Comparison of clinicopathologic, cosmetic and quality of life outcomes in 700 oncoplastic and conventional breast-conserving surgery cases: A single-centre retrospective study

Promoting Oncological Safety: Extreme Oncoplasty as an Alternative to Mastectomy-Insights From a Single-Center Experience in Low and Middle-Income Country

BACKGROUND

Extreme oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (eOBCS), euphemism for radical conservation, expands the indications of breast conservation for tumor that typically requires a mastectomy. Existing data show no discernible survival differences between mastectomy and breast-conserving surgery; however, limited evidence exists regarding local recurrences between these groups. We report the oncological outcomes of eOBCS in terms of margin safety and disease recurrence at our institute. Median surgical margin was 0.68 (0.2-2) cm away. Two patients (4.3%) required re-excision of positive margins. One locoregional and four distant disease recurrences were encountered with 5-year local recurrence free, distant recurrence free, and overall survivals estimated to be 91%, 73%, and 78%, respectively. Satisfactory cosmesis was attained in all patients without significant perioperative complications.

METHODOLOGY

47 patients underwent eOBCS between July'17 and June'22. Mean follow-up was 54 (24-84) months. Primary endpoints were the resection margin status and need for reoperation. Secondary endpoints were 5-year local and distant recurrence free and overall survivals. Median surgical margin was 0.68 (0.2-2) cm away. Two patients (4.3%) required re-excision of positive margins. One locoregional and four distant disease recurrences were encountered with 5-year local recurrence free, distant recurrence free, and overall survivals estimated to be 91%, 73%, and 78%, respectively. Satisfactory cosmesis was attained in all patients without significant perioperative complications.

RESULTS

Mean age at diagnosis was 46.8 (±13.2) years. IDC (70.2%) was the commonest histological type. 32% of cancers were >5 cm in size, 30% were multifocal, and 40.4% were node positive. 25% were triple negative whereas, 7% were Her2Neu positive. Therapeutic mammoplasty (44.4%) was the frequently performed surgical procedure followed by local rotational flaps (27.6%). Mean pretreatment mammographic tumor size was 50 mm (±7.5) mm. 40.4% of the patients qualified for neoadjuvant therapies and 91.5% received radiation. Median surgical margin was 0.68 (0.2-2) cm away. Two patients (4.3%) required re-excision of positive margins. One locoregional and four distant disease recurrences were encountered with 5-year local recurrence free, distant recurrence free, and overall survivals estimated to be 91%, 73%, and 78%, respectively. Satisfactory cosmesis was attained in all patients without significant perioperative complications.

CONCLUSION

eOBCS is an innovative and aesthetically promising surgical technique enabling successful breast conservation in patients necessitating mastectomy. Our data substantiate the oncological safety of eOBCS; however, it requires appropriate patient selection and multidisciplinary planning.

Clinical and patient-reported outcomes after oncoplastic vs conventional breast-conserving surgery-a longitudinal, multicenter cohort study

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.

Enhancing breast cancer surgery outcomes: A comprehensive review of oncoplastic techniques, surgical planning, and aesthetic considerations

Breast cancer is one of the most common types of cancer among women in Western countries. Historically treated with radical and modified radical surgeries, breast cancer is now primarily managed with breast-conserving surgery combined with postsurgical radiotherapy. Oncoplastic breast surgery, a technique that integrates aesthetic breast reduction methods with cancer surgery, has been developed as a tumor-specific approach to facilitate breast conservation while removing the tumor. This method allows for higher excision volumes with minimal aesthetic compromise. The main components of oncoplastic surgery are volume displacement and volume replacement techniques. This review discusses the essential role of oncoplastic techniques in breast-conserving surgery (BCS), which has evolved into the standard of care for early-stage breast cancer. Understanding these techniques is critical for all breast surgeons to optimize both aesthetic and oncologic outcomes.

Oncologic and cosmetic outcomes of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery after neoadjuvant systemic therapy: systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OBCS) prevents compromise of breast aesthetics following large breast cancer excisions. This systematic review was conducted to investigate the outcomes (oncologic, surgical, cosmetic) of OBCS versus standard breast-conserving surgery (SBCS) and mastectomy post-neo-adjuvant systemic therapy.

METHODS

Ovid, Web of Science, Cochrane, ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched up to 24/08/2024. English language peer-reviewed RCTs or observational/cohort studies with ≥ 18-year-old women treated for breast cancer with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and/or hormonal therapy comparing OBCS to SBCS and/or mastectomy were included. Of 6794 articles, 32 underwent full-text assessment and eleven met the inclusion criteria. The review was conducted using PRISMA guidelines. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias (Newcastle-Ottowa Scale). Meta-analysis using a random-effects model were performed where data allowed.

RESULTS

Eleven cohort studies (n = 4594) included OBCS (n = 912), SBCS (n = 1122) and mastectomy (n = 2560) after NACT. Post-NACT tumour size was 20(9-44) mm, 13(0-23)mm [SMD 0.62, 95%CI(-0.24,1.48), p = 0.16] and 20(10-31)mm [SMD 0.05, 95%CI(-0.53,0.63), p = 0.86] in the OBCS, SBCS and mastectomy groups respectively. The margin re-excision rate was significantly lower in OBCS than in SBCS [2.9%(0-11.1%) vs. 6.1%(0-18.5%); OR 0.35, 95%CI(0.15,0.80), p = 0.01]. All other oncologic outcomes, including positive margin rate, and overall survival, were not statistically different between the groups. Cosmetic outcomes and patient-reported outcome measures were marginally in favour of OBCS [OBCS 50-66% vs SBCS 37.6-55% very satisfied].

CONCLUSION

OBCS after NACT appears oncologically safe and a potential alternative in patients with partial or poor tumour response to NACT. Further studies are required, directly comparing well-matched OBCS with SBCS and mastectomy patients after NACT.

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.

The Oncological and Surgical Outcomes of Immediate Oncoplastic Breast Reconstruction With Contralateral Breast Adjustment

BACKGROUND

Oncoplastic surgery is an expanding approach for managing breast conservation because it offers improved cosmetic outcomes while maintaining oncological safety.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess the oncological and surgical outcomes of patients who underwent oncoplastic procedures at a single institution.

METHODS

The study population includes all consecutive breast cancer patients who underwent lumpectomy followed by immediate oncoplastic breast reconstruction with contralateral breast adjustment between 2010 and 2021. Following IRB approval, patient demographics, tumor characteristics, surgical details, complications, and follow-up were evaluated for this group. Quality of life (QOL) and patient-reported outcome measures were assessed through questionnaires.

RESULTS

Following multidisciplinary tumor board discussion, 77 patients (82 breasts) underwent oncoplastic surgery. Of these, 92.2% underwent breast MRI prior to surgery with mean mass enhancement of 2.35 cm (range, 0-8.5 cm) and non-mass enhancement of 5.77 cm (range, 0-14 cm), and 44% presented with multifocal disease. The final positive surgical margin rate was 2.4%, and all conserved breasts received adjuvant radiation therapy. The 5-year local recurrence rate for invasive tumors was 4.1%. QOL scores were generally high, with most patients reporting good to excellent cosmetic outcomes and high personal satisfaction with breast appearance and softness. Physicians reported breast symmetry in 89.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that oncoplastic surgery with contralateral breast adjustment is safe, effective, and an excellent option for breast cancer patients wishing for breast conservation even for large or multifocal masses, with favorable oncologic and cosmetic outcomes. The QOL analysis indicates high patient satisfaction. These results support the use of oncoplastic surgery in the management of breast cancer.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

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).

Breast-Conserving Surgery Guided with Magnetic Seeds vs. Wires: A Single-Institution Experience

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to describe our initial experience using magnetic seeds (Magseed®) to guide breast-conserving surgery in non-palpable breast lesions and compare the use of magnetic seed with wires to guide breast-conserving surgery in terms of clinical and pathological characteristics.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study including all breast-conserving surgeries for non-palpable breast lesions under 16 mm from June 2018 to May 2021. We compared breast-conserving surgeries guided with magnetic seeds (Magseed®) to those guided with wires, analyzing tumor and patient characteristics, surgical time, and pathological results of the surgical specimens.

RESULTS

Data from 225 cases were collected, including 149 cases guided by magnetic seeds and 76 cases guided by wires. The breast lesion was localized in every case. Both cohorts were similar regarding clinical and pathological characteristics. We found significant statistical differences (p < 0.02) in terms of the median volume (cm3) of the excised specimen, which was lower (29.3%) in the magnetic seed group compared with the wire group (32.5 [20.5-60.0]/46.0 [20.3-118.7]). We did not find significant differences regarding surgical time (min) or the affected or close margins.

CONCLUSION

In our experience, the use of magnetic seed (Magseed®) is a feasible option to guide breast-conserving surgery of non-palpable lesions and enabled us to resect less breast tissue.

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.

Lateral thoracic adipofascial flaps in the reconstruction of defects after breast-conserving surgery in breasts with ptosis mild ptosis or without ptosis

OBJECTIVE

To study the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of lateral thoracic adipofascial flaps in reconstructing the defects following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in breasts with either no ptosis or mild ptosis.

METHODS

37 female patients who underwent BCS and lateral thoracic adipofascial flap breast reconstruction between June 2020 and July 2022 were analysed. Surgery-related complications, intraoperative positive margin, local recurrence, and cosmetic outcome were assessed.

RESULTS

Three local complications occurred in patients, all of which were cured by conservative treatment. Additionally, four patients had intraoperative positive margins. After a median follow-up period of 17.5 months, none of the patients showed local recurrence. All patients achieved a satisfactory breast shape. Further, patients without ptosis achieved good volume and symmetry. However, the breast symmetry was not satisfactory for patients with ptosis.

CONCLUSION

It is reliable and effective to use the lateral thoracic adipofascial flaps to reconstruct the defects after BCS when the breast is not ptotic and the lesions are located in the lateral and central quadrants.

Quality of life and satisfaction of patients after oncoplastic or traditional breast-conserving surgery using the BREAST-Q (BCT module): a prospective study

INTRODUCTION

The oncoplastic conservative surgery was developed as a natural evolution of traditional surgery, attempting to improve the therapeutic and aesthetic outcomes where tumor resection could be followed by not-adequate results. Our primary aim is to evaluate how patient satisfaction and quality-of-life after conservative oncoplastic surgery, using BREAST-Q (BCT Module), change pre- and post-operatively. The secondary aim is to compare patient-reported outcome after oncoplastic or traditional conservative surgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We enrolled 647 patients who underwent traditional conservative surgery or oncoplastic surgery from January 2020 to December 2022. Only 232 women (35.9%) completed the BREAST-Q questionnaire on a web-based platform, at the preoperative phase and 3 months after treatment.

RESULTS

The average score of "Psychosocial well-being" and "Satisfaction with Breasts" 3 months after surgery showed a statistically significant improvement, while the average score for "Physical well-being: Chest" at 3 months showed a worsening compared to the baseline. "Sexual well-being" did not show statistically significant change. A significant difference between the post-operative outcome of oncoplastic surgery and traditional surgery was observed only for Physical well-being (better for traditional surgery).

CONCLUSIONS

The study showed significant improvement in patient-reported outcomes 3 months after the surgery, except for physical discomfort that increases especially after oncoplastic surgery. Furthermore, our data, as well as many others, point to the appropriateness of using OCS where there is an effective indication, while the perspective of patients cannot find significant superiority over TCS in any of the areas analyzed.

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.

Use of tumour bed boost radiotherapy in volume replacement oncoplastic breast surgery: A systematic review

Tumour bed boost radiotherapy (RT) following breast conserving surgery reduces local recurrence in high-risk disease. There is recent debate over challenges to accurately localise tumour bed for RT boost delivery following volume replacement oncoplastic breast surgery (VR-OBS). This review evaluates the reporting of RT boost following VR-OBS in the literature published between January 2010 and December 2021. This review was in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Metaanalysis statement.Nine studies met the inclusion criteria (n=670 patients), and RT boost was used in eight studies. Boost was administered in total to 384 patients (62.5% of irradiated patients). Only two studies reported boost planned target volumes and only one compared these against surgical specimen volumes.RT boost was not reported in most published studies on VR-OBS. Future prospective research are strongly needed to evaluate long-term outcomes of VR-OBS following RT boost, especially on breast cosmesis and patients' satisfaction. DATA AVAILABILITY: Data will be made available upon request.

Modern Approaches to Oncoplastic Surgical Treatment

Partial breast reconstruction using oncoplastic techniques is performed at the time of lumpectomy and includes volume replacement techniques such as flaps and volume displacement techniques such as reduction and mastopexy. These techniques are used to preserve breast shape, contour, size, symmetry, inframammary fold position, and position of the nipple-areolar complex. Newer techniques such as auto-augmentation flaps and perforator flaps continue to broaden options and newer radiation therapy protocols will hopefully reduce side effects. Options for the oncoplastic approach now include higher risk patients as there is a larger repository of data on the safety and efficacy of this technique.

Oncoplastic versus conventional breast-conserving surgery in breast cancer: a pooled analysis of 6941 female patients

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer in women. In the past few years, surgical interventions for breast cancer have experienced massive changes from radical excision to conserving approaches. In this study, we aim to compare the two breast surgery interventions, including conventional breast-conserving surgery (CBCS) versus oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OPBCS).

METHODS

We searched on PubMed, Web of Science (WOS), Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane till 2 October 2021. All relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies were included. The data were extracted and pooled using Review Manager software (RevMan 5.4).

RESULTS

The pooled meta-analysis of the included studies showed that OPBCS was significantly superior to CBCS in most of the outcomes. Re-excision significantly favoured CBCS (RR = 0.49, 95% CI [0.37, 0.63], P < 0.00001). However, local recurrence (RR = 0.55, 95% CI [0.27, 1.09], P = 0.09), close surgical margins (RR = 0.37, 95% CI [0.14, 1.00], P = 0.05) and end up to the risk of mastectomy (RR = 0.73, 95% CI [0.54, 97], P = 0.06) showed no significant difference between both techniques. Notably, while performing a sensitivity analysis, other outcomes as local recurrence, significantly showed favourable results towards OPBCS. In terms of safety outcomes, there was no significant difference between OPBCS and CBCS.

CONCLUSION

We recommend the oncoplastic approach rather than the conventional one in females with breast cancer. Re-excision rates showed better results following OPBCS.

Surgical options of the breast and clinical outcomes of breast cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: A single-center retrospective study

Background

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) has evolved significantly and has been widely accepted for downstaging disease in early-stage and locally advanced breast cancer patients. Since the optimal surgical intervention for patients receiving NAC remains controversial, we aim to investigate the survival outcome of patients treated with different surgical management.

Methods

A retrospective, nested case-control study was conducted in patients with invasive breast cancer that underwent NAC at Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center from January 2010 to June 2019. Based on surgical intervention, patients were divided into mastectomy and breast conservation groups. Patients were matched on age at diagnosis, menopausal status, the year of the surgery, post neoadjuvant therapy pathological tumor (ypT) stage, post neoadjuvant therapy pathological node (ypN) stage, molecular subtypes, and axillary surgery by propensity score matching.

Results

A total of 2080 patients were enrolled in this study. Among them, 1819 (87.5%) patients were categorized as mastectomy group, and 261 (12.5%) patients were classed as breast conservation group. Over 9-years of research, the proportion of breast conservation steadily increased in patients after NAC. Data showed that younger (P<0.001) and pre-menopausal (P<0.001) patients with normal BMI (P=0.022) were more likely to receive breast conservation. Patients at advanced ypT stage (P<0.001), ypN stage (P<0.001), and clinical TNM stage (P<0.001) were more often to undergo mastectomy, while breast conservation rate was significantly higher in patients with triple-negative tumors (P=0.023). Compared with the mastectomy group, significant benefits in overall survival were observed in patients who received breast conservation (Hazard ratio 0.41, [95% confidence interval: 0.18-0.97]; p=0.049) in the matched cohort. There was no statistical difference between groups related to disease-free survival and locoregional recurrence.

Conclusions

Tumor biology can significantly impact the surgical decision in patients administrated with NAC. Breast conservation was a safe alternative for mastectomy in the NAC setting without compromising survival outcomes and locoregional control.

Long-term oncological outcomes of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery after a 10-year follow-up – a single center experience and systematic literature review

Aim

While many studies reported the oncological outcomes of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OBCS), there were inherent differences in the study population, surgeons’ expertise, and classifications of techniques used. There were also limited studies with long term follow up oncological outcomes beyond 5 years. This current study aimed to compare long-term oncological outcomes of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) following conventional and oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery using volume displacement and replacement techniques.

Methods

Between 2009 and 2013, 539 consecutive patients who underwent breast conservation surgery including 174 oncoplastic and 376 conventional procedures were analysed. A systematic review of studies with at least five years of median follow up were performed to compare long term oncological outcomes.

Results

At a median follow-up of 82.4 months, there were 23 (4.2%) locoregional recurrences, 17 (3.2%) metachronous contralateral breast cancer, 26 (4.8%) distant metastases, and 13 (2.4%) deaths. The hazard ratio of OBCS for IBTR, DFS and OS were 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21–2.94, p=0.78), 1.59 (95% CI, 0.88 to 2.87, p=0.12), and 2.1 (95% CI, 0.72 to 5.9, p=0.17) respectively. The 10-year IBTR-free, DFS and OS rate were 97.8%, 86.2%, and 95.7% respectively.

Conclusion

There remained a dearth in well-balanced comparative studies with sufficient long-term follow-up, and our study reported long-term oncological outcomes for OBCS which were favourable of either VD or replacement techniques.

Modern Breast Cancer Surgery 1st Central-Eastern European Professional Consensus Statement on Breast Cancer

This text is based on the recommendations accepted by the 4th Hungarian Consensus Conference on Breast Cancer, modified on the basis of the international consultation and conference within the frames of the Central-Eastern European Academy of Oncology. The recommendations cover non-operative, intraoperative and postoperative diagnostics, determination of prognostic and predictive markers and the content of cytology and histology reports. Furthermore, they address some specific issues such as the current status of multigene molecular markers, the role of pathologists in clinical trials and prerequisites for their involvement, and some remarks about the future.

The iTOP trial: Comparing immediate techniques of oncoplastic surgery with conventional breast surgery in women with breast cance - A prospective, controlled, single-center study

INTRODUCTION

Oncoplastic techniques allow resection of larger tumors, permitting breast conservation in cases otherwise requiring mastectomy. We sought to prospectively compare quality of life (QoL) in patients undergoing oncoplastic surgery as compared to conventional breast conservation (CBC) or mastectomy is lacking.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with BIRADS IV-VI lesion were eligible if resection of ≥10% of the breast volume was planned. Patients were allowed to decide whether they wanted to undergo CBC or oncoplastic breast conservation (OBC). Patients who underwent mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) were also included for comparison. The primary endpoint was breast self-esteem using the Breast Image Scale (BIS) at 12 months, secondary endpoints were perioperative morbidity and QoL using the BREAST-Q questionnaire.

RESULTS

From 2011 to 2016, 205 patients were included in the study. 116 patients (56.6%) received CBC, 46 (22.4%) OBC and 43 (21%) MIBR. Women in the OBC group were more likely to have tumors ≥ 2cm than those in the CBC group (34.7% vs. 17.5%, respectively). Women who underwent MIBR were more likely to have tumors > 5cm than those in the CBC and OBC groups (23% vs 1% and 10%, respectively). The BIS and BREAST-Q improved in each group after 12 months but did not differ significantly between groups at any time point. Surgical complications (seroma, bleeding, infection, necrosis) were numerically more likely in the OBC and MIBR groups.

CONCLUSION

OBC and the MIBR allow for resection of larger tumors with a similar quality of life as CBC.

The Tumor Plastic Surgery Technology versus Traditional Repair Technology on the Repair of Large-Area Skin Defects after Maxillofacial Tumor Resection: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective

To explore the effect of tumor plastic surgery on the repair of large-area skin defects after maxillofacial tumor resection.

Methods

90 patients undergoing maxillofacial tumor resection in our hospital from March 2019 to March 2020 were selected and randomized 1 : 1 to receive either tumor plastic surgery (experimental group) or traditional repair (control group). The clinical efficacy and facial cosmetic improvement of the two groups were compared. The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) was used to evaluate the surgical outcomes of the two groups, the Profile of Mood States (POMS) was used to evaluate the patients' psychological status, and the Generic Quality of Life Inventory-74 (GQOLI-74) was used to assess the quality of life of patients.

Results

Total clinical effective rate of the experimental group was significantly higher than that of the control group (p < 0.001). A higher excellent rate of facial cosmetic improvement was observed in the experimental group versus the control group (p < 0.001). Significantly lower POSAS scores of the experimental group than the control group were observed (p < 0.001). The POMS scores of the experimental group after treatment were lower than those of the control group (p < 0.001). Tumor plastic surgery resulted in a remarkably higher GQOLI-74 score in the patients versus traditional repair (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Tumor plastic surgery is a promising alternative for patients undergoing maxillofacial tumor resection. It can effectively promote the recovery of facial morphology and physiological function of patients, with high clinical efficacy, so it merits promotion and application.

The Impact Oncoplastic Reduction Has on Long-Term Recurrence in Breast Conservation Therapy

BACKGROUND

The use of oncoplastic reduction techniques have many proven benefits over lumpectomy alone in the management of women with breast cancer. The impact it has on tumor recurrence is unclear. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the incidence of recurrence in patients who underwent oncoplastic reduction techniques compared to lumpectomy alone.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained database of patients at Emory Hospital who underwent oncoplastic reduction techniques at the time of tumor resection was queried. These patients were compared to a series of patients who had lumpectomy alone over a similar period. For inclusion in the study, patients were at least 10 years since the time of the tumor resection. The main outcome of interest was tumor recurrence.

RESULTS

There were 97 patients in the lumpectomy-only group and 95 patients in the oncoplastic reduction group, with an average follow-up of 7.8 years and 8.5 years, respectively. Patients in the oncoplastic group were younger (lumpectomy only, 61.4 years; oncoplastic reduction, 51.6 years; p < 0.001) and had larger tumors (lumpectomy only, 1.1 cm; oncoplastic reduction, 1.6 cm; p < 0.001). Local recurrence was 13 percent in the lumpectomy-only group and 9 percent in the oncoplastic reduction group (p = 0.34), and overall recurrence rates were similar (lumpectomy only, 15 percent; oncoplastic reduction, 24 percent; p = 0.13). Overall, surgical intervention (lumpectomy alone versus oncoplastic reduction) was not associated with local recurrence or any recurrence on univariate and multivariate analyses.

CONCLUSION

Despite the oncoplastic reduction patients having a higher risk of recurrence and a more generous tumor resection, the long-term recurrence rates were equivalent when compared to breast-conserving therapy alone.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Oncoplastic breast reconstruction: Principles, current techniques, and future directions

Oncoplastic breast reconstruction has improved esthetic results after breast-conserving surgery with low complication rates and stable oncologic outcomes. Basic principles can be applied across different volume displacement and replacement techniques including restoration of breast shape and symmetry through esthetic incisions while eliminating dead space. Technique selection is guided by several factors including breast size, resection-to-breast ratio, and patient desires. A surgeon familiar with all techniques will allow individualization of treatment and optimization of outcomes.

Satisfaction of Patients Who Received Breast-Conserving Surgery Using the Suture Scaffold Technique: A Single-Institution, Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Optimal cosmetic results after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) improve patient satisfaction. The suture scaffold technique (SST) is a breast reconstruction technique that all breast surgeons can perform without any extensive training in plastic surgery.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate patient satisfaction after BCS and compare blood loss and operative duration between the SST, breast glandular flap technique (BGFT), and no oncoplastic technique (NOT).

METHODS

This was a prospective, single-center, cross-sectional study. All patients who underwent BCS from August 2017 to September 2019 in our institution were included, with the exception of those with cT3 tumors or those who underwent nipple excision or bilateral breast surgery. The BREAST-Q™ was used to survey the patients, and the raw sum scale scores of the BREAST-Q™ were converted into BREAST-Q scores.

RESULTS

Overall, we identified 421 eligible patients. The NOT was used in 47 (11.1%) patients, the BGFT was used in 231 (54.8%) patients, and the SST was used in 143 (33.9%) patients. In the univariable model, the BGFT and the SST had higher BREAST-Q scores than the NOT, while in the multivariable model, the SST had significantly higher BREAST-Q scores than the NOT (ß = +7.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.9-13.7; p = 0.01). Blood loss was significantly less with the SST compared with the BGFT (ß = -4.4, 95% CI -7.3 to -1.4), and there was no difference in operative duration between the methods.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient satisfaction with the SST was higher than with the NOT and was similar to the BGFT. The SST is an oncoplastic technique that all breast surgeons can perform and which requires comparable blood loss and operative duration in the NOT.

Long-term oncologic safety of immediate reconstructive surgery in patients with invasive breast cancer: a retrospective matched-cohort study

Objective

Immediate reconstruction (IR) is a safe and effective surgical treatment for patients with breast cancer. We aimed to assess the prognosis, aesthetic outcomes, and patient satisfaction of IR compared with breast conservation surgery (BCS) and total mastectomy (TM).

Methods

This retrospective matched-cohort study was conducted between May 2005 and December 2014. We established two cohorts according to the tumor (T) size of breast cancer. In the T≤3cm group, cases (IR) and controls (BCS or TM) were matched for age, pathological tumor size, and pathologic nodal status in a 1:1:1 ratio. In the T>3cm group, cases (IR) and controls (TM) were matched with the same factors and ratio. The primary outcome was the 5-year disease-free survival (DFS). The secondary outcome was patient satisfaction and quality of life.

Results

A total of 12,678 breast cancer patients were assessed for eligibility, of which 587 were included (T≤3 cm group: 155 IR vs 155 BCS vs 155 TM; T>3cm group: 61 IR vs 61 TM). In the T≤3 cm cohort, patients who underwent IR had no difference compared with those who underwent BCS or TM regarding the 5-year DFS (P=0.539); however, an improved aesthetic satisfaction, psychosocial, and sexual well-being were achieved in the IR group (P<0.001). In the T>3 cm cohort, the IR group had a worse median 5-year DFS (P=0.044), especially for Her2+ or triple-negative breast carcinoma (TNBC) subtypes compared with the TM group.

Conclusions

IR improves aesthetic satisfaction, psychosocial, and sexual well-being for breast cancer patients with T≤3 cm. For patients with T > 3 cm invasive breast cancer, TM is superior to IR as it predicts a better 5-year DFS.

Evaluation of the Surgical Outcomes of Breast Oncoplastic Techniques Carried Out by a General Surgical Oncologist

Background 

With recent advances in different breast cancer treatment modalities, breast conservation surgery (BCS) has gained popularity and has become the mainstay for the treatment of early breast cancer. The model of dedicated breast surgeons working in breast units is standard in some but not all countries. We have aimed to define surgical outcomes of oncoplastic breast surgery carried out by one general surgical oncologist.

Patients and methods

We have conducted a prospective non-randomised case series analysis to assess the oncologic and aesthetic outcome of tissue displacement oncoplastic breast techniques in managing unifocal early-stage breast cancer from January 2019 to January 2020.

One surgical oncologist with 23 years of surgical oncology experience carried out all operations.

Results

We have included 50 female patients treated with variant oncoplastic volume displacement techniques. We have used the round block technique in 20%, the batwing technique in 18%, lateral mammoplasty in 20%, and medial mammoplasty in 2%. We have also carried out wise pattern therapeutic mammoplasty with inferior pedicle in 20% (10 patients), and vertical mammoplasty with superior pedicle in 20% (10 patients).

While 8% of our patients had Clavien-Dindo system grade I Immediate complications, including the surgical site infection and postoperative seroma and haematoma, 2% of patients had grade II complications in the form of partial areola and nipple complex necrosis leading to delayed wound healing requiring secondary suturing. No delayed complications or mortalities were recorded.

Eight per cent of patients required re-excision to clear margins, 74% had excellent results, 24% had good results, and 2% had fair results. In addition, 64% were very satisfied with their results, 32% were satisfied, while 4% were not satisfied with aesthetic results.

Conclusion

Based on our limited number of patients, we have found that tissue displacement oncoplastic techniques carried out by a general surgical oncologist are safe and reliable in providing satisfactory oncological outcomes with a low risk of delaying adjuvant therapy and acceptable aesthetic outcomes.

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.

Retrospective, Multicenter Analysis Comparing Conventional with Oncoplastic Breast Conserving Surgery: Oncological and Surgical Outcomes in Women with High-Risk Breast Cancer from the OPBC-01/iTOP2 Study

Introduction

Recent data suggest that margins ≥2 mm after breast-conserving surgery may improve local control in invasive breast cancer (BC). By allowing large resection volumes, oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OBCII; Clough level II/Tübingen 5-6) may achieve better local control than conventional breast conserving surgery (BCS; Tübingen 1-2) or oncoplastic breast conservation with low resection volumes (OBCI; Clough level I/Tübingen 3-4).

Methods

Data from consecutive high-risk BC patients treated in 15 centers from the Oncoplastic Breast Consortium (OPBC) network, between January 2010 and December 2013, were retrospectively reviewed.

Results

A total of 3,177 women were included, 30% of whom were treated with OBC (OBCI n = 663; OBCII n = 297). The BCS/OBCI group had significantly smaller tumors and smaller resection margins compared with OBCII (pT1: 50% vs. 37%, p = 0.002; proportion with margin <1 mm: 17% vs. 6%, p < 0.001). There were significantly more re-excisions due to R1 (“ink on tumor”) in the BCS/OBCI compared with the OBCII group (11% vs. 7%, p = 0.049). Univariate and multivariable regression analysis adjusted for tumor biology, tumor size, radiotherapy, and systemic treatment demonstrated no differences in local, regional, or distant recurrence-free or overall survival between the two groups.

Conclusions

Large resection volumes in oncoplastic surgery increases the distance from cancer cells to the margin of the specimen and reduces reexcision rates significantly. With OBCII larger tumors are resected with similar local, regional and distant recurrence-free as well as overall survival rates as BCS/OBCI.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1245/s10434-021-10809-1.

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.

Oncoplastic surgery: A suitable alternative to conventional breast conserving surgery in low - Middle income countries; a retrospective cohort study

Introduction

Breast Conserving Surgery (BCS) with whole breast radiation is now standard of care as a safer alternative to Mastectomy in terms of loco-regional recurrence and long-term survival. Despite this, a frequent pitfall of conventional BCS is positive surgical margins and need for second surgery with a reported frequency of 12-59 % in literature. Oncoplastic Surgery can be a safer, more cost effective alternate to conventional BCS owing to its higher rate of negative surgical margins (4-6% vs 12-59 %) and better cosmetic results. We aim to prove utility of Oncoplastic surgery for Low-Middle income countries.

Objective

The aim of this study was to determine Oncoplastic Surgery as a more appropriate alternative to Conventional Breast Conserving Surgery for Low-Middle Income countries in terms of its lower positive margins and re-excision rates.

Methodology

A retrospective comparative single center study by reviewing patient's medical records from August 2016 to June 2020 was conducted. Rate of positive margins and re-excisions along with mean volume of resection specimen, mean tumor size and quadrant dealt by both surgical procedures were compared.

Results

Out of 421 patients 249 patients underwent oncoplastic surgery and were compared with 173 patients who had conventional breast conserving surgery. Positive margins were seen in 5 patients (2 %) in OPS group whereas in 31 (17.9 %) patients in BCS group (p value < 0.001). Therefore, 2 from OPS group and 17 from BCS group underwent re-excision (p value < 0.002).None in OPS group while 7 out of 17 patients in BCS group underwent mastectomy as second procedure. Mean tumor size in OPS group was 2.26 cm ± SD 1.66 and in BCS group was 1.94 cm ± SD 1.28. Majority of Lobular carcinoma and Ductal carcinoma in-situ, multifocal, upper inner and central quadrant tumors and those unresponsive to neo-adjuvant therapy were treated by Oncoplastic techniques.

Conclusion

Oncoplastic surgery has shown promising results as a safer tool to deal with large, complex tumors, lesions in difficult anatomical locations, multifocal or progressing on neo-adjuvant therapy. With its low Re-excision rates, it is a better alternative to traditional Breast Conserving approach for overburdened and resource limited health care system of Low-Middle Income countries. Multi-center, prospective trials are needed to determine its feasibility.

Oncoplastic breast-conservative surgery for breast cancers: a uni-institutional case-control study

The current study was designed to compare oncological outcomes between oncoplastic (OBCS) and conventional breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Data collected retrospectively from two groups of patients diagnosed with breast cancer, cases group (OBCS) and control group (BCS), were analyzed. A total of 277 women were included in the analysis: 193 (69.7%) in the cases group and 84 (30.3%) in the control group. Resected volume was larger in the OBCS group (438.05 ± 302.26 cm³ vs 223.34 ± 161.75 cm³; p < 0.001). Re-excision was required for 7.1% of patients receiving BCS versus 4.7% in the OBCS group (p = 0.402). After long-term follow up, no local recurrences occurred in the OBCS group, while 2.4% of patients receiving BCS had local relapse (p = 0.045). Compared with BCS, OBCS increases oncological safety in terms of re-excision rate and local recurrence.

Outcomes in volume replacement and volume displacement techniques in oncoplastic breast conserving surgery: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Volume Replacement (VR-OBCS) and Volume Displacement Oncoplastic Breast Conserving Surgery (VD-OBCS) are commonly used in the management of breast cancer. Many studies summarize the individual postoperative outcomes of these two procedures; however, there is a lack of research that compares outcomes of these approaches. This review summarizes the available VR and VD-OBCS literature in terms of oncological, cosmetic, and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

An online literature search (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and CINAHL) was performed. Studies were included if they were written in English, had more than 10 adult (18+) female patients who underwent VR-OBCS or VD-OBCS, and reported at least one well-described oncological, clinical, or cosmetic outcome RESULTS: Thirty-three studies (26 VR-OBCS and 7 VD-OBCS) were included in this review; VR-OBCS studies were separated based on the use of latissimus dorsi (LD) flaps. Studies utilizing VR-OBCS with LD flaps reported the highest rate of all oncological outcomes; VR-OBCS studies without LD flaps reported the lowest. Rates of hematoma, seroma, and wound dehiscence were highest in VR-OBCS with LD flaps; partial flap loss and fat necrosis were highest in VR-OBCS without LD flaps and infection was highest in VD-OBCS studies. Inconsistencies in methodology (cosmetic outcome measures, outcome definitions, and time horizons) were found in all procedural groups.

CONCLUSION

Differences in outcomes for both OBCS procedures may be due to the heterogeneity of patient populations. "Doers" and "Users" of breast oncoplastic research should consider tumor size, laterality of tumor, breast size, measurement scales, and defensible time horizons before the application of a study's conclusions.

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.

Improving Results in Oncoplastic Surgery

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After studying this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Describe the risks, benefits, and safety profile of oncoplastic procedures for partial breast reconstruction, and how they compare to breast conservation-therapy alone. 2. Have a working knowledge of oncoplastic techniques and how they are addressed from the multidisciplinary perspective. 3. Understand the limitations of oncoplastic techniques and how to avoid unfavorable results.

SUMMARY

Oncoplastic surgical techniques have expanded indications for breast conservation and have improved both oncologic and reconstructive outcomes. This article will focus on some of the barriers to adoption and discuss ways to improve safety through streamlining the process, understanding the oncologic concerns, and evaluating unfavorable outcomes that might interfere with the appropriate delivery of breast cancer care.

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.

Clinical Significance of Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery and Application of Volume-Displacement Technique

ABSTRACT

Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer has been continuously developing in recent years, and it has become an important part of breast cancer surgery. Its safety and aesthetics have been widely recognized by domestic and foreign experts. However, due to the complexity and diversity of individuals and diseases, and the need for integrating the thinking of breast surgery and plastic surgery, it is still a challenge for breast surgeons. This review summarizes the pros and cons of its clinical application through a comprehensive discussion of hot issues in oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery and introduces common volume-displacement techniques in the clinic for reference by doctors in daily work.

Recurrence and survival after standard versus oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer

Background

Oncoplastic techniques in breast-conserving surgery (BCS) are used increasingly for larger tumours. This large cohort study aimed to assess oncological outcomes after oncoplastic BCS (OPS) versus standard BCS.

Methods

Data for all women who had BCS in three centres in Stockholm during 2010–2016 were extracted from the Swedish National Breast Cancer Register. All patients with T2–3 tumours, all those receiving neoadjuvant treatment, and an additional random sample of women with T1 tumours were selected. Medical charts were reviewed for local recurrences and surgical technique according to the Hoffman–Wallwiener classification. Date and cause of death were retrieved from the Swedish Cause of Death Register.

Results

The final cohort of 4178 breast cancers in 4135 patients was categorized into three groups according to surgical technique: 3720 for standard BCS, 243 simple OPS, and 215 complex OPS. Median duration of follow up was 64 (range 24–110) months. Node-positive and large tumours were more common in OPS than in standard BCS (P < 0.001). There were 61 local recurrences: 57 (1.5 per cent), 1 (0.4 per cent) and 3 (1.4 per cent) in the standard BCS, simple OPS and complex OPS groups respectively (P = 0.368). Overall, 297 patients died, with an unadjusted 5-year overall survival rate of 94.7, 93.1 and 92.6 per cent respectively (P = 0.350). Some 102 deaths were from breast cancer, with unadjusted 5-year cancer-specific survival rates of 97.9, 98.3 and 95.0 per cent respectively (P = 0.056).

Discussion

Oncoplastic BCS is a safe surgical option, even for larger node-positive tumours, with low recurrence and excellent survival rates.

Oncoplastic partial breast reconstruction: concepts and techniques

Immediate oncoplastic breast reconstruction performed at the time of breast conserving surgery for the treatment of breast cancer merges the therapeutic goals of complete oncologic extirpation with preservation of breast form and function. A constellation of surgical techniques that employs breast volume displacement and/or replacement methods of varying complexity levels have emerged, thus broadening the potential applications for breast conservation therapy to include cases with increased tumor-to-native breast-volume ratios, multicentric or multifocal disease, and/or previous margin-positive resections. This review describes the various reconstructive methods, including the use of local tissue rearrangement, oncoplastic reduction-mastopexy, and locoregional flaps. Classification of the surgical options into levels I and II volume-displacement and volume-replacing techniques is made. Additionally, we explore the oncologic safety and effectiveness of this treatment paradigm by summarizing existing supportive evidence regarding associated risk of surgical complications, rate of margin-positive resection, implications for radiographic surveillance, local recurrence rates, and patient-reported outcomes. In conclusion, surgeons may use a wide variety of oncoplastic techniques for partial breast reconstruction at the time of segmental mastectomy to deliver effective breast conserving treatment for women with breast cancer. A growing body of literature affirms the oncologic safety of this approach. Future directions for research include long-term follow-up data with emphasis on outcomes from patient perspectives.

Assessing the effect of a hands-on oncoplastic surgery training course: A survey of Canadian surgeons

BACKGROUND

The adoption of oncoplastic surgery in North America is poor despite evidence supporting the benefits. Surgeons take courses to acquire oncoplastic techniques, however, the effect of these courses is unknown. This study aimed to assess the impact of a hands-on oncoplastic course on surgeons' comfort with oncoplastic techniques and rate of adoption of these techniques in their practice.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An online 10-question survey was developed and distributed to surgeons who had participated in a hands-on oncoplastic course offered in Ontario, Canada. Categorical data were reported using frequencies and percentages.

RESULTS

A total of 105 surveys were sent out of which 69 attending surgeons responded (response rate: 65.7%). All respondents stated cosmesis was of the utmost importance in breast conserving surgery. The most common oncoplastic techniques they currently use included glandular re-approximation (98.4%), undermining of skin (93.6%), undermining of the nipple areolar complex (63.4%), and de-epithelialization and repositioning of the nipple areola complex (49.2%). Only 26% of respondnets stated they used more advanced techniques such as mammoplasty. Sixty percent of surgeons reported they used oncoplastic techniques in at least half of their cases. Ninety-two percent of respondents stated that the hands-on course increased the amount of oncoplastic techniques in their practice. At least 70% of respondents stated they would do another hands-on course. The main factor that facilitated the uptake of oncoplastic techniques was a better understanding of surgical techniques and planning.

CONCLUSION

A hands-on oncoplastic course helps surgeons adopt oncoplastic surgery techniques into their clinical practice. This teaching model allows surgeons to become comfortable with a variety of techniques. This study supports the relevance of a hands-on oncoplastic course to enhance the availability of safe oncoplastic surgery for breast cancer patients.

Achieving margin clearance following oncoplastic breast surgery in comparison with simple wide local excision: a three-dimensional specimen assessment

BACKGROUND

Pre-operative breast tumour radial dimensions often determine the choice between simple wide local excision (WLE) and oncoplastic breast surgery (OBS). We reviewed the three-dimensional interplay between tumour and surgical specimen dimensions in the two cohorts.

METHODS

Demographic, tumour and treatment data were collected for all patients undergoing OBS by a single surgeon and compared with a randomly selected cohort of WLE patients treated. The relationship between tumour and specimen medio-lateral, supero-inferior and antero-posterior dimensions were explored in both groups. Subgroup analyses were performed in the OBS cohort (parenchymal displacement versus replacement).

RESULTS

We identified 60 OBS patients (63 breasts), comparing them with 60 WLE patients. Pre-operative tumour estimated size was significantly larger in the OBS cohort and concordant with macroscopic tumour radial dimensions and final microscopic tumour size. Surgical specimen weight was more than 3.5 times higher in the OBS group and its radial dimensions were almost double. No significant difference was observed for the antero-posterior dimensions. The rate of margin re-excisions and completion mastectomies were lower in the OBS cohort. WLE patients with positive margins had a lower tumour-to-specimen ratio, whereas, the requirement for further surgery in the OBS cohort was associated with larger tumour dimensions.

CONCLUSION

Despite larger tumour dimensions, OBS is not inferior to WLE in providing clear surgical margins. Our analysis of the three-dimensional spatial relationship between cancer and surgical specimen, although not completely conclusive, can be helpful in the selection of the most appropriate surgical approach for every patient.

Rates of re-excision and conversion to mastectomy after breast-conserving surgery with or without oncoplastic surgery: a nationwide population-based study

Background

There is no consensus regarding the impact of oncoplastic surgery (OPS) on rates of re‐excision and conversion to mastectomy following breast‐conserving surgery (BCS). Here these two outcomes after BCS and OPS were compared in a nationwide population‐based setting.

Methods

In Denmark, all OPS is registered and categorized into volume displacement, volume reduction or volume replacement. Patients who underwent BCS or OPS between 2012 and 2018 were selected from the Danish Breast Cancer Group database. Multivariable analyses were performed to adjust for confounders, and propensity score matching to limit potential confounding by indication bias.

Results

A total of 13 185 patients (72·5 per cent) underwent BCS and 5003 (27·5 per cent) OPS. Volume displacement was used in 4171 patients (83·4 per cent), volume reduction in 679 (13·6 per cent) and volume replacement in 153 (3·1 per cent). Re‐excision rates were 15·6 and 14·1 per cent after BCS and OPS respectively. After adjusting for confounders, patients were less likely to have a re‐excision following OPS than BCS (odds ratio (OR) 0·80, 95 per cent c.i. 0·72 to 0·88), specifically after volume displacement and reduction. The rate of conversion to mastectomy was similar after OPS and BCS (3·2 versus 3·7 per cent; P = 0·105), but with a lower risk in adjusted analysis (OR 0·69, 0·58 to 0·84), specifically after volume displacement and reduction procedures. Findings were similar after propensity score matching.

Conclusion

A modest decrease in re‐excision rate and less frequent conversion to mastectomy were observed after OPS compared with BCS.

Lowering Re-excision Rates After Breast-Conserving Surgery: Unraveling the Intersection Between Surgeon Case Volumes and Techniques

BACKGROUND

The re-excision rates after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) are significantly varied, with surgeon case volume as one influential factor. Surgeons with higher case volumes have been shown to have lower reoperation rates. This study attempted to determine whether this may be attributable to excessive breast tissue removal during initial BCS.

METHODS

A retrospective study analyzed referrals to the authors' cancer center during 3 years. Patients undergoing initial BCS for ductal carcinoma in situ or T1-T3 breast cancers were included. Patient age, tumor factors, surgeon case volume, and the calculated resection ratio (CRR) were analyzed. The total resection volume was divided by the optimal resection volume to produce the CRR, which reflected the magnitude of excess tissue resected during initial BCS. Comparison of the mean CRR between surgeon case-volume categories was performed with a repeated measures analysis of variance. A multivariate regression model assessed the effects of the CRR and surgeon case volume on re-excision rates.

RESULTS

Larger tumor size, lobular histology, and lower CRR were associated with increased re-excision rates. The CRR was similar for each surgeon case-volume group. Surgeon case volume was not independently associated with re-excision rates, but surgeons with very high case volumes had lower odds of re-excision than surgeons with intermediate case volumes (odds ratio 0.44; 95% confidence interval 0.21-0.91).

CONCLUSIONS

When control was used for the CRR, apparent differences in re-excision rates between surgeon case-volume groups were observed, suggesting that surgeons with higher case volumes may be more accurate when performing BCS.

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.