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

How Can Oncoplastic Breast Surgery Contribute to the Management of Locally Advanced Breast Cancer in Sub-Saharan Africa?

Background

Because of resource constrains in sub-Saharan African countries, breast-conserving surgery (BCS) has no role in patients with locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT), and mastectomy remains the standard surgical treatment for these patients.

Objectives

The first objective of the study was to assess the safety of oncoplastic BCS in patients with LABC who showed good clinical response to NACT in a breast center with enhanced level of resources in Sudan. The second objective was to assess the cosmetic outcome.

Patients and Methods

Two hundred and fifty patients with LABC were treated with NACT at Khartoum Breast Care Center during the period 2013-2019. Out of this, 52 patients were surgically treated with oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery. Kaplan-Meier curve was used to calculate the survival rates. The cosmetic outcome was subjectively assessed by the Harris scale.

Results

The median follow-up period was 53 months. The 3- and 5-years distant metastasis-free survival rates were 92.9% and 82.2%, respectively. One patient developed regional recurrence, and 6 patients developed distant metastasis. Eighty percentage of patients were admitted to have good to excellent cosmetic outcome.

Conclusion

This Sudanese experience showed that oncoplastic BCS is oncologically safe and aesthetically satisfactory in patients with LABC who demonstrated good clinical response to NACT in a setting with enhanced levels of resources for breast cancer care.

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.

Immediate or delayed oncoplastic surgery after breast conserving surgery at the Netherlands Cancer Institute: a cohort study of 251 cases

PURPOSE

Oncoplastic surgery (OPS) after breast conserving surgery is preferably performed during the same operation. Offering delayed OPS instead of mastectomy to patients with a high risk of tumor-positive margins allows breast conservation with the option of margin re-excision during OPS, without having to dismantle the reconstruction. We aimed to evaluate surgical outcomes after immediate and delayed OPS.

METHODS

We included early-stage breast cancer patients who underwent OPS at the Netherlands Cancer Institute between 2016 and 2019. Patients were selected for delayed OPS after multidisciplinary consultation if the risk of tumor-positive margins with immediate OPS was considered significant (> 30%). Groups were compared on baseline characteristics and short-term surgical outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 242 patients with 251 OPS, 130 (52%) OPS had neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Immediate OPS was performed in 176 (70%) cases and delayed OPS in 76 (30%). Selection for delayed OPS was associated with tumor size (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.04), ILC (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.10-6.20), DCIS (OR 3.45, 95% CI 1.42-8.34) and bra size (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.62-0.94). Delayed and immediate OPS differed in tissue weight (54 vs. 67 g, p = 0.034), tissue replacement (51% vs. 26%, p < .001) and tumor-positive margins (66% vs. 18%, p < .001). Re-excision was performed in 48 (63%) delayed OPS and in 11 (6%) immediate OPS. Groups did not differ in complications (21% vs. 18%, p = 0.333). Breast conservation after immediate and delayed OPS was 98% and 93%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Performing delayed OPS in selected cases facilitated simultaneous margin re-excision without increasing complications, and resulted in an excellent breast conservation rate.

Revisiting Reduction Mammaplasty: Complications of Oncoplastic and Symptomatic Macromastia Reductions

BACKGROUND

Oncoplastic breast reduction has been shown to be an effective and safe approach to breast conservation surgery in women with macromastia. However, there remains a paucity of data investigating the comparative outcomes. This study seeks to delineate the complication profiles for oncoplastic and symmetrizing breast reductions versus mammaplasty for benign macromastia.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of all consecutively performed reduction mammaplasty cases at a single institution by two plastic surgeons over a 2-year period.

RESULTS

A total of 632 breasts were analyzed: 502 reduction mammaplasties, 85 symmetrizing reductions, and 45 oncoplastic reductions in 342 patients. Mean age was 43.9 ± 15.93 years, mean body mass index was 29.15 ± 5.66 kg/m2, and mean reduction weight was 610.03 ± 313.13 g. Regarding surgical technique, a medial pedicle was used in 86% of cases. There were similar postoperative complication outcomes for nipple necrosis, wound healing, scar revision, fat necrosis, seroma, hematoma, and overall complication rates for all procedures. However, the rate of postoperative revision among reduction mammaplasty (2%), oncoplastic reduction (6.7%), and symmetrizing reduction (5.9%) was significantly different (P = 0.027). In univariate analysis, diabetes (P = 0.011), smoking (P = 0.007), higher body mass index (P = 0.003), larger reduction weight (P = 0.011), longer nipple-to-inframammary fold measurement (P = 0.014), and longer sternal notch-to-nipple measurement (P = 0.039) were all significant risk factors for a surgical complication in reductions performed for any indication. Using a multivariate logistic regression model, diabetes (P = 0.047), smoking (P = 0.025), and higher body mass index (P = 0.002) were all retained as statistically significant risk factors.

CONCLUSION

The complication profiles for both oncoplastic breast reductions and breast reductions for symptomatic macromastia are similar and acceptably low.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

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.

A Retrospective Cohort Study Comparing Traditional Breast Conservation With Oncoplastic Surgery in Breast Cancer Patients After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

To better understand the difference between traditional breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and oncoplastic surgery (OPS), we conducted a retrospective cohort study involving breast cancer patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and then underwent breast conservation at the Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted. All breast cancer patients who received NAC and then underwent traditional BCS or OPS at the Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2019, were included.

RESULTS

Three hundred ninety-nine breast cancer patients received NAC and underwent traditional BCS, and 99 patients underwent OPS. The average age of the patients in the OPS group was younger than that in the BCS group (43 vs 48 years, P = 0.017). The size of the tumor assessed by ultrasonography at baseline in the OPS group was larger than that in the BCS group (31.3 vs 28.1 mm, P = 0.013). The same trend was observed in the clinical T stage and overall staging assessments before the administration of NAC in these 2 groups. Oncoplastic techniques were more frequently applied when tumors were located in areas with relatively few glands, such as the upper inner quadrant. There were no significant differences in the margins and distributions of pathological types and molecular subtypes between these 2 groups. The rates of pathological complete response were similar in the traditional BCS and OPS groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Unlike traditional BCS, in breast cancer patients after NAC, the adoption of oncoplastic techniques makes breast conservation feasible, even in patients with large tumors, late stages, and unfavorable tumor locations.

Innovative Standards in Oncoplastic Breast Conserving Surgery: From Radical Mastectomy to Extreme Oncoplasty

BACKGROUND

Oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (OBCS), which is the current procedure of choice for eligible BC patients, describes a philosophy that prioritizes oncologic and cosmetic outcomes. However, knowledge gaps regarding training, acceptance, and practice preclude standardization and make it difficult to design algorithmic guidelines to optimize individualized management in the era of precision medicine.

SUMMARY

The harmony between patient expectations and oncologic goals creates the state of the art of OBCS. Nevertheless, to achieve these goals, multidisciplinary approach is a must. Surgical decisions require a comprehensive evaluation including patient factors, tumor biology, genetics, technical considerations, and adjunct therapies. Moreover, the quality-of-life (QOL) issues should be considered as the highest level of priority with a shared decision making instituted on realistic discussions with the patient.

KEY MESSAGES

The standardization in OBCS should be initiated via defining a breast surgeon who should gain theorical and practical competence on techniques via national or international educational programs. The algorithmic patient assessment with appropriate documentation before and after surgery should be established. A simple and safe global lexicon should be designed regarding techniques to be proposed and quality metrics to be considered. Additionally, international multicenter prospective trials should be instituted to overcome knowledge gaps. It is evident that OBCS is the perfect union of science with art. Nevertheless, at the very end, the question is not the nature of the surgeon/artist who would be the extremist, the innovator, or the conservative, but the patient's satisfaction, prognosis, and QOL that conclude the cascade of state of the art of OBCS.

Comparison of Long-Term Oncological Outcomes in Oncoplastic Breast Surgery and Conventional Breast-Conserving Surgery for Breast Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

PURPOSE

The oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OPS) technique, combined with the principles of oncological safety and plastic surgery, results in complete tumor resection while preserving the natural appearance of the breast. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term oncological results after OPS compared with conventional breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for early breast cancer.

METHODS

The medical records of patients who underwent breast cancer surgery and adjuvant radiation therapy at Seoul National University Hospital between 2011 and 2014 were reviewed. Ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR)-free survival rate and recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates were compared between the OPS and BCS groups.

RESULTS

One-to-one propensity score matching was conducted, yielding 371 patients in each group. The mean tumor distance from the nipple was shorter, and the mean retrieved specimen size and pathologic tumor size, including ductal carcinoma in situ, were larger in the OPS group than in the conventional BCS group (p < 0.001). Surgical margin positivity was not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.777). The surgical technique was not significantly associated with IBTR (OPS versus conventional BCS, 5-year survival rate, 96.9% vs. 98.6%; p = 0.355) and RFS (5-year survival rate, 92.9% vs. 94.5%; p = 0.357) on the log-rank test. Multivariate analysis revealed that OPS versus conventional BCS was not significantly associated with survival outcomes.

CONCLUSION

We observed no significant differences in long-term IBTR and RFS between the OPS and conventional BCS groups in this retrospective analysis. OPS can be an oncologically and surgically safe alternative option for conventional BCS for early breast cancer.

Innovative Standards in Surgery of the Breast after Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy

BACKGROUND

The goal of neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) in breast cancer is to downstage tumors and downgrade treatment. Indications are constantly evolving. These changes raise practical questions for planning of surgery after NST.

SUMMARY

In this review we discuss current evolving aspects of surgery of the breast after NST. Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) eligibility increases after NST - both neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and neoadjuvant endocrine therapy. Adequate margin width in NST and upfront surgery are similar - "no tumor on ink" for invasive cancer. Oncoplastic breast surgery after NST is feasible - both for BCS and mastectomy with reconstruction. There is increasing interest in the possibility of omitting surgery in patients with a complete response to NAC. Several trials are being conducted in aim of achieving acceptable prediction of pathological complete response, by combination of imaging and percutaneous biopsy of the tumor bed, as well as assessing the safety of such an approach.

KEY MESSAGES

Surgery of the breast after NST should be determined not only according to biologic and anatomic parameters at diagnosis, but is dynamic, and must be tailored according to the response to therapy. The omission of surgery in exceptional responders after NAC is being explored.

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.

Unplanned breast-conserving surgery after systemic therapy in locally advanced breast cancer: The results of level II oncoplastic techniques

BACKGROUND

In patients with breast cancer for whom neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is planned, it is recommended to mark the primary tumour before treatment (planned surgery). However, surgeons may have to perform breast-conserving surgery on patients whose tumours are not marked (unplanned surgery). This study focused on the results obtained with planned and unplanned level II oncoplastic surgery (OPS) techniques applied to patients after NAC.

METHODS

Patient groups who underwent planned, unplanned OPS and mastectomy after NAC were compared. Surgical margin status, re-operation and re-excision requirements, ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence (IBTR) and axillary recurrence rates recorded. Long-term local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), disease-free survival and overall survival were evaluated.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the planned and unplanned OPS groups in terms of surgical margin status, re-excision requirement, and mastectomy rates. During an average follow-up period of 43 months, 5.3% and 4% of the patients in the planned OPS group developed IBTR and axillary recurrence, respectively, whereas these rates were 6.6% and 5.3% in the unplanned OPS group. In the mastectomy group, the rates of IBTR and axillary recurrence were found to be 4.1% and 3.8%, respectively. There was no significant difference between the three groups in terms of IBTR (P: .06) and axillary recurrence (P: .08) rates.

CONCLUSION

Breast conserving surgery can be applied using level II OPS techniques with the post-NAC radiological examination and marking even if primary tumour marking is not done in the pre-NAC period.

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.

Feasibility of level II oncoplastic techniques in the surgical management of locally advanced breast cancer after neoadjuvant treatment

BACKGROUND

The study aimed to identify the short- and long-term oncological results and complications of level-II oncoplastic surgery (OPS) techniques applied after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for locally advanced breast cancer.

METHODS

Patients undergoing OPS because of breast cancer (non-NAC) and those undergoing OPS after systemic treatment (NAC) were evaluated. Surgical margin (SM) status, reoperation and re-excision requirements, axillary intervention results, ipsilateral tumour recurrence, axillary recurrence rates and early postoperative complications were recorded. Long-term locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS) and overall survival (OS) rates of the patients were analysed.

RESULTS

There were 1043 patients (893 patients in the non-NAC group and 150 in the NAC group) in the study. There were no significant differences in SM status, re-excision and mastectomy rates between the groups. The 5-year (LRFS) rate was 90.1% in the NAC group and 93.2% in the non-NAC group (P: .09). OS was shorter in the NAC group. Five-year OS rate was 96% in the non-NAC group and 92% in the NAC group (P: .01). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of delayed wound healing, minor wound infection, fat necrosis, seroma/hematoma, partial nipple necrosisor T-junction necrosis.

CONCLUSION

It should be noted that the responses to NAC increased with targeted therapies, and breast-conserving became possible in a substantial number of patients who were not eligible for breast-conserving surgery at the first presentation. Notably, oncoplastic surgery increased breast conservation rates without compromising oncological results.

Oncological Safety of Oncoplastic Level II Mammoplasties After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Large Breast Cancers: A Matched-Cohort Analysis

BACKGROUND

Oncoplastic surgery (OPS) has extended the indications for breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Its role in patients with large breast cancers treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is unclear. This study evaluated the oncological safety of OPS for tumors with partial response after NAC.

METHODS

A consecutive series of 65 patients who underwent OPS (study group) after NAC for large breast cancer from January 2004 to July 2018 was compared with 130 matched patients treated by NAC, followed by standard BCS in 65 cases and mastectomy in 65 cases (two case-controlled groups).

RESULTS

The mean initial radiological tumor size was 46 mm. Residual pathological tumor size was 22 mm in the OPS cohort, 19 mm in the standard BCS cohort, and 31 mm in the mastectomy cohort (p > 0.05). The mean follow-up was 59 months in the study cohort. Five-year local recurrence rates were 0%, 0%, and 10.5% (0-22%) for the OPS, BCS, and mastectomy cohorts, respectively, while 5-year regional recurrence rates were 4.1% (0-11.1%), 0, and 19.4% (0-35.2%, p > 0.05), respectively. Five-year overall survival was 85.3% for the OPS cohort, 94.1% for the standard BCS cohort (p = 0.194), and 79.9% for the mastectomy cohort (p = 0.165).

CONCLUSIONS

OPS is safe after NAC for large breast cancers, and provides excellent local control, identical to that of tumors with a better response, treated by standard BCS. After NAC, OPS can be a valuable treatment option for tumors that did not shrink optimally and would not be suitable for standard BCS.

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.

Intraoperative ultrasonography-guided surgery: An effective modality for breast conservation after neo-adjuvant chemotherapy

Margin status is one of the significant prognostic factors for recurrence in breast-conserving surgery (BCS). The issue that merits consideration for oncologic safety and cost-effectiveness about the modalities to assure clear margins at initial surgical intervention remains controversial after neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). The presented study aimed to assess the impact of intraoperative ultrasound (IOUS)-guided surgery on accurate localization of tumor site, adequacy of excision with clear margins, and healthy tissue sacrifice in BCS after NAC. Patients who had IOUS-guided BCS ater NAC were reviewed. No patient had preoperative localization with wire or radiotracer. Intraoperative real-time sonographic localization, sonographic margin assessment during resection, macroscopic and sonographic examination of specimen, and cavity shavings (CS) were done as the standard procedure. No frozen assessment was performed. One hundred ninety-four patients were included, in which 42.5% had pCR. IOUS-guided surgery accomplished successful localization of the targeted lesions in all patients. Per protocol, all inked margins on CS specimens were reported to be tumor-free in permanent histopathology. No re-excision or mastectomy was required. For a setting without CS, the negative predictive value (NPV) of IOUS rate was 96%. IOUS was found to over and underestimate tumor response to NAC both in 2% of patients. IOUS-guided surgery seems to be an efficient modality to perform adequate BCS after NAC with no additional localization method. Especially, when CS is integrated as a standard to BCS, IOUS seems to provide safe surgery for patients with no false negativity and a high rate of NPV.

Immediate Contralateral Mastopexy/Breast Reduction for Symmetry Can Be Performed Safely in Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery

BACKGROUND

Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery expands the indications for breast conservation. When performed using modified mastopexy/breast reduction techniques, the optimal timing of the contralateral symmetrizing mastopexy/breast reduction remains unclear. This study examined the effect of the timing of symmetrizing mastopexy/breast reduction on oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted of all patients who underwent oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery using mastopexy/breast reduction techniques at a single center from 2010 to 2016. Patients who received synchronous (immediate) contralateral breast symmetrizing mastopexy were compared with those who underwent a delayed symmetrizing mastopexy procedure. Demographic, treatment, and outcome data were collected. Descriptive statistics were used and multivariate analysis was performed to evaluate the various relationships.

RESULTS

There were 429 patients (713 breasts) included in the study; of these, 284 patients (568 breasts) underwent oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery involving mastopexy/breast reduction techniques and immediate symmetrizing mastopexy, and 145 patients underwent delayed contralateral symmetrizing mastopexy. The overall complication rate was similar between the immediate and delayed groups (25.4 percent versus 26.9 percent, respectively; p = 0.82), as was the major complication rate (10.6 percent versus 6.2 percent; p = 0.16). Complications resulted in a delay in adjuvant therapy in 18 patients (4.2 percent); in two patients (0.7 percent), this delay resulted from a complication in the contralateral symmetrizing mastopexy breast. Immediate contralateral symmetrizing mastopexy was not associated with increased risk of complications per breast (p = 0.82) or delay to adjuvant therapy (p = 0.6).

CONCLUSION

Contralateral mastopexy/breast reduction for symmetry can be performed at the time of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery in carefully selected patients without significantly increasing the risk of complications or delay to adjuvant radiation therapy.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Modern surgical treatment of breast cancer

Breast cancer is the most frequent cancer in women all over the world. The prognosis is generally good, with a five-year overall survival rate above 90% for all stages. It is still the second leading cause of cancer-related death among women. Surgical treatment of breast cancer has changed dramatically over the years. Initially, treatment involved major surgery with long hospitalization, but it is now mostly accomplished as an outpatient procedure with a quick recovery. Thanks to well-designed retrospective and randomly controlled prospective studies, guidelines are continually changing. We are presently in an era where safely de-escalating surgery is increasingly emphasized. Breast cancer is a heterogenous disease, where a "one-size-fits-all" treatment approach is not appropriate. There is often more than one surgical solution carrying equal oncological safety for an individual patient. In these situations, it is important to include the patient in the treatment decision-making process through well informed consent. For this to be optimal, the physician must be fully updated on the surgical options. A consequence of an improved prognosis is more breast cancer survivors, and therefore physical appearance and quality of life is more in focus. Modern breast cancer treatment is increasingly personalized from a surgical point of view but is dependent on a multidisciplinary approach. Detailed algorithms for surgery of the breast and the axilla are required for optimal treatment and quality control. This review illustrates how breast cancer treatment has changed over the years and how the current standard is based on high quality scientific research.

Is oncoplastic breast conserving surgery oncologically safe? A meta-analysis of 18,103 patients

BACKGROUND

Oncoplastic Breast Conserving Surgery (OBCS) allows adequate resection margins of tumours unsuitable for standard breast conserving surgery (SBCS) whilst allowing for better cosmesis and reduced morbidity when compared to mastectomy. However, there is limited evidence on its oncological safety.

METHODS

This study aims to compare oncological safety of OBCS with SBCS and mastectomy by examining the relative risk of cancer recurrence and re-operation rates through meta-analysis.

RESULTS

18 studies met the search criteria including 18,103 patients. The primary outcome measure (recurrence) was not significantly different between OBCS and SBCS or mastectomy (RR 0.861; 95% CI 0.640-1.160; p = 0.296). The secondary outcome measure (re-operation) initially achieved significance in favour of OBCS (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.46-0.89; p = 0.01). However, after adjustment for publication bias this was attenuated to insignificance between the two study groups (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.56-1.31; p = 0.44).

CONCLUSIONS

For both cancer recurrence and re-operation rate, there was no significant difference between OBCS and traditional techniques. OBCS is of comparable oncological safety to more established surgical procedures and a useful option in suitable patients.

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.

Long-term Results After Oncoplastic Surgery for Breast Cancer: A 10-year Follow-up

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term oncologic outcome after oncoplastic surgery (OPS).

BACKGROUND

OPS combines wide tumor excision with reduction mammoplasty techniques thus extending breast conserving surgery to large tumors that might else be proposed a mastectomy. Little data are available about the oncologic results for breast conserving surgery of these larger tumors.

METHODS

From January 2004 until March 2016, a total of 350 oncoplastic breast reductions were prospectively entered into a database. Patients were included if their breast reshaping included a reduction mammoplasty with skin excision (Level 2 oncoplastic techniques).

RESULTS

Histologic subtypes were: invasive ductal carcinoma in 219 cases (62.6%), ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in 88 cases (25.1%), and invasive lobular carcinoma in 43 (12.3%) cases. Seventy-three of the invasive cancers (27.9%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The mean resection weight was 177 grams. The mean pathological tumor size was 26 mm (range 0-180 mm) and varied from 23 mm (4-180 mm) for invasive cancers to 32 mm (0-100 mm) for DCIS. Specimen margins were involved in 12.6% of the cases; 10.5% of invasive ductal, 14.7% of DCIS, and 20.9% of invasive lobular. The overall breast conservation rate was 92% and varied from 87.4% for DCIS to 93.5% for the invasive cancers. Thirty-one patients (8.9%) developed one or more postoperative complications, inducing a delay in postoperative treatments in 4.6% of patients. The median follow up was 55 months. The cumulative 5-year incidences for local, regional, and distant recurrences were 2.2%, 1.1%, and 12.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Oncoplastic breast reductions allow wide resections with free margins and can be used for large cancers as an alternative to mastectomy.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy does not Increase Complications in Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery

BACKGROUND

Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OBCS) broadens the indications for breast conservation. Neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy (NAC) is used increasingly in the treatment of patients with early-stage and locally advanced breast cancer. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes for patients who received NAC followed by OBCS.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed for all patients who underwent OBCS involving the mastopexy/breast-reduction technique, including synchronous mastopexy/breast reduction for symmetry, at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center between January 2010 and January 2016. Patients who had received NAC were compared with those who had undergone surgery first. Demographic, treatment, and outcomes data were collected.

RESULTS

The study included 429 patients, corresponding to 713 breasts. Of these patients, 122, corresponding to 199 breasts, received NAC. The patients who received NAC were younger (p < 0.001) and had a more advanced cancer stage (p < 0.001). The overall complication rate per patient was 25.9%, with major complications occurring in 9.1% of the patients. After adjustment for risk factors, NAC was not shown to be associated with an increased risk of complications or delayed adjuvant radiation therapy (p = 0.37), irrespective of the chemotherapy regimen used or whether the interval between NAC and surgery was 4 weeks or longer.

CONCLUSIONS

In a high-volume center, OBCS can be performed safely for carefully selected patients after NAC without an increased risk of complications or delayed adjuvant radiation therapy. An interval of at least 4 weeks between completion of NAC and surgery can be regarded as safe irrespective of the chemotherapy regimen used.

Comparison of Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery and Breast-Conserving Surgery Alone: A Meta-Analysis

Purpose

The use of oncoplastic reconstruction for breast-conserving surgery (BCS) extends benefits beyond merely minimizing poor cosmetic results. However, the feasibility and oncological safety of oncoplastic surgery (OPS) are controversial.

Methods

This meta-analysis aimed to compare the short-term and long-term oncological outcomes of BCS alone and BCS plus OPS. Relevant studies published before July 2017 in the Embase, the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Web of Science databases were screened and collected. The meta-analysis was performed using STATA software (Stata Corp.).

Results

A total of 3,789 patients from 11 studies were included, with 2,691 patients in the BCS-alone group and 1,098 patients in the BCS plus OPS group. The demographics were similar between both groups, and no significant difference was observed in pathological T and N stages between the two groups. Re-excision was less common (relative risk [RR], 0.66; p=0.009) and the positive-margin rate was lower, but not significantly (RR, 0.83; p=0.191), in the BCS plus OPS group than in the BCS-alone group. The local and distal recurrence rates were similar in both groups. Both disease-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96-1.49; p=0.112) and overall survival (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.76-1.69; p=0.527) did not differ between the two groups.

Conclusion

A combination of BCS and OPS is preferred over BCS alone for decreasing re-excisions and provides similar long-term survival as BCS alone in patients with breast cancer.

Breast-conserving surgery following neoadjuvant therapy-a systematic review on surgical outcomes

Purpose

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) is increasingly used in breast cancer treatment. One of the main goals of NACT is to reduce the extent of local surgery of the breast and axilla. The aim of this study was to determine surgical outcomes for patients receiving breast-conserving therapy (BCT) after NACT, including margin status plus secondary surgeries, excision volumes, and cosmetic outcomes.

Methods

A systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA principles. Pubmed, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies investigating the results of BCT following NACT. The main study outcomes were margin status, additional local therapies, excision volumes, and cosmetic outcomes. Non-comparative studies on NACT were also included. Exclusion criteria were studies with less than 25 patients, and studies excluding secondary mastectomy patients.

Findings

Of the 1219 studies screened, 26 studies were deemed eligible for analysis, including data from 5379 patients treated with NACT and 10,110 patients treated without NACT. Included studies showed wide ranges of tumor-involved margins (2–39.8%), secondary surgeries (0–45.4%), and excision volumes (43.2–268 cm³) or specimen weight (26.4–233 g) after NACT. Most studies were retrospective, with a high heterogeneity and a high risk of bias. Cosmetic outcomes after NACT were reported in two single-center cohort studies. Both studies showed acceptable cosmetic outcomes.

Interpretation

There is currently insufficient evidence to suggest that NACT improves surgical outcomes of BCT. It is imperative that clinical trials include patient outcome measures in order to allow monitoring and meaningful comparison of treatment outcomes in breast cancer.

Indications and Controversies in Partial Mastectomy Defect Reconstruction

Breast cancer surgical treatment nowadays includes oncoplastic surgery. It is a reliable oncologic surgical treatment, which also prevents functional and aesthetic sequelae, thus improving the patient's quality of life and satisfaction. Numerous techniques have been described, with different levels of complexity and technicality. Their indications differ depending on the global breast volume and the degree of ptosis, on the tumor volume compared with the breast volume, and on the tumor location. This article describes the authors' many years of experience of breast cancer treatment using oncoplastic surgery. They also established a decision-making guide, whose implementation enables treatment of every patient.

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

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

Oncoplastic surgery; volume displacement techniques for breast conserving surgery in patients with breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Surgical management of breast cancer has drastically changed. Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) has now become a commonly used method for its treatment. Oncoplastic techniques are widely applied with satisfactory aesthetic results. We evaluated the aesthetic and oncological outcomes of BCS with glandular tissue displacement techniques.

METHODS

Seventy-five patients with invasive breast cancer were surgically treated by oncoplastic techniques. Preoperative evaluations, including breast and tumor size, localizations and features, were performed by physical examination, imaging methods, and histopathological analysis. Appropriate volume displacement techniques were planned according to breast and tumor size and localization. Early and late aesthetic results were evaluated.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 54 years, and mean tumor size was 25 mm. Tumors were located in the upper-outer quadrant in 44% of patients. Glandular flaps were used in 55 (73%) patients. Racquet mammoplasty was the most preferred method. Nipple areolar complex (NAC) recentralization was performed in 26 (47.3%) of 55 patients with glandular tissue displacement. Therapeutic reduction mammoplasty was performed in 20 patients. All patients underwent adjuvant radiotherapy. After an average follow-up of 24 months, neither locoregional recurrence nor distant metastases were observed. Aesthetic results of the oncoplastic BCS method were very good in 54 (72%) patients.

CONCLUSION

Breast remodeling by glandular flap displacement after a wide local excision should be the primary aim in patients with breast cancer for better aesthetic outcomes. NAC recentralization is the primary component that could be considered for achieving better results. BCS associated with oncoplastic techniques allows wide excision of larger tumors and provides good and satisfactory aesthetic results at long-term follow-up.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Evaluation of Surgical Outcomes of Oncoplasty Breast Surgery in Locally Advanced Breast Cancer and Comparison with Conventional Breast Conservation Surgery

The purpose of this study was to compare early oncologic outcomes of oncoplastic breast surgery and conventional breast conservation surgery in patients of locally advanced breast cancer. A single-center, prospective, non-randomized study enrolled select cases of locally advanced breast cancer (TNM T3/T4, N0/1/2) who after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, were considered for breast conservation surgery with oncoplasty techniques. The specimen volume resected, the mean margins and mean closest margin obtained were noted. The re-surgery rates, complication rates, and incidence of locoregional recurrence were also noted. Variables were compared with a retrospective cohort of similar patients who had undergone conventional breast conservation surgery. Fifty-seven patients underwent OBS (group 1) and were compared with 43 cases that had undergone conventional BCS (group 2). Majority of the patients in group 1 (73 %) had cT3 with N0 or N+ and a minority (17 %) were with limited skin involvement (cT4 and N0/N+). Relatively larger sized, post-NACT tumors could undergo OBS(4.4 vs 2.3 cm). Relatively greater proportion of tumors in central and lower quadrants were addressed by oncoplasty than traditional BCS (17/57, 29 % vs 4/43, 9 %, p = 0.04). The mean specimen volume excised in group 1 was more than that in group 2. (187.54 vs 125.19; p = 0.01). The mean of the margins were obtained more in group 1 (1.04 vs 0.69 cm); p < 0.01) as also the mean closest margin (0.86 vs 0.49 cm; p < 0.01). The incidence of close or involved margins was lesser in the OBS group (8 vs 24 %). Overall incidence of complications was similar in both groups (8/57, 14 % vs 4/43, 9 %; p = 0.34 NS). The median follow-up period of group 1 is 18 months (range 06-30 months) while group 2 is 34 months (14-44 months. There was no recurrence in group 1, but there were 5 cases (11 %) in group 2. Oncoplasty breast surgery offers more opportunity for breast conservation and oncologic safety than conventional breast conserving surgery.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

•

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

•

The size of tumors were bigger than other series.

•

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

•

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

•

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

Geographical Inequalities in Surgical Treatment for Localized Female Breast Cancer, Queensland, Australia 1997-2011: Improvements over Time but Inequalities Remain

The uptake of breast conserving surgery (BCS) for early stage breast cancer varies by where women live. We investigate whether these geographical patterns have changed over time using population-based data linkage between cancer registry records and hospital inpatient episodes. The study cohort consisted of 11,631 women aged 20 years and over diagnosed with a single primary invasive localised breast cancer between 1997 and 2011 in Queensland, Australia who underwent either BCS (n = 9223, 79%) or mastectomy (n = 2408, 21%). After adjustment for socio-demographic and clinical factors, compared to women living in very high accessibility areas, women in high (Odds Ratio (OR) 0.58 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.49, 0.69)), low (OR 0.47 (0.41, 0.54)) and very low (OR 0.44 (0.34, 0.56)) accessibility areas had lower odds of having BCS, while  the odds for women from middle (OR 0.81 (0.69, 0.94)) and most disadvantaged (OR 0.87 (0.71, 0.98)) areas was significantly lower than women living in affluent areas. The association between accessibility and the type of surgery reduced over time (interaction p = 0.028) but not for area disadvantage (interaction p = 0.209). In making informed decisions about surgical treatment, it is crucial that any geographical-related barriers to implementing their preferred treatment are minimised.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Effect of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy on the Surgical Treatment of Patients With Locally Advanced Breast Cancer Requiring Initial Mastectomy

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess the rate of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) in patients for whom mastectomy (MT) was, initially, the only conceivable surgical option.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between 2007 and 2012, 168 patients from a single center received nCT. Among these patients, we focused on the ones who received nCT (n = 119, [70.8%]) to decrease tumor size and thus to potentially allow a conservative surgical treatment. For these patients, MT was initially the only possible surgical treatment.

RESULTS

Among the 119 patients included, 118 presented with an invasive ductal carcinoma. The mean tumor size before nCT, measured using magnetic resonance imaging, was 41.6 mm (range, 15-110 mm) and 25.3 mm (range, 0-90 mm) after nCT. Eighty-six patients (72.3%) underwent BCS, and oncoplastic techniques were used in 29 patients (33.6%). Only 4.3% (5 patients) of patients who were treated with BCS needed additional surgery because of positive surgical margins. The median follow-up was 41.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 35.2-48.3). Five-year overall survival after BCS and MT were 77% (95% CI, 63-92) and 77% (95% CI, 63-95) respectively. Five-year disease-free survival after BCS and MT were 74% (95% CI, 64-86) and 59% (95% CI, 40-89) (not significant), respectively.

CONCLUSION

nCT for selective patients with "chemosensitive" breast tumor leads to a significant "MT to BCS" conversion rate. The type of surgery does not seem to affect the patient's overall and disease-free survival rates. Oncoplastic procedures can help to extend BCS after nCT.

Surgical considerations in locally advanced breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The definition of locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) includes patients with large tumors, extensive regional lymph node involvement, or direct involvement of the skin or underlying chest wall. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery has become the standard of care and a valuable strategy in the multimodality management of LABC. Variations in practice exist and the purpose of this article is to explore the surgical considerations in the management of LABC.

RECENT FINDINGS

There exist various diagnostic and treatment considerations in LABC patients that help guiding clinicians in the optimal management of LABC. The evolving concepts of breast conservation, immediate breast reconstruction and optimal management of the axilla are addressed.

SUMMARY

LABC represents a heterogenous cohort of patients for whom a multidisciplinary care team is critical. A more detailed understanding of the surgical considerations will facilitate the optimal diagnostic evaluation and management of these patients.