prefer a one-stage procedure, it requires intraoperative confirmation of complete tumor excision using frozen-section analysis. Moreover, oncoplastic BCS requires combined skills, knowledge, and understanding of both oncological and plastic surgeries, which may be optimally achieved by an oncoplastic surgeon.

Safety and esthetic outcomes of therapeutic mammoplasty using medial pedicle for early breast cancer

Background

Although therapeutic mammoplasty (TM) was introduced for treatment of localized ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast carcinoma (stages I and II) in females with large breast size, the suitability of medial pedicle TM for treatment of breast tumors at different locations has not been established. The objective of this study was to assess the safety and esthetic outcome of medial pedicle TM for breast tumors at different locations.

Methods

The study was conducted from February 2012 to July 2014. Consecutive patients with early breast carcinoma with medium- and large-sized breasts, with or without ptosis, who were offered medial pedicle TM were included in the study. Patients who were not candidates for breast-conserving surgery or those with tumors located along the medial pedicle were excluded. All patients received immediate postoperative adjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

Results

Thirty patients with a mean age of 48.5 years received medial pedicle TM in the breast harboring the tumor or, additionally, the other breast (N=14). The tumors were in the upper (60.0%), lower (26.7%), and lateral (13.3%) quadrants. Minor complications occurred in five cases (5/30, 16.7%) in the ipsilateral and in two (2/14, 14.3%) contralateral breasts. No wound dehiscence or areolar necrosis was recorded. A total of 22 (73.3%) patients were scored as excellent cosmesis. After a median follow-up of 20 months, no locoregional recurrence or distant metastases were observed.

Conclusion

TM using a medial pedicle is a safe and appealing technique among women with tumors at different locations.

Oncoplastic breast surgery: current strategies

The surgical management of breast cancer has dramatically evolved over the past 20 years, with oncoplastic surgery gaining increased popularity. This field of breast surgery allows for complete resection of tumor, preservation of normal parenchyma tissue, and the use of local or regional tissue for immediate breast reconstruction at the time of partial mastectomy. These techniques extend the options for breast conservation surgery, improve aesthetic outcomes, have high patient satisfaction and result in better control of tumor margins. This article will detail the approach to evaluating and treating patients undergoing oncoplastic reconstruction. Different oncoplastic approaches will be described and applied to an oncoplastic reconstructive algorithm. Surgical complications, oncologic outcomes and aesthetic outcomes are reviewed.

How to compare the oncological safety of oncoplastic breast conservation surgery - To wide local excision or mastectomy?

BACKGROUND

Comparative studies suggest that patients treated with oncoplastic breast conservation surgery (OBCS) have similar pathology to patients treated with wide local excision (WLE). However, patients treated with OBCS have never been compared to patients treated with mastectomy. The aim of this study was to identify which control group was comparable to patients undergoing OBCS.

METHODS

Commonly reported histopathological variables of patients treated with OBCS, WLE or mastectomy ± immediate reconstruction (Ms ± IR) were compared using Fisher Exact or Chi squared tests.

RESULTS

1000 patients' data were analysed (OBCS: n = 119; WLE: n = 600; Ms ± IR: n = 281). Tumour size was significantly bigger after OBCS than WLE (p < 0.001), but similar to Ms ± IR (p = 0.138). Tumour grade was higher after OBCS than WLE (p < 0.001), but similar to Ms ± IR (p = 0.497). More axillary nodes were involved in patients with OBCS than WLE (p < 0.001), but comparable to Ms ± IR (p = 0.175). ER and PR expressions were lower after OBCS compared to WLE (p = 0.007, p = 0.009), but identical to Ms ± IR (p = 1, p = 0.904 respectively). Differences in application of systemic (neo)adjuvant therapy followed the above trend.

CONCLUSION

Striking similarities found between OBCS and mastectomy patients' histopathological results are in sharp contrast with previously published data. This study suggests that oncological outcomes following OBCS should be compared to mastectomy besides WLE.

Positive Margins After Oncoplastic Surgery for Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Oncoplastic techniques applied to breast-conserving surgery (BCS) allow large-volume resections without compromising cosmetic results. Level II oncoplastic techniques are based on mammoplasties. When required, they allow resection of more than 20 % of the breast volume; however, a subgroup of these patients will still have positive margins. The clinical management of positive margins after level II oncoplastic surgery (OPS) is a challenge.

METHODS

All patients who had undergone level II oncoplastic techniques at The Paris Breast Center between 2004 and 2013 were reviewed. The choice of the optimal mammoplasty technique was based on the tumor location and the 'quadrant per quadrant atlas'.

RESULTS

A total of 277 level II oncoplastic techniques were performed on 272 patients. The mean tumor size was 26 mm (range 2-160 mm), with a mean resected weight of 175 g (range 50-1540 g). The rate of positive margins was 11.9 %. Risk factors for positive margins identified in univariate analysis were histologic subgroup, tumor size, T stage and grade. In multivariate analysis, only patients with invasive lobular carcinoma had a significantly higher risk of positive margins. A second operation was required in 33 cases, and a third operation was required in three cases because of positive margins. Final breast conservation rate was 91 %.

CONCLUSIONS

Level II OPS results in a low positive margin rate despite large tumor size. Patients with involved margins can be offered a second BCS if the remaining volume allows this.

The oncoplastic reduction approach to breast conservation therapy: benefits for margin control

BACKGROUND

Reduction mammaplasty during lumpectomy allows more generous resection and minimizes potential for poor cosmesis as compared with breast conservation therapy alone.

OBJECTIVES

The authors assessed the benefits of oncoplastic reduction for margin status in patients with breast cancer by conducting a retrospective review of cases of tumor resection alone vs tumor resection with oncoplastic reduction.

METHODS

Patients with breast cancer who underwent lumpectomy performed by a single oncologic surgeon between 2009 and 2013 were included. Patients were stratified into 2 groups based on surgical procedure: tumor resection with oncoplastic reduction (group 1) vs tumor resection alone (group 2). Patient demographics including risk factors, diagnosis, cancer stage, and procedure type were recorded. Tumor size, specimen weight, width of narrowest margin, and receptor status were determined. Outcome variables included margin positivity (≤1 mm), need for re-excision, and conversion to completion mastectomy.

RESULTS

A total of 222 breasts from 207 patients were included in the study: 83 in group 1 and 139 in group 2. The patients in group 1 had a lower incidence of positive margins and wider free surgical margins, required re-excision less often, and went on to completion mastectomy less often. Patients in group 1 were younger and had cancer that was more advanced. When controlling for these variables on multivariate regression analysis, the oncoplastic technique was independently associated with fewer positive margins and fewer instances of re-excision.

CONCLUSIONS

The oncoplastic reduction technique achieves wider free margins and less often necessitates re-excision or subsequent mastectomy. The long-term oncologic effect of this approach deserves further study.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Advanced locoregional therapies in breast

BACKGROUND

Advanced locoregional therapies continue to advance the treatment of breast cancer. These techniques are geared towards optimizing oncologic and aesthetic outcome as well as decreasing and treating morbidity. We present a selection of specialized locoregional therapies dedicated to the optimization of breast cancer treatment.

METHODS

Locoregional therapies for breast cancer are presented to address breast conservation techniques, lipofilling techniques, reconstruction techniques for nipple-sparing mastectomy, re-irradiating the breast, axillary reverse mapping, and vascularized lymph node transfer.

RESULTS

We present a synopsis of identified breast locoregional therapies targeted to address optimal oncologic and aesthetic outcome as well as decrease and treat morbidity.

Oncoplastic surgery in breast conservation: a prospective evaluation of the patients, techniques, and oncologic outcomes

BACKGROUND

The oncologic efficacy of breast-conserving therapies has been established in recent decades. Oncoplastic breast surgery (OBS), as a leap forward in breast conservation, offers concomitant techniques of oncologic and plastic surgeries that grant better esthetic results. The outcomes of our oncoplastic surgeries from 2007 to 2012 are reported.

METHODS

A series of 258 cases with breast masses (18 benign and 240 carcinomas) were operated on by OBS techniques and prospectively followed. Neoadjuvant and adjuvant oncologic treatments were also delivered as indicated.

RESULTS

Free margins were obtained in 95% of cancer patients. During the 26 months of follow-up, local recurrence happened in 7 (2.9%) patients, of which 1 underwent oncologic therapies and 6 underwent completion mastectomy. Complications postponed adjuvant therapies in 3 (1.2%) patients. Postsurgically, metastases were diagnosed in 8 (3.3%) patients. Two patients (.8%) died of cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes of OBS are oncologically acceptable with low frequencies of positive margins and recurrence, while cosmetic results are much improved by OBS.

Factors affecting cosmesis after breast conserving surgery without oncoplastic techniques in an experienced comprehensive breast center

We aimed to study the factors affecting cosmetic outcome (CO) in breast conserving surgery (BCS) without oncoplastic techniques in our center with a BCS rate higher than 60% in more than 1000 breast cancer surgeries a year. In this study 284 patients who underwent BCS without oncoplastic techniques were included. Surgeries were performed by two experienced breast surgeons with more than 25 years of experience. These patients were followed in our established Wellness Clinic postoperatively. The CO is evaluated according to the "Harvard Breast Cosmesis Grading Scale" by a breast surgeon who did not participate in the patient's surgery. The correlation among patient factors (age, breast volume, menopausal status), tumor factors (size, location, distance to areola) and treatment factors (excision volume, breast skin excision, axillary surgery, adjuvant therapy) and CO were evaluated. The mean age was 57.6 [33-98] years in the successful CO group and 58.1 [34-85] years in the unsuccessful CO group (p > 0.05). The mean follow-up time was 37.9 [24-84] months. The CO was successful in 88.7% (n:252) of the patients. Tumor size, retroareolar location of the tumor, adjuvant chemotherapy administration and whole breast radiation therapy (WBRT) were correlated with a poorer CO (p < 0.05). We were able to attain a successful CO in approximately 90% of our patients. Adding oncoplastic techniques to the surgical management of larger tumors and retroareolar tumors, may increase the percentage of good CO. In selected patients choosing balloon brachytherapy instead of WBRT, may also have positive effects on CO.

Quality of information reporting in studies of standard and oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery

The aim of this systematic review was to establish the completeness of reporting of key patient, tumour, treatment, and outcomes information in the randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) of standard breast-conserving surgery (sBCS) considered to be the 'gold-standard', and to compare this with the reporting of the same key criteria for all published studies of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (oBCS). Pubmed (1966 to 1st April 2013), Ovid MEDLINE (1966 to 1st April 2013), EMBASE (1980 to 1st April 2013), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Issue 4, 2013) were searched separately for the following terms: (i) 'oncoplastic AND breast AND surgery'; and (ii) 'therapeutic AND mammaplasty'. Only English language and full text articles were reviewed. Following a pilot evaluation of all studies, key reporting criteria were identified. 16 RCTs of sBCS (n = 11,767 patients) were included, and 53 studies met the inclusion criteria for oncoplastic BCS (n = 3236 patients), none of which were RCTs. No study reported all of the criteria identified, with a mean of 64% of key criteria (range, 55-75%) reported in studies of sBCS, and 54% of criteria (range, 10-85%) reported in studies of oBCS. It is therefore evident that there is much room for improvement in the quality of reporting is BCS studies. Standards are proposed to give future studies of BCS a framework for reporting key information and outcomes.

The role of oncoplastic breast surgery in the management of breast cancer treated with primary chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the benefit of Oncoplastic Breast Conserving Surgery (BCS) compared to standard BCS after primary CT, in terms of oncologic safety and cosmetic outcomes.

BACKGROUND

The development of new drugs has led to greater use of primary chemotherapy (CT) for bulky breast cancer (BC) and has allowed wider indications for conservative surgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We identified 259 patients consecutively treated with BCS for primary BC from January 2002 to November 2010. All patients had undergone Oncoplastic Breast Surgery (OBS) or standard BCS after primary CT. Mastectomy rates, and oncological and cosmetic outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 45 OBS and 214 standard BCS were analyzed. The median tumor size was 40 mm in the two groups (p = 0.66). The median operative specimen volumes were larger in the OBS group than in the standard group (respectively, 180 cm3 and 98 cm3, p < 0.0001). Re-excision (9% vs. 2%) and mastectomy (24% vs. 18%) rates were similar (p = 0.22 and p = 0.30) in the standard BCS group and in the OBS group respectively. At a median follow-up of 46 months, local relapse (p = 0.23) and distant relapse (p = 0.35) rates were similar.

CONCLUSION

OBS allows excision of larger volumes of residual tumor after primary CT. OBS outcomes results were similar to those of standard BCS. Oncoplastic Breast Conserving Surgery (BCS) after primary chemotherapy allows wider breast resection than standard BCS. Survival and relapse probabilities are similar in both groups.

Use of boost radiotherapy in oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery - a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The use of local boost radiotherapy to the tumour bed has been demonstrated in randomised-controlled trials to reduce local recurrence rates following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and is the standard of care. Oncoplastic BCS techniques with parenchymal rearrangement present new challenges to the localisation of the tumour bed and therefore delivery of local boost radiotherapy. The aim of this review was to evaluate the reporting of boost radiotherapy in the oncoplastic BCS literature.

METHODS

Pubmed, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for studies reporting oncoplastic BCS using volume displacement techniques.

RESULTS

24 studies met the inclusion criteria (n = 1933 patients). Use of boost radiotherapy was reported in 11 studies, in 2 of which it was for the treatment of incomplete or close margins, and marking of the tumour bed was only reported in 8 studies. None of the studies reported the number of patients where the tumour bed could not be localised.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of local boost radiotherapy and tumour bed marking was not reported in the majority of studies of oncoplastic BCS. Future studies need to provide detailed information regarding the use of boost radiotherapy and difficulties determining the target volume so that current radiotherapy approaches can be reviewed and improved for these advanced techniques.

[Intraoperative, postoperative and long-term oncosurgical safety of therapeutic mammaplasty]

INTRODUCTION

(Pre)malignant lesion in the breast requiring mastectomy conventionally may be treated with breast conservation by using oncoplastic breast surgical techniques, which is called therapeutic mammaplasty. However, no reliable data has been published so far as regards the oncological safety of this method.

AIM

The aim of the authors was to analyse the oncological safety of therapeutic mammaplasty in a series of patients.

METHOD

99 patients were treated with therapeutic mammaplasty and data were collected in a breast surgical database prospectively. Results were analysed with respect to intraoperative, postoperative and long-term oncological safety.

RESULTS

Incomplete resection rate was 14.1%, which correlated with tumour size (p = 0.023), and multifocality (p = 0.012). Time between surgery (therapeutic mammaplasty) and chemotherapy was similar to time between conventional breast surgeries (wide excision, mastectomy, mastectomy with immediate reconstruction) and chemotherapy (mean 29-31 days; p<0.05). Overall recurrence rate was 6.1%, locoregional recurrence rate was 2% during 27 month (1-88) mean follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Since literature data are based on relatively short follow-up and low patient number, it is highly important that all data on therapeutic mammaplasty is collected in a prospectively maintained breast surgical database in order to determine true recurrence after long-follow-up.

Comparison of outcomes of standard and oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to determine and to compare the oncological outcomes of bilateral reduction mammoplasty to standard breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer.

METHODS

One hundred sixty-two patients who received a quadrantectomy because of breast cancer (group 1) and 106 breast cancer patients with macromastia who underwent breast-conserving surgery via bilateral reduction mammoplasty (group 2) between 2003 and 2010 were enrolled in this study.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up time was 37 months for group 1 and 33 months for group 2. Surgical margins were wider than 2 mm in 82.7% and 10 mm in 76.5% of the patients in group 1. Eleven percent of patients had positive surgical margins in this group. When compared to group 2, the rates were 89%, 84%, and 8.4%, respectively. Three patients (1.8%) in group 1 and one patient (0.9%) in group 2 had local recurrence of the disease and received a mastectomy. No statistical significances were noted for either local recurrence or overall survival between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Bilateral reduction mammoplasty has some advantages as compared to the standard conventional breast-conserving surgery techniques without having any unfavorable effects on surgical margin confidence, local recurrence, and survival rates.

Oncoplastic breast conservation does not lead to a delay in the commencement of adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients

INTRODUCTION

There is hardly any evidence that oncoplastic breast conservation surgery (OBCS) does not lead to a delay in the commencement of adjuvant chemotherapy. Although this is an integral part of overall oncological safety, no controlled studies have been published so far. Therefore, our aim was to determine whether OBCS led to a delay when compared to simple wide local excision (WLE), mastectomy (Ms) or mastectomy with immediate reconstruction (MsIR).

METHODS

Breast cancer patients who required adjuvant chemotherapy after OBCS, WLE, Ms and MsIR were identified from prospectively maintained institutional databases. Time between multidisciplinary team decision to offer chemotherapy and delivery of first cycle of chemotherapy was measured and compared among the four groups of patients.

RESULTS

time to chemotherapy of breast cancer patients (n = 169) treated with OBCS (n = 31) were 29 [16-58] days, while it was 29.5 [15-105] days after WLE (n = 66), 29 [15-57] days after Ms (n = 56) and 31 [15-58] days after MsIR (n = 16). A combined analysis involving all four groups demonstrated no statistically significant difference (p = 0.524). Similarly, inter-group analysis revealed no significant differences in between patients treated with OBCS compared to any of the three control groups (OBCS to WLE: p = 0.433; OBCS to Ms: p = 0.800; OBCS to MsIR: p = 0.405).

CONCLUSION

OBCS seems as safe as WLE, Ms or MsIR in terms of delivery of adjuvant chemotherapy, and, therefore, should not adversely affect breast cancer outcome in this respect.

Quantifying potential error in painting breast excision specimens

Aim. When excision margins are close or involved following breast conserving surgery, many surgeons will attempt to reexcise the corresponding cavity margin. Margins are ascribed to breast specimens such that six faces are identifiable to the pathologist, a process that may be prone to error at several stages. Methods. An experimental model was designed according to stated criteria in order to answer the research question. Computer software was used to measure the surface areas of experimental surfaces to compare human-painted surfaces with experimental controls. Results. The variability of the hand-painted surfaces was considerable. Thirty percent of hand-painted surfaces were 20% larger or smaller than controls. The mean area of the last surface painted was significantly larger than controls (mean 58996 pixels versus 50096 pixels, CI 1477–16324, P = 0.014). By chance, each of the six volunteers chose to paint the deep surface last. Conclusion. This study is the first to attempt to quantify the extent of human error in marking imaginary boundaries on a breast excision model and suggests that humans do not make these judgements well, raising questions about the safety of targeting single margins at reexcision.

Therapeutic mammaplasty--extending indications and achieving low incomplete excision rates

AIMS

The aim of this study was to report the outcomes of the first 50 consecutive therapeutic mammaplasty procedures at the Edinburgh Breast Unit.

METHODS

A retrospective case-notes analysis was performed. In addition a validated patient satisfaction and outcomes questionnaire was sent to all patients.

RESULTS

Fifty therapeutic mammaplasty procedures were performed in 48 patients, with contralateral synchronous breast reduction performed in 42 of these patients. The median age was 58 years (range, 34-81). The median total tumour size was 28 mm (range, 7-83 mm) and 11 patients had multifocal tumours. The median wide local excision weight was 119 g (range, 15-815) and the median total excision weight was 354 g (range, 20-1725). Neoadjuvant letrozole was used in 16 patients and neoadjuvant chemotherapy was given in six. Incomplete excision (DCIS) occurred in only one patient who underwent reexcision. Complications occurred in 19 breasts overall, delaying adjuvant chemotherapy in one patient. Median reported patient satisfaction with appearance was 9.5 out of ten, with 33 of 35 respondents reporting that they definitely or probably would choose the same operation again.

CONCLUSIONS

Therapeutic mammaplasty can be performed with a low rate of incomplete excision and complications, and high patient satisfaction, even with large tumours and multifocal disease. In this study the use of neoadjuvant letrozole in selected oestrogen receptor positive tumours, intraoperative radiographic imaging of specimens, and targeting further excision to around the tumour bed, was associated with a very low rate of incomplete excision.

Optimizing surgical margins in breast conservation

Adequate surgical margins in breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer have traditionally been viewed as a predictor of local recurrence rates. There is still no consensus on what constitutes an adequate surgical margin, however it is clear that there is a trade-off between widely clear margins and acceptable cosmesis. Preoperative approaches to plan extent of resection with appropriate margins (in the setting of surgery first as well as after neoadjuvant chemotherapy,) include mammography, US, and MRI. Improvements have been made in preoperative lesion localization strategies for surgery, as well as intraoperative specimen assessment, in order to ensure complete removal of imaging findings and facilitate margin clearance. Intraoperative strategies to accurately assess tumor and cavity margins include cavity shave techniques, as well as novel technologies for margin probes. Ablative techniques, including radiofrequency ablation as well as intraoperative radiation, may be used to extend tumor-free margins without resecting additional tissue. Oncoplastic techniques allow for wider resections while maintaining cosmesis and have acceptable local recurrence rates, however often involve surgery on the contralateral breast. As systemic therapy for breast cancer continues to improve, it is unclear what the importance of surgical margins on local control rates will be in the future.

Oncoplastic breast reduction: maximizing aesthetics and surgical margins

Oncoplastic breast reduction combines oncologically sound concepts of cancer removal with aesthetically maximized approaches for breast reduction. Numerous incision patterns and types of pedicles can be used for purposes of oncoplastic reduction, each tailored for size and location of tumor. A team approach between reconstructive and breast surgeons produces positive long-term oncologic results as well as satisfactory cosmetic and functional outcomes, rendering oncoplastic breast reduction a favorable treatment option for certain patients with breast cancer.