Short term safety of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery for larger tumors

Upfront Definitive Oncoplastic Breast Conservation Surgery in Biopsy Missed Cancers: Our Experience

False negative rates of image-guided core needle biopsy of breast lesions, range from 0.1 to 2.5%, with most cases coming to light because of radio-pathological discordance. We are forced to consider upfront surgery for such lesions with unknown biology, which precludes us from utilizing preoperative systemic therapies and shared decision-making, to our advantage. We present a series of core biopsy missed breast neoplasms with radio-pathological discordance successfully managed with definitive upfront oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OBCS) without diagnostic delay, re-excisions, or compromising on oncological and cosmetic outcomes. This study retrospectively analyzed data from eight female patients assessed for breast-related concerns at our malignant disease treatment center between April 2021 and December 2023. These patients exhibited radio-pathological discordance during the triple assessment of BIRADS-4 breast lesions with two successive image-guided core needle biopsies (CNB) reported negative for DCIS/ invasive cancer. As patients had lump size < 5 cm and clinico-radiologically negative axilla (cN0), the pre-operative systemic staging was not warranted. These cases were discussed in a multi-disciplinary tumor board. Post-MDT consensus, they underwent upfront definitive oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery with intra-operative frozen section analysis (FSA) to confirm the diagnosis and assess margins as well as the need for surgical axillary staging. Subsequent management followed a final histopathological examination, receptor subtype, and guideline-based staging. The mean age of the patients was 54.25 years, all presenting with palpable breast lumps. Primary tumors were mostly located in the upper outer and upper inner quadrants (3 cases each, 37.5%). Intraoperative frozen section analysis revealed invasive breast carcinoma in 5 cases (62.5%), papillary lesions with atypia in 2 (25%), and ductal carcinoma in situ in 1 (12.5%). Subsequent excision showed 4 (50%) invasive ductal carcinomas, 1 (12.5%) invasive lobular carcinoma, and 3 (37.5%) ductal carcinomas in situ. Level I oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OBCS) was performed in 5 cases, while level II OBCS was done in 3 cases. Sentinel lymph node biopsy was performed in 5 cases with invasive carcinoma on frozen section. Median follow-up was 10.5 months (range: 3-24 months). Definitive upfront OBCS can be used as a one-stop surgical solution in select patients with missed cancers on biopsy. It can avoid diagnostic delays and reduce re-excision rates without having to compromise on oncological and cosmetic outcomes.

Efficacy and safety of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery versus conventional breast-conserving surgery: An updated meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women. The surgical treatment of breast cancer has transitioned progressively from radical mastectomy to breast-conserving surgery. In this meta-analysis, we are aiming to compare oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OS) with conventional breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in terms of efficacy and safety.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane databases, Clinicaltrial.gov, and CNKI until April 30, 2024. Data from cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Outcomes included primary outcomes (re-excision, local recurrence, positive surgical margin, mastectomy), secondary outcomes and safety outcomes. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to evaluate the quality of outcomes.

RESULTS

Our study included 52 studies containing 46,835 patients. Primary outcomes comprise re-excision, local recurrence, positive surgical margin, and mastectomy, there were significant differences favoring OS over BCS (RR 0.68 [0.56, 0.82], RR 0.62 [0.47, 0.82], RR 0.76 [0.59, 0.98], RR 0.66 [0.44, 0.98] respectively), indicating superior efficacy of OS. Additionally, OS demonstrated significant aesthetic benefits (RR 1.17 [1.03, 1.33] and RR 1.34 [1.18, 1.52]). While total complications were significantly fewer in the OS group (RR 0.70 [0.53, 0.94]), the differences in specific complications were not significant. Furthermore, subgroup analyses were conducted based on nationality, sample size, quality, and type.

CONCLUSION

OS demonstrates either superior or at least comparable outcomes across various aspects when compared to BCS.

Comparative analysis of the degree of patient satisfaction after breast-conserving surgery with or without oncoplastic surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Conservative surgery is the gold standard for the treatment of single and small tumors and, combined with the concept of oncoplastic tumors, brings good aesthetic results while maintaining cancer safety. The objective was to comparatively analyze the degree of satisfaction of patients undergoing breast conserving surgery (BCS), with and without oncoplastic surgery (OPS) using level II OPS techniques.

Methods

Review with a search in the databases MEDLINE (by PubMed), EMBASE, Clinical Trials, Scopus, Web of Science, BVS and Oppen gray. The meta-analysis of random effects was performed using the Der Simonian-Laird method considering the odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI).

Results

There was no statistically significant difference in the aesthetic outcome between women who underwent OPS and BCS (OR 0.90; 95% CI 0.62-1.30). The staging (OR 1.93; 95% CI 0.97-3.84; I 2 = 15.83%); tumor location [central (OR 1.28; 95% CI 0.06-27.49; I 2 = 17.63%); lower (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.21-2.65; I 2 = 2.21%); superior (OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.26-1.74; I 2 = 0.00%] and tumor size (OR 8.73; 95% CI -11.82-29.28; I 2 = 93.18%) showed no association with the type of BCS performed, with or without OPS. The degree of satisfaction remains even in cases of extreme oncoplasty.

Conclusion

The level of patient satisfaction in relation to BCS was similar to that of the group undergoing OPS, highlighting that OPS allows the patient's satisfaction rate to be maintained even in the case of large or multicentric tumors.

Complications after Oncoplastic Breast Reduction and Impact on Time to Adjuvant Therapy

Background

Although lumpectomy with oncoplastic breast reduction (OBR) improves cosmetic results and ameliorates symptomatic macromastia, associated complications may delay adjuvant therapy.

Methods

This was a single-institution, retrospective study of OBRs (2015-2021). A major complication was defined as need for IV antibiotics, and/or operation under general anesthesia. Association of complications with delay to adjuvant therapy (chemotherapy, radiation) was assessed.

Results

In total, 282 patients were included. The major complication rate was 3.9%, and overall complication rate was 31.2%. The most common complication was incisional dehiscence (23.4%). Body mass index [BMI >35 (P < 0.0001)], diabetes (P = 0.02), and HgbA1c [>6.5 (P = 0.0002)] were significantly associated with having a major complication. The occurrence of any complication was associated with a delay in time to radiation (median 7 versus 8 weeks, P < 0.001). The occurrence of a major complication was associated with a more meaningful delay to radiation (median 7 versus 15 weeks, P = 0.002). Occurrence of any complication, or a major complication, was not associated with delay to chemotherapy.

Conclusions

The overall complication rate observed after OBR falls within the range reported in the literature. Patients with a BMI more than 35, diabetes, and/or HgbA1c more than 6.5 were at increased risk for a major complication, which was associated with a meaningful delay to radiation. Consideration may be given to partial mastectomy alone without oncoplastic reduction in patients with small tumors when the priority to avoid radiation delay is high (eg, high-risk tumors), or the risk of delay is high (eg, diabetic or BMI >35).

Impact of Oncoplastic Surgery on Oncologic Outcomes in Patients with Breast Cancer

Background

For patients with breast cancer, oncoplastic surgery (OPS) serves as a valuable technique that allows for immediate reconstruction at the time of resection. While the aim of OPS is to improve breast cosmesis, it is critical to ensure OPS does not negatively impact appropriate cancer treatment.

Methods

Based on current literature, this study provides a broad overview on the potential oncologic advantages of OPS for patients diagnosed with breast cancer.

Results

OPS has been shown to be a safe and reliable approach with oncologic advantages. More specifically, OPS broadens the indications for breast conservation therapy (BCT); allows for a more generous margin of resection, thus decreasing rates of re-excision; and provides the opportunity to sample additional breast tissue, which may detect occult disease. Reduction mammaplasty may also decrease the risk for developing breast cancer. Importantly, in the era of multimodality therapy, long-term oncologic outcomes and postoperative surveillance algorithms appear to be similar when comparing patients who undergo OPS and BCT.

Conclusions

For patients with breast cancer, oncoplastic surgery has emerged as a valuable technique to improve breast cosmesis while achieving optimal oncologic outcomes. As the landscape of breast oncology continues to evolve, it is critical for a multidisciplinary team to be involved to guide management and reconstructive strategies.

Does rapid discharge after breast cancer surgery have an impact on wound healing and complications? COVID-19 pandemic experience

The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged the health systems worldwide. Because of high volume of COVID-19 patients, all hospitals in our region were re-configured as COVID-19 centres and elective surgery procedures were cancelled. Our clinic was the only active centre in the region and grave increase in our patient volume urged our clinic to modify our discharge protocol. This retrospective study included all breast cancer patients underwent mastectomy and/or axillary dissection, in the Breast Surgery Clinic of Kocaeli State Hospital, a regional pandemic hospital, between December 2020 and January 2021. Patients were mostly discharged the day of surgery with drains because of congestion, while some of the patients had traditional stay, when beds were available. The patients were evaluated postoperatively (the first 30 days) in terms of wound complications, Clavien-Dindo classification grade, satisfaction, presence of pain and nausea, and treatment costs during the follow-up period of the study. Outcomes were compared between early discharged patients and patients who had traditional long stay. Compared with long-stay patients, in the early discharged group, postoperative wound complications was significantly lower (P < .01) with significant cost savings. There were no significant changes in variables such as surgery type, ASA class, satisfaction, need for additional medication and Clavien-Dindo between the groups. Adaptation to an early discharge protocol for breast cancer surgeries may be an efficient way of practicing surgery in a pandemic. Early discharge with drains may be beneficial for patients.

The American Society of Breast Surgeons classification system for oncoplastic breast conserving surgery independently predicts the risk of delayed wound healing

INTRODUCTION

Oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (OBCS) aims to provide safe and satisfying surgery for breast cancer patients. The American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) classification system is based on volumetric displacement cut-offs (level I for <20% of breast volume; level II for 20-50%). It aims to facilitate communication among treating physicians and patients. Here, we investigate whether the extent of OBCS as classified by ASBrS independently predicts postoperative complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database included patients with stage I-III breast cancer who underwent OBCS between 03/2011 and 12/2020 at a Swiss university hospital. Outcomes included short-term (≤30 days) complications and chronic (>30 days) pain after surgery. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to identify independent predictors.

RESULTS

In total, 439 patients were included, 314 (71.5%) received ASBrS level I surgery, and 125 (28.5%) underwent ASBrS level II surgery. ASBrS level II was found to be an independent predictor of delayed wound healing (odds ratio [OR] 9.75, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 2.96-32.10). However, ASBrS level did not predict chronic postoperative pain (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.20, 95%CI 0.85-1.70), as opposed to age (IRR 1.19, 95%CI 1.11-1.27 per 5 years decrease), and weight disorders (underweight [BMI <18.5] vs. normal weight [BMI 18.5 < 25]: IRR 4.02, 95%CI 1.70-9.54; obese [BMI ≥30] vs. normal weight: IRR 2.07, 95%CI 1.37-3.13).

CONCLUSION

ASBrS level II surgery predicted delayed wound healing, warranting close clinical follow-up and prompt treatment to avoid delays in adjuvant therapy.

Surgeon Factors Influencing Breast Surgery Outcomes: A Scoping Review to Define the Modern Breast Surgical Oncologist

BACKGROUND

Modern breast surgical oncology incorporates many aspects of care including preoperative workup, surgical management, and multidisciplinary collaboration to achieve favorable oncologic outcomes and high patient satisfaction. However, there is variability in surgical practice and outcomes. This review aims to identify modifiable surgeon factors influencing breast surgery outcomes and provide a definition of the modern breast surgical oncologist.

METHODS

A systematic literature search with additional backward citation searching was conducted. Studies describing modifiable surgeon factors with associated breast surgery outcomes such as rates of breast conservation, sentinel node biopsy, re-excision, complications, acceptable esthetic outcome, and disease-free and overall survival were included. Surgeon factors were categorized for qualitative analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 91 studies met inclusion criteria describing both modifiable surgeon factor and outcome data. Four key surgeon factors associated with improved breast surgery outcomes were identified: surgical volume (45 studies), use of oncoplastic techniques (41 studies), sub-specialization in breast surgery or surgical oncology (9 studies), and participation in professional development activities (5 studies).

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the literature review, the modern breast surgical oncologist has a moderate- to high-volume breast surgery practice, understands the use and application of oncoplastic breast surgery, engages in additional training opportunities, maintains memberships in relevant societies, and remains up to date on key literature. Surgeons practicing in breast surgical oncology can target these modifiable factors for professional development and quality improvement.

Sometimes it is better to just make it simple. De-escalation of oncoplastic and reconstructive procedures

Simple breast conservation surgery (sBCS) has technically advanced onto oncoplastic breast procedures (OBP) to avoid mastectomy and improve breast cancer patients' psychosocial well-being and cosmetic outcome. Although OBP are time-consuming and expensive, we are witnessing an increase in their use, even for cases that could be managed with sBCS. The choice between keeping it simple or opting for more complex oncoplastic procedures is difficult. This review proposes a pragmatic approach in assisting this decision. Medical literature suggests that OBP and sBCS might be similar regarding local recurrence and overall survival, and patients seem to have higher satisfaction levels with the aesthetic outcome of OBP when compared to sBCS. However, the lack of comprehensive high-quality research assessing their safety, efficacy, and patient-reported outcomes hinders these supposed conclusions. Postoperative complications after OBP may delay the initiation of adjuvant RT. In addition, precise displacement of the breast volume is not effectively recorded despite surgical clips placement, making accurate dose delivery tricky for radiation oncologists, and WBRT preferable to APBI in complex OBP cases. With a critical eye on financial toxicity, patient satisfaction, and oncological outcomes, OBP must be carefully integrated into clinical practice. The thoughtful provision of informed consent is essential for decision-making between sBCS and OBP. As we look into the future, machine learning and artificial intelligence can potentially help patients and doctors avoid postoperative regrets by setting realistic aesthetic expectations.

Examining a decade of racial disparity in partial mastectomy and oncoplastic surgery

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Understanding racial disparity is crucial to addressing health equity and access to care. Our study aims to examine racial differences in breast conserving surgery (BCS) utilization rates and determine how these rates have changed over time.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort analysis utilized the NSQIP database to identify women diagnosed with breast cancer who underwent BCS procedures between 2008 and 2019. Racial utilization trends were analyzed using a Cochran-Armitage test and Index of Disparity analysis.

RESULTS

In the 12-year period, 202 492 women underwent a breast cancer surgery, of which 47% underwent BCS. Within the BCS subgroup, oncoplastic surgery utilization increased from 3% to 10%, leading to a declining proportion of partial mastectomies: 97% to 90.0% (both p < 0.01). The racial index of disparity for overall BCS patients decreased from 7% to 6%, remained unchanged (1%) for partial mastectomies, and significantly decreased in oncoplastics (23%-7.6%).

CONCLUSION

BCS represents a mainstay option for early-staged breast cancer interventions, this study demonstrate promising progress in decreasing the index of disparity among races and persistent racial inequalities.

Outcome reporting in therapeutic mammaplasty: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic mammaplasty (TM) is an oncological procedure which combines tumour resection with breast reduction and mastopexy techniques. Previous systematic reviews have demonstrated the oncological safety of TM but reporting of critically important outcomes, such as quality of life, aesthetic and functional outcomes, are limited, piecemeal or inconsistent. This systematic review aimed to identify all outcomes reported in clinical studies of TM to facilitate development of a core outcome set.

METHODS

Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science were searched from inception to 5 August 2020. Included studies reported clinical outcomes following TM for adult women. Two authors screened articles independently for eligibility. Data were extracted regarding the outcome definition and classification type (for example, oncological, quality of life, etc.), time of outcome reporting and measurement tools.

RESULTS

Of 5709 de-duplicated records, 148 were included in the narrative synthesis. The majority of studies (n = 102, 68.9 per cent) reported measures of survival and/or recurrence; approximately three-quarters (n = 75, 73.5 per cent) had less than 5 years follow-up. Aesthetic outcome was reported in half of studies (n = 75, 50.7 per cent) using mainly subjective, non-validated measurement tools. The time point at which aesthetic assessment was conducted was highly variable, and only defined in 48 (64.0 per cent) studies and none included a preoperative baseline for comparison. Few studies reported quality of life (n = 30, 20.3 per cent), functional outcomes (n = 5, 3.4 per cent) or resource use (n = 28, 18.9 per cent).

CONCLUSION

Given the oncological equivalence of TM and mastectomy, treatment decisions are often driven by aesthetic and functional outcomes, which are infrequently and inconsistently reported with non-validated measurement tools.

Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery for women with primary breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (O-BCS) involves removing the tumour in the breast and using plastic surgery techniques to reconstruct the breast. The adequacy of published evidence on the safety and efficacy of O-BCS for the treatment of breast cancer compared to other surgical options for breast cancer is still debatable. It is estimated that the local recurrence rate is similar to standard breast-conserving surgery (S-BCS) and also mastectomy, but the aesthetic and patient-reported outcomes may be improved with oncoplastic techniques.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary objective was to assess oncological control outcomes following O-BCS compared with other surgical options for women with breast cancer. Our secondary objective was to assess surgical complications, recall rates, need for further surgery to achieve adequate oncological resection, patient satisfaction through patient-reported outcomes, and cosmetic outcomes through objective measures or clinician-reported outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (via OVID), Embase (via OVID), the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov on 7 August 2020. We did not apply any language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised comparative studies (cohort and case-control studies). Studies evaluated any O-BCS technique, including volume displacement techniques and partial breast volume replacement techniques compared to any other surgical treatment (partial resection or mastectomy) for the treatment of breast cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four review authors performed data extraction and resolved disagreements. We used ROBINS-I to assess the risk of bias by outcome. We performed descriptive data analysis and meta-analysis and evaluated the quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria. The outcomes included local recurrence, breast cancer-specific disease-free survival, re-excision rates, complications, recall rates, and patient-reported outcome measures.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 78 non-randomised cohort studies evaluating 178,813 women. Overall, we assessed the risk of bias per outcome as being at serious risk of bias due to confounding; where studies adjusted for confounding, we deemed these at moderate risk. Comparison 1: oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (O-BCS) versus standard-BCS (S-BCS) The evidence in the review found that O-BCS when compared to S-BCS, may make little or no difference to local recurrence; either when measured as local recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.34; 4 studies, 7600 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or local recurrence rate (HR 1.33, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.83; 4 studies, 2433 participants; low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain due to most studies not controlling for confounding clinicopathological factors. O-BCS compared to S-BCS may make little to no difference to disease-free survival (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.26; 7 studies, 5532 participants; low-certainty evidence). O-BCS may reduce the rate of re-excisions needed for oncological resection (risk ratio (RR) 0.76, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.85; 38 studies, 13,341 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. O-BCS may increase the number of women who have at least one complication (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.27; 20 studies, 118,005 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and increase the recall to biopsy rate (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.67 to 3.42; 6 studies, 715 participants; low-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis was not possible when assessing patient-reported outcomes or cosmetic evaluation; in general, O-BCS reported a similar or more favourable result, however, the evidence is very uncertain due to risk of bias in the measurement methods. Comparison 2: oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (O-BCS) versus mastectomy alone O-BCS may increase local recurrence-free survival compared to mastectomy but the evidence is very uncertain (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.91; 2 studies, 4713 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of O-BCS on disease-free survival as there were only data from one study. O-BCS may reduce complications compared to mastectomy, but the evidence is very uncertain due to high risk of bias mainly resulting from confounding (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.83; 4 studies, 4839 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Data on patient-reported outcome measures came from single studies; it was not possible to meta-analyse the data. Comparison 3: oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (O-BCS) versus mastectomy with reconstruction O-BCS may make little or no difference to local recurrence-free survival (HR 1.37, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.62; 1 study, 3785 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or disease-free survival (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.22; 1 study, 317 participants; very low-certainty evidence) when compared to mastectomy with reconstruction, but the evidence is very uncertain. O-BCS may reduce the complication rate compared to mastectomy with reconstruction (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.54; 5 studies, 4973 participants; very low-certainty evidence) but the evidence is very uncertain due to high risk of bias from confounding and inconsistency of results. The evidence is very uncertain for patient-reported outcome measures and cosmetic evaluation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence is very uncertain regarding oncological outcomes following O-BCS compared to S-BCS, though O-BCS has not been shown to be inferior. O-BCS may result in less need for a second re-excision surgery but may result in more complications and a greater recall rate than S-BCS. It seems that O-BCS may give better patient satisfaction and surgeon rating for the look of the breast, but the evidence for this is of poor quality, and due to lack of numerical data, it was not possible to pool the results of different studies. It seems O-BCS results in fewer complications compared with surgeries involving mastectomy. Based on this review, no certain conclusions can be made to help inform policymakers. The surgical decision for what operation to proceed with should be made jointly between clinician and patient after an appropriate discussion about the risks and benefits of O-BCS personalised to the patient, taking into account clinicopathological factors. This review highlighted the deficiency of well-conducted studies to evaluate efficacy, safety and patient-reported outcomes following O-BCS.

Update on oncoplastic techniques in breast conserving surgery: algorithms for predictable results and custom-made reconstructions

Breast cancer surgery is going to be a relevant specialty involved in the multidisciplinary disease management, finalized to guarantee high performances on mortality reduction together with a quality of life improvement. The intellectual architecture of this field is characterized by its inclination to respect, sharing, empathy and scientific knowledge that can make it a high model of medical culture. In this context, oncoplastic breast conserving surgery is identified by special aesthetic sensitivities, as well as creativity and innovation. Knowing how to reshape the gland and fill the gaps, planning the targeted exeresis design, while anticipating the final outcome, respecting symmetries and ensuring first of all oncological safety, are the new skills that are required to the breast surgeon. Several tecniques could provide a refined surgical treatment but always challenging according to anatomical findings and patient expectations, as a systematic process of self-critical reflection, with the purpose to optimize criteria for improving therapeutic results.

Comparative study of surgical and oncological outcomes in oncoplastic versus non oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer treatment

Background: Oncoplastic surgery has been increasingly used in breast cancer treatment and allows the performance of breast-conserving surgery in cases of larger tumors with unfavorable location or tumor-breast disproportion. Purpose: To compare surgical and oncological outcomes of patients undergoing oncoplastic and nononcoplastic breast-conserving surgery. Methods: Retrospective cohort study with convenience sampling of 866 patients who consecutively underwent breast-conserving surgery from 2011 to 2015. Results: The mean follow-up was 50.4 months. Nononcoplastic breast conservation surgery was performed on 768 (88.7%) patients and oncoplastic surgery on 98 (11.3%) patients. Patients in the oncoplastic group were younger (p<0.0001) and most were premenopausal (p<0.0001). Comorbidities such as diabetes (p=0.003) and hypertension (p=0.0001) were less frequent in this population. Invasive carcinoma >2 cm (p<0.0001), multifocality (p=0.004), ductal in situ carcinoma (p=0.0007), clinically positive axilla (p=0.004), and greater weight of surgical specimens (p<0.0001) were more frequent in the oncoplastic group. A second surgery for margin re-excision was more frequently performed in the nononcoplastic group (p=0.027). There was more scar dehiscence in the oncoplastic group (p<0.001), but there was no difference in early major complications (p=0.854), conversion to mastectomy (p=0.92), or local recurrence (p=0.889). Conclusion: Although used for the treatment of larger and multifocal tumors, surgical re-excisions were performed less often in the oncoplastic group, and there was no increase in conversion to mastectomy or local recurrence. In spite of the higher rate of overall complications in the oncoplastic group, major complications were similar in both groups.

Oncoplastic Surgery in Breast-Conserving Treatment: Patient Profile and Impact on Quality of Life

BACKGROUND

Breast-conserving treatment (BCT) provides better quality of life (QL) than mastectomy without reconstruction. Oncoplastic surgery (OS) encompasses a series of surgical techniques, increasing the indications for BCT, but few studies have evaluated the impact on QL in patients who undergo BCT with OS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective, cross-sectional study was conducted in women who underwent BCT. We evaluated the characteristics of patients who underwent BCT with and without OS and the associated QL. QL was assessed through the EORTC QLQ-30, EORTC QLQ-BR23, and Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale (BCTOS) questionnaires.

RESULTS

A total of 300 patients underwent BCT, 72 underwent breast OS, and 37 underwent bilateral surgery. Patients who underwent OS were younger (p = 0.004), had a higher level of education (p = 0.01), had a smaller time interval since the end of treatment (p = 0.02), had tumours with greater dimensions (p = 0.003), and were more likely to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy (p = 0.05). Based on the QL questionnaires, no difference was observed between the groups. Breast symmetry was not associated with high patient satisfaction (p = 0.55).

CONCLUSION

Despite the fact that OS was performed in patients with worse tumour conditions and in more demanding patients, OS allowed similar cosmetic results to classical BCT.

Should oncoplastic breast conserving surgery be used for the treatment of early stage breast cancer? Using the GRADE approach for development of clinical recommendations

Introduction

The potential advantages of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (BCS) have not been validated in robust studies that constitute high levels of evidence, despite oncoplastic techniques being widely adopted around the globe. There is hence the need to define the precise role of oncoplastic BCS in the treatment of early breast cancer, with consensual recommendations for clinical practice.

Methods

A panel of world-renowned breast specialists was convened to evaluate evidence, express personal viewpoints and establish recommendations for the use of oncoplastic BCS as primary treatment of unifocal early stage breast cancers using the GRADE approach.

Results

According to the results of the systematic review of literature, the panelists were asked to comment on the recommendation for use of oncoplastic BCS for treatment of operable breast cancer that is suitable for breast conserving surgery, with the GRADE approach. Based on the voting outcome, the following recommendation emerged as a consensus statement: Oncoplastic breast conserving surgery should be recommended versus standard breast conserving surgery for the treatment of operable breast cancer in adult women who are suitable candidates for breast conserving surgery (with very low certainty of evidence).

Discussion

This review has revealed a low level of evidence for most of the important outcomes in oncoplastic surgery with lack of any randomized data and absence of standard tools for evaluation of clinical outcomes and especially patients’ values.

Despite areas of controversy, about one-third (36%) of panel members expressed a strong recommendation in support of oncoplastic BCS. Presumably, this reflects a synthesis of views on the relative complexity of these techniques, associated complications, impact on quality of life and costs.

Does oncoplastic surgery increase immediate (30-day) postoperative complications? An analysis of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database

PURPOSE

Although there has been a significant increase in the use of oncoplastic surgery (OPS), data on the postoperative safety of this approach are limited compared to traditional lumpectomy. This study aimed to compare the immediate (30-day) postoperative complications associated with OPS and traditional lumpectomy.

METHODS

An analysis of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database was performed on women with breast cancer who underwent OPS or traditional lumpectomy. Logistic regression was used to explore the effect of type of surgery on the outcome of interest.

RESULTS

A total of 109,487 women were analyzed of whom 8.3% underwent OPS. OPS had a longer median operative time than traditional lumpectomy. The unadjusted immediate (30-day) overall complication rate was significantly higher with OPS than traditional lumpectomy (3.8% versus 2.6%, p < 0.001). After adjusting for baseline differences, overall 30-day postoperative complications were significantly higher amongst women undergoing OPS compared with traditional lumpectomy (OR 1.41, 95%CI 1.24-1.59). Factors that were independent predictors of overall 30-day complications included higher age, higher BMI, race, smoking status, lymph node surgery, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, ASA class ≥ 3, in situ disease, and year of operation. The interaction term between type of surgery and operative time was not statistically significant, indicating that operative time did not modify the effect of type of surgery on immediate postoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there were slightly higher overall complication rates with OPS, the absolute rates remained quite low for both groups. Therefore, OPS may be performed in women with breast cancer who are suitable candidates.

Increasing Role of Oncoplastic Surgery for Breast Cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The goals of surgery for breast cancer have remained the same over the years, to eliminate breast cancer from the breast with the least degree of deformity. With the current expectation of long-term survival after breast cancer treatment, more attention has turned to the cosmetic result of the surgical treatment. Whether lumpectomy or mastectomy, the need for aesthetic improvement was recognized by surgeons both in and outside the USA.

RECENT FINDINGS

Oncoplastic surgery combines the skills of the cancer surgeon with those of the plastic surgeon. Sometimes, this means a team approach with a breast surgeon and a plastic surgeon both performing their mutual skills for the patient. Other times, the properly trained breast surgeon may perform some of the plastic techniques at the time of cancer surgery. Breast surgeons are rapidly gaining the ability to improve the post-cancer treatment appearance. To simplify the classification of oncoplastic techniques, we have used lower level, upper level, and highest level. The assignment of techniques to levels is based on both the technique and the surgeon's training and experience. Much data has accumulated demonstrating the safety and efficacy of the "aesthetic cancer cure." We describe the development of oncoplastic surgery, the techniques available, matching the right candidate with the right technique, and some comments about the future. It is clear from both clinical benefit and patient satisfaction that oncoplastic breast cancer procedures are here to stay. Plastic surgeons will likely focus on the upper- and highest-level procedures while breast/general surgeons will learn lower-level procedures and some of upper-level procedures as needed by their locale. Opportunities to educate breast/general surgeons in these techniques will continue to increase over the next several years. Formal education in oncoplastic surgery during breast fellowships will be necessary to catch up with the rest of the surgical world outside the USA.

Resection margins and local recurrences in breast cancer: Comparison between conventional and oncoplastic breast conserving surgery

BACKGROUND

This retrospective cohort study aims to compare surgical margins, reoperations and local recurrences after conventional or oncoplastic breast conservation surgery (BCS). Furthermore, we aim to investigate differences between various oncoplastic techniques.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We reviewed 1800 consecutive patients with primary invasive breast cancer (N = 1707) or ductal carcinoma in situ (N = 93) who underwent BCS at Helsinki University Hospital between 2010 and 2012.

RESULTS

Conventional BCS was performed in 1189 (66.1%) patients, oncoplastic BCS in 611 (33.9%). Various oncoplastic techniques were used. Patients with oncoplastic BCS had more often multifocal (p < 0.001), larger (p < 0.001), palpable tumours (p < 0.001) with larger resection specimens (p < 0.001). The amount of resected tissue varied substantially depending on the oncoplastic technique. Patients treated with oncoplastic BCS were younger (p < 0.001) and their tumours were more aggressive according to histological grade (p < 0.001), T-stage (p < 0.001), Ki-67 (p < 0.001) and lymph node status (p < 0.001). There was no difference, however, in surgical margins (p = 0.578) or reoperation rates (p = 0.430) between the groups. A total of 152 (8.4%) patients were reoperated because of insufficient margins, 96 (8.1%) in the conventional, 56 (9.2%) in the oncoplastic BCS group. The median follow-up time was 75 (2-94) months. There was no difference in local recurrence-free survival between the conventional and oncoplastic BCS groups (log-rank test, p = 0.172).

CONCLUSIONS

Oncoplastic BCS was used for larger, multifocal and more aggressive tumours. Nevertheless, no difference in reoperation rate or local recurrences were found. Oncoplastic BCS is as safe as conventional BCS enabling breast conserving for patients who otherwise were candidates for mastectomy.

Current practice and short-term outcomes of therapeutic mammaplasty in the international TeaM multicentre prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic mammaplasty, which combines breast reduction and mastopexy techniques with tumour excision, may extend the boundaries of breast-conserving surgery and improve outcomes for patients, but current practice is unknown and high-quality outcome data are lacking. This prospective multicentre cohort study aimed to explore the practice and short-term outcomes of the technique.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing therapeutic mammaplasty at participating centres between 1 September 2016 and 30 June 2017 were recruited to the study. Demographic, preoperative, operative, oncological and complication data were collected. The primary outcome was unplanned reoperation for complications within 30 days of surgery. Secondary outcomes included re-excision rates and time to adjuvant therapy.

RESULTS

Overall, 880 patients underwent 899 therapeutic mammaplasty procedures at 50 centres. The most common indications were avoidance of poor cosmetic outcomes associated with standard breast-conserving surgery (702 procedures, 78·1 per cent) or avoidance of mastectomy (379, 42·2 per cent). Wise-pattern skin incisions were the most common (429 of 899, 47·7 per cent), but a range of incisions and nipple-areola pedicles were used. Immediate contralateral symmetrization was performed in one-third of cases (284 of 880, 32·3 per cent). In total, 205 patients (23·3 per cent) developed a complication, but only 25 (2·8 per cent) required reoperation. Median postoperative lesion size was 24·5 (i.q.r. 16-38) mm. Incomplete excision was seen in 132 procedures (14·7 per cent), but completion mastectomy was required for only 51 lesions (5·7 per cent). Median time to adjuvant therapy was 54 (i.q.r. 42-66) days.

CONCLUSION

Therapeutic mammaplasty is a safe and effective alternative to mastectomy or standard breast-conserving surgery. Further work is required to explore the impact of the technique on quality of life, and to establish cost-effectiveness.

Oncoplastic Breast Conserving Surgery: Aesthetic Satisfaction and Oncological Outcomes

Objective

Oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (BCS) involves radical excision of tumors while maintaining the natural breast contours. In this study, we present the results of the oncoplastic BCS surgeries performed in our clinic.

Material and Methods

13 breast cancer patients who had undergone oncoplastic BCS were included in this retrospective study. Postoperative photographs and retrospective chart reviews were used to evaluate the results. Aesthetic satisfaction level was verbally obtained from the patients.

Results

Oncoplastic BCS was performed using superomedial, superolateral, superior and inferior pedicles. All the patients were highly satisfied with the final aesthetic results and tumor free at the postoperative 12 months.

Conclusion

Oncoplastic BCS can achieve favorable results regarding the final aesthetic appearance and tumor control.

Modern Approaches to the Surgical Management of Malignant Breast Disease: The Role of Breast Conservation, Complete Mastectomy, Skin- and Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy

The armamentarium of the modern breast surgeon includes the time-tested procedures of modified radical mastectomy and lumpectomy with sentinel lymph node biopsy with postoperative radiation, but has evolved to include several options that produce excellent oncologic endpoints and improved cosmesis. These options include skin- and nipple-sparing mastectomies with immediate reconstruction as well as oncoplastic procedures that allow larger excisions and better postoperative breast shape. This article provides an overview of these modern surgical approaches for breast cancer treatment.

Updated Evidence on the Oncoplastic Approach to Breast Conservation Therapy

The oncoplastic approach to breast conservation therapy has become a useful and popular option for women with breast cancer who wish to preserve their breast. The initial driving forces were aimed at minimizing the potential for a breast conservation therapy deformity; however, various other benefits have been identified that include broadening the indications for breast conservation therapy in some patients and improved margin control. The various techniques can be categorized into glandular rearrangement techniques such as breast reductions usually in patients with larger breasts or flap reconstruction such as the latissimus dorsi muscle usually in patients with smaller breasts. As the acceptance continues to increase, we are starting to see more outcomes evidence in terms of patient satisfaction, quality of life, complications, and recurrence, to further support the safety and efficacy of the oncoplastic approach.