1
|
Orsaria P, Grasso A, Caggiati L, Ippolito E, Pantano F, Piccolo C, Altomare V. Life after oncoplastic surgery (IRONY) trial: Preliminary results. Surg Oncol 2025; 59:102205. [PMID: 40088639 DOI: 10.1016/j.suronc.2025.102205] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/25/2024] [Revised: 01/29/2025] [Accepted: 03/04/2025] [Indexed: 03/17/2025]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Today partial reconstruction in breast cancer (BC) surgery involves displacement or replacement procedures to improve cosmesis without compromising safety. However, patient satisfaction should be compared among several options, in order to get additional criteria for a personalized approach. The aim is evaluate oncological, aesthetic and functional results after monolateral (reshaping or replacement) or bilateral (mammoplasty with contralateral pexy or reduction) conserving strategies. MATERIALS AND METHODS The protocol provides for the enrollment of a prospective sample of 250 patients in a time frame of 3 years. The first 108 cases (range 18-85 years) with BC diagnosis, and suitable for type 1-2 oncoplastic surgery who gave informed consent, were selected Data analysis was focused on radicality, complications, cosmetic and functional results related to quality of life, comparing monolateral (ML) and bilateral (BL) groups. RESULTS Tumor size (p = 0.01), multifocality (p = 0.05), multicentricity (p = 0.01) and estimated resection volume (p = 0.000) were higher in the BL group. There was a comparable re-excision rate for positive margins (p = 0.72), and after 2.3 years, no difference in local recurrences were recorded. No early (p > 0.05), but late complications were more common in the BL (p = 0.07). The overall satisfaction with cosmesis and well-being were characterized by similar proportions of good results (p>0.05), with some details more related to each procedure. CONCLUSION The proposed techniques represent effective solutions for reshaping that follows BC excision, achieving comparable early complications, low re-interventions with good aesthetic results and social functioning. However, is crucial a careful patient selection and surgical plan while predicting any sequel or delayed complication during follow-up.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paolo Orsaria
- Department of Breast Surgery, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Via Alvaro Del Portillo, 200, 00128, Roma, Italy.
| | - Antonella Grasso
- Department of Breast Surgery, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Via Alvaro Del Portillo, 200, 00128, Roma, Italy
| | - Lorenza Caggiati
- Department of Breast Surgery, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Via Alvaro Del Portillo, 200, 00128, Roma, Italy
| | - Edy Ippolito
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Via Alvaro Del Portillo, 200, 00128, Roma, Italy
| | - Francesco Pantano
- Department of Medical Oncology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Via Alvaro Del Portillo, 200, 00128, Roma, Italy
| | - Claudia Piccolo
- Department of Radiology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Via Alvaro Del Portillo, 200, 00128, Roma, Italy
| | - Vittorio Altomare
- Department of Breast Surgery, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Via Alvaro Del Portillo, 200, 00128, Roma, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Bargon CA, Mink van der Molen DR, Young-Afat DA, Batenburg MCT, van Dam IE, Baas IO, Ernst MF, Maarse W, Sier MF, Schoenmaeckers EJP, Burgmans JPJ, Bijlsma RM, Siesling S, Rakhorst HA, Mureau MAM, van der Leij F, Doeksen A, Verkooijen HM. Clinical and patient-reported outcomes after oncoplastic vs conventional breast-conserving surgery-a longitudinal, multicenter cohort study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2025; 117:781-789. [PMID: 39626303 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djae310] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/09/2024] [Revised: 10/23/2024] [Accepted: 11/22/2024] [Indexed: 04/08/2025] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OP-BCS) is becoming increasingly popular to avoid mastectomy or optimize cosmetic outcomes of breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Few studies have compared clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of OP-BCS to conventional BCS (C-BCS). This study aims to compare clinical outcomes and short- and long-term PROs after OP-BCS and C-BCS in a large prospective breast cancer cohort. METHODS Women in the prospective, multicenter UMBRELLA (Utrecht cohort for Multiple BREast cancer intervention studies and Long-term evaLuAtion) breast cancer cohort who underwent OP-BCS or C-BCS were included. Clinical outcomes and PROs (measured by EORTC QLQ-C30/BR23) up to 24 months postoperatively were evaluated. Mixed-model analysis was performed to assess differences in PROs over time between groups. RESULTS A total of 1628 (84.9%) patients received C-BCS and 290 (15.1%) received OP-BCS. After C-BCS and OP-BCS, free resection margins were obtained in 84.2% (n = 1370) and 86.2% (n = 250), respectively, reoperation for re-excision of margins within 3 months occurred in 5.3% (n = 86) and 4.8% (n = 14), and the median time interval from surgery until adjuvant systemic therapy was 66 and 63 days, and 36 and 41 days until radiotherapy. Shortly postoperative, OP-BCS was associated with statistically significant lower mean scores for physical functioning (83.6 vs 87.2) and body image (82.8 vs 89.4) and more pain (19.8 vs 26.5) and breast symptoms (22.7 vs 30.3) than C-BCS. Body image scores remained statistically significantly less favorable after OP-BSC than C-BCS up to 24 months postoperatively (87.8 vs 92.2). CONCLUSIONS Oncoplastic surgery safely enables BCS but may lead to less favorable long-term body image compared to C-BCS. These findings are important for patient education and shared decision-making.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Claudia A Bargon
- Division of Imaging and Oncology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Cancer Centre, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, St Antonius Hospital, 3543 AZ Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Dieuwke R Mink van der Molen
- Division of Imaging and Oncology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Cancer Centre, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Danny A Young-Afat
- Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Marilot C T Batenburg
- Division of Imaging and Oncology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Cancer Centre, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Iris E van Dam
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Cancer Centre, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Inge O Baas
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Cancer Centre, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Miranda F Ernst
- Department of Surgery, Alexander Monro Clinics, 3723 MB Bilthoven, The Netherlands
| | - Wiesje Maarse
- Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, University Medical Centre Utrecht, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Maartje F Sier
- Department of Surgery, St Antonius Hospital, 3543 AZ Utrecht, The Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, Rivierenland Hospital, 4002 WP Tiel, The Netherlands
| | | | | | - Rhodé M Bijlsma
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Cancer Centre, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Sabine Siesling
- Department of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), 3511 CV Utrecht, The Netherlands
- Department of Health Technology and Services Research, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, 7522 NB Enschede, The Netherlands
| | - Hinne A Rakhorst
- Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Medisch Spectrum Twente/Ziekenhuisgroep Twente, 7512 KZ Enschede, The Netherlands
| | - Marc A M Mureau
- Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, 3015 CN Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Femke van der Leij
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Cancer Centre, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Annemiek Doeksen
- Department of Surgery, St Antonius Hospital, 3543 AZ Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Helena M Verkooijen
- Division of Imaging and Oncology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Cancer Centre, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands
- Division of Imaging, Utrecht University, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Heidinger M, Loesch JM, Levy J, Maggi N, Eller RS, Schwab FD, Kurzeder C, Weber WP. Association of relative resection volume with patient-reported outcomes applying different levels of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery - A retrospective cohort study. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY 2024; 50:108478. [PMID: 38885597 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2024.108478] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/14/2024] [Revised: 05/12/2024] [Accepted: 06/10/2024] [Indexed: 06/20/2024]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) recently classified oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (OBCS) into two levels. The association of resection ratio during OBCS with patient-reported outcomes (PRO) is unclear. MATERIALS AND METHODS Patients with stage 0-III breast cancer undergoing OBCS between 01/2011-04/2023 at a Swiss university hospital, who completed at least one postoperative BREAST-Q PRO questionnaire were identified from a prospectively maintained institutional database. Outcomes included differences in PROs between patients after ASBrS level I (<20 % of breast tissue removed) versus level II surgery (20-50 %). RESULTS Of 202 eligible patients, 129 (63.9 %) underwent level I OBCS, and 73 (36.1 %) level II. Six patients (3.0 %) who underwent completion mastectomy were excluded. The median time to final PROs was 25.4 months. Patients undergoing ASBrS level II surgery were more frequently affected by delayed wound healing (p < 0.001). ASBrS level was not found to independently predict any BreastQ domain. However, delayed wound healing was shown to reduce short-term physical well-being (estimated difference -26.27, 95 % confidence interval [CI] -39.33 to -13.22, p < 0.001). Higher age was associated with improved PROs. CONCLUSION ASBrS level II surgery allows the removal of larger tumors without impairing PROs. Preventive measures for delayed wound healing and close postoperative follow-up to promptly treat wound healing disorders may avoid short-term reductions in physical well-being.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Martin Heidinger
- Breast Center, University Hospital Basel, Spitalstrasse 21, 4031, Basel, Switzerland; University of Basel, Petersplatz 1, 4001, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Julie M Loesch
- Breast Center, University Hospital Basel, Spitalstrasse 21, 4031, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Jeremy Levy
- Breast Center, University Hospital Basel, Spitalstrasse 21, 4031, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Nadia Maggi
- Breast Center, University Hospital Basel, Spitalstrasse 21, 4031, Basel, Switzerland; University of Basel, Petersplatz 1, 4001, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Ruth S Eller
- Breast Center, University Hospital Basel, Spitalstrasse 21, 4031, Basel, Switzerland; University of Basel, Petersplatz 1, 4001, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Fabienne D Schwab
- Breast Center, University Hospital Basel, Spitalstrasse 21, 4031, Basel, Switzerland; University of Basel, Petersplatz 1, 4001, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Christian Kurzeder
- Breast Center, University Hospital Basel, Spitalstrasse 21, 4031, Basel, Switzerland; University of Basel, Petersplatz 1, 4001, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Walter P Weber
- Breast Center, University Hospital Basel, Spitalstrasse 21, 4031, Basel, Switzerland; University of Basel, Petersplatz 1, 4001, Basel, Switzerland.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Neheman A, Schwarztuch Gildor O, Shumaker A, Beberashvili I, Bar-Yosef Y, Arnon S, Zisman A, Stav K. Use of Validated Questionnaires to Predict Cosmetic Outcomes of Hypospadias Repair. CHILDREN (BASEL, SWITZERLAND) 2024; 11:189. [PMID: 38397301 PMCID: PMC10887056 DOI: 10.3390/children11020189] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/09/2024] [Revised: 01/30/2024] [Accepted: 01/31/2024] [Indexed: 02/25/2024]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Hypospadias is a syndrome of penile maldevelopment. The primary goal of hypospadias surgery is to create a penis with normal appearance and function. Historically, the outcome of hypospadias repair has been assessed based on the need for reoperation due to urethroplasty complications (UC), including fistula formation, dehiscence, meatal stenosis, or development of a urethral stricture. The Glans-Urethral Meatus-Shaft (GMS) score is a standardized tool to predict UC. Analysis of the cosmetic outcomes of hypospadias repair based on the appearance of the reconstructed penis has been validated, and standardized scores have been published. The Hypospadias Objective Penile Evaluation (HOPE) score is a validated questionnaire used to assess postoperative cosmetic outcomes. Although predictors of surgical outcomes and UC have been well documented, predictors of optimal cosmetic outcomes are lacking in the literature. Furthermore, reoperation due to cosmetic considerations has been poorly reported. OBJECTIVE To identify predictors of cosmetic outcomes after hypospadias repair and to assess the reoperation rate according to cosmetic considerations. MATERIALS AND METHODS This prospective cohort study included 126 boys who underwent primary hypospadias repair. The severity of hypospadias, degree of penile curvature, glans width, preoperative HOPE, and GMS scores were documented. The standard technique for single-stage repairs, the tubularized incised plate urethroplasty, was performed. The primary endpoint was cosmetic outcomes evaluated by the HOPE score questionnaire six months postoperatively. Optimal cosmetic results were defined by HOPE scores ≥ 57. RESULTS The study population consisted of the following cases: 87 (69%) subcoronal, 32 (25%) shaft, and 7 (6%) proximal hypospadias. Among the study participants, 102 boys (81%) had optimal cosmetic results (HOPE ≥ 57), and 24 boys (19%) had surgeries with suboptimal cosmetic outcomes (HOPE < 57). Ancillary procedures were performed in 21 boys (16%), of which 14 (11%) were solely for cosmetic considerations, and 7 were secondary to UC. Using the Receiver Operating Characteristic analysis of potential predictors of optimal cosmetic outcomes, the preoperative HOPE score had the highest area under the curve (AUC = 0.79; 95% CI 0.69-0.89, p < 0.001). After multivariable analysis, the degree of penile chordee (p = 0.013), glans width (p = 0.003), GMS score (p = 0.007), and preoperative HOPE score (p = 0.002) were significant predictors of cosmetic outcomes. Although meatal location predicted suboptimal cosmetic results in univariate analysis, it was not a factor in multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS Over 80% of boys undergoing hypospadias repair achieved optimal cosmetic outcomes. More than 10% of cases underwent ancillary procedures, secondary solely to cosmetic considerations. Predictors of optimal cosmetic outcomes after hypospadias surgery included degree of chordee, glans width, and preoperative HOPE and GMS scores, which were the best predictors of satisfactory cosmetic results. Although meatal location is the main predictor of UC, it was not a predictor for cosmetic outcomes. Factors affecting cosmetic outcomes should be clearly explained to parents during the preoperative consultation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amos Neheman
- Meir Medical Center, Department of Urology, Kfar Saba 44281, Israel; (A.N.)
- Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel; (A.S.); (I.B.); (Y.B.-Y.); (A.Z.); (K.S.)
| | - Omri Schwarztuch Gildor
- Meir Medical Center, Department of Urology, Kfar Saba 44281, Israel; (A.N.)
- Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel; (A.S.); (I.B.); (Y.B.-Y.); (A.Z.); (K.S.)
| | - Andrew Shumaker
- Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel; (A.S.); (I.B.); (Y.B.-Y.); (A.Z.); (K.S.)
- Shamir Medical Center, Department of Urology, Zerifin 703001, Israel
| | - Ilia Beberashvili
- Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel; (A.S.); (I.B.); (Y.B.-Y.); (A.Z.); (K.S.)
- Shamir Medical Center, Department of Nephrology, Zerifin 703001, Israel
| | - Yuval Bar-Yosef
- Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel; (A.S.); (I.B.); (Y.B.-Y.); (A.Z.); (K.S.)
- Department of Pediatric Urology, Dana-Dwek Children’s Hospital, Tel Aviv Medical Center, Tel Aviv 6423906, Israel
| | - Shmuel Arnon
- Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel; (A.S.); (I.B.); (Y.B.-Y.); (A.Z.); (K.S.)
- Meir Medical Center, Department of Neonatology, Kfar Saba 4428164, Israel
| | - Amnon Zisman
- Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel; (A.S.); (I.B.); (Y.B.-Y.); (A.Z.); (K.S.)
- Shamir Medical Center, Department of Urology, Zerifin 703001, Israel
| | - Kobi Stav
- Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel; (A.S.); (I.B.); (Y.B.-Y.); (A.Z.); (K.S.)
- Shamir Medical Center, Department of Urology, Zerifin 703001, Israel
| |
Collapse
|