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

Oncologic Safety of Immediate Oncoplastic Surgery Compared with Standard Breast-Conserving Surgery for Patients with Invasive Lobular Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) of the breast grows in a diffuse pattern, resulting in a high risk of positive margins at surgical resection. Oncoplastic approaches have been shown to reduce this risk, but concerns persist around the safety of immediate oncoplastic surgery for those with ILC. This study evaluated the short- and long-term oncologic outcomes of immediate oncoplastic surgery for patients with ILC.

METHODS

This study retrospectively analyzed an institutional database of stages I to III ILC patients who underwent breast-conserving surgery (BCS) with or without immediate oncoplastic surgery (oncoplastic closure or oncoplastic reduction mammoplasty [ORM]). The study compared positive margin rates, rates of successful BCS, and recurrence-free survival (RFS) by type of surgery.

RESULTS

For 494 patients the findings showed that the use of immediate ORM was associated with significantly lower odds of positive margins (odds ratio [OR], 0.34; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.17-0.66; p = 0.002). Both lumpectomy with oncoplastic closure and ORM were significantly associated with higher rates of successful BCS than standard lumpectomy (94.2 %, 87.8 %, and 73.9 %, respectively; p < 0.001). No difference in RFS was observed between those undergoing immediate oncoplastic surgery and those undergoing standard lumpectomy alone.

CONCLUSIONS

The patients with stages I to III ILC who underwent immediate oncoplastic surgery had significant benefits including lower odds of positive margins and higher rates of successful BCS, with both types of immediate oncoplastic surgery showing similar RFS compared with lumpectomy alone. This supports the oncologic safety of immediate oncoplastic surgery for diffusely growing tumors such as ILC, providing it an ideal option for patients desiring BCS.

Comparison of long-term oncological outcomes after central lumpectomy versus nipple-sparing breast-conserving surgery for centrally located breast cancer: a propensity score-matched study

PURPOSE

To compare the oncological safety of nipple-sparing breast-conserving surgery (BCS) versus central lumpectomy for centrally located breast cancer (CLBC).

METHODS

Patients who underwent BCS for CLBC at Asan Medical Center from 2007 to 2018 were reviewed retrospectively. The oncological outcomes of nipple-sparing BCS (NS-BCS) and central lumpectomy were compared using univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses and compared again after 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

The study included 306 patients who underwent NS-BCS and 106 patients who underwent central lumpectomy (median follow-up: 111 months). On multivariate analysis, central lumpectomy had a lower risk of local recurrence compared to NS-BCS, albeit without statistical significance (HR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02-1.24; p = 0.077). There was no significant difference in the risk of death (HR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01-1.68, p = 0.12). After PSM, each group had 106 patients. The 5-year and 10-year local recurrence-free survival rates were 94.2% and 92.9% for NS-BCS, and 99.1% and 99.1% for central lumpectomy, respectively (p = 0.031). There were no significant differences in overall survival, regional recurrence-free survival, or distant recurrence-free survival. Fifteen patients (4.9%) who underwent NS-BCS had ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR), of which 40% were in the nipple-areolar complex and previous surgical sites. One patient (0.9%) who underwent central lumpectomy experienced an IBTR in a different quadrant.

CONCLUSION

NS-BCS showed more local recurrence than central lumpectomy. When deciding whether to spare the nipple during BCS in CLBC, patients should be sufficiently informed about the risk of IBTR.

Evolution of breast conserving surgery-current implementation of oncoplastic techniques in breast conserving surgery: a literature review

Background and Objective

De-escalation in breast cancer surgery has been a natural evolution since breast conserving surgery (BCS) was introduced in the early 1980s. From Halsted mastectomies to wide local excisions, we are facing nowadays the next trend in form of oncoplastic breast surgery. Oncoplastic breast surgery combines oncological principles with plastic surgery techniques to preserve the breast shape and appearance. The aim of this work is to review recent oncological and quality of live outcomes derived from oncoplastic techniques as well as offer a perspective about its implementation in breast cancer units.

Methods

A literature review was conducted to explore the landscape of oncoplastic breast surgery. Key terms related to oncoplastic techniques and breast cancer were used in searches across databases such as PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library. Inclusion criteria focused on recent articles discussing oncological and quality of life (QoL) outcomes, as well as perspectives on the role of oncoplastic surgery.

Key Content and Findings

The research aims to contribute valuable insights into the efficacy and impact of oncoplastic surgery in the context of breast cancer treatment. In this new era of precision medicine, it is more than just healing patients; it is about improving their well-being. We ought to consider specific oncoplasty role in leading this paradigm shift. It is also relevant to define whether these new technical-demanding surgical options can be applied to all patients and if professional training performs adequately to current demands of personalized treatments.

Conclusions

The global adoption of oncoplastic BCS is recommended due to its oncological safety and improvement in QoL compared to standard procedures. Emphasizing the need for skilled surgeons in complex cases, collaboration between breast surgeons and scientific societies is urged to certify ongoing educational training in oncoplastic techniques.

Long-term follow-up of complex oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery, standard breast conservation and skin-sparing mastectomy in DCIS - a register-based study

BACKGROUND

Few studies evaluate oncological safety in complex oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery(C-OBCS) for DCIS. It still needs to be defined whether it is equivalent to standard breast conservation(S-BCS) or an alternative to skin-sparing mastectomy(SSM). This study compares local recurrence rates(LR), disease-free survival(DFS) and overall survival (OS) between the three surgical techniques.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective register-based study on LR, DFS and OS of patients operated with S-BCS(n=1388), C-OBCS (n=106) or skin-sparing mastectomy (n=218) for DCIS diagnosed 2007-2020. Data was extracted from the Norwegian Breast Cancer Registry.

RESULTS

In the S-BCS, C-OBCS and SSM groups, median age was 60, 58 and 51 years (p<0.001), median size 15, 25, and 40 mm (p<0.001) and median follow-up 55, 48 and 76 months. At ten years, the overall LR was 12.7%, 14.3% for S-BCS, 11.2% for C-OBCS and 6.8% for SSM. Overall DFS at ten years was 82.3%, 80.5% for S-BCS, 82.4% for C-OBCS and 90.4% for SSM. At ten years, the OS was 93.8%, 93.0% in S-BCS, 93.3% in C-OBCS and 96.6% in the SSM group. Weighted Kaplan Meier plots showed that SSM had a significantly higher DFS than S-BCS (p=0.003) and C-OBCS (p=0.029). DFS in C-OBCS versus S-BCS and the difference in OS was not significant (p=0.264).

CONCLUSION

SSM had a significantly higher DFS than S-BCS and C-OBCS. The difference in DFS between S-BCS and C-OBCS, and OS between the three groups was not statistically significant. Our study suggests that C-OBCS is a safe alternative to S-BCS and SSM.

Expanded indications for breast-conserving surgery with oncoplastic approaches compared to conventional approaches: a single-center retrospective comparative cohort study

Background

Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OPBS) is the evolution of conventional breast-conserving surgery (CBCS); however, data from studies comparing patients who received two surgical procedures are limited. A comparison of differences in terms of the patient characteristics, tumor-nipple distance, volume of resected breast tissue, tumor volume and postoperative breast appearance between patients undergoing OPBS and CBCS was carried out in this study, enhancing the evidence base for OPBS by widening indications and improving patient satisfaction.

Methods

From January 2020 to April 2022, the Breast Center of West China Hospital conducted a retrospective comparative study involving 106 patients. Preoperative characteristics of patients were recorded, and the tumor-nipple distance, the volume of resected breast tissue, tumor volume and patient-reported esthetic outcomes measured by the Harris cosmetic scale were compared between patients who underwent OPBS and CBCS.

Results

Each group had a median follow-up time of 2 months, ranging from 1 week to 6 months. The tumor-nipple distance was significantly shorter in patients receiving OPBS than in those receiving CBCS (2.98±1.42 vs. 3.85±1.78 cm, P=0.006). The rate of positive margin evaluated by intraoperative frozen section biopsy was significantly lower in OPBS group than in CBCS group (2/43, 4.65% vs. 11/63, 17.46%; P=0.048). The maximum diameter of resected tissue (7.80±2.29 vs. 6.75±1.87 cm, P=0.011) and volume of resected tissue (74.20±42.77 vs. 45.52±30.99 cm3, P<0.001) were significantly larger with OPBS. The tumor size, tumor volume (either clinically measured by ultrasound or pathologically measured), tumor location, and reoperation rate due to positive margins did not differ significantly between groups. Moreover, insignificant differences existed regarding patient satisfaction between two groups (87.30% vs. 81.40%).

Conclusions

The OPBS strategy allowed extensive resections and expanded indications with equivalent cosmetic satisfaction and favorable oncological safety.

Aesthetic results were more satisfactory after oncoplastic surgery than after total breast reconstruction according to patients and surgeons

INTRODUCTION

Patient satisfaction after breast cancer surgery has an impact on body image, sexual function, self-esteem, and quality of life and may differ from the perception of the attending physician. This study aimed to compare the aesthetic outcomes and satisfaction with conservative oncoplastic surgeries, mastectomies, and total breast reconstruction.

METHODS

We included 760 women diagnosed with invasive breast carcinoma or phyllodes tumors who returned at least 6 months after surgery or radiotherapy at two public hospitals and a private clinic between 2014 and 2022. Data was collected prospectively from patients and retrospectively from their medical records using a specific form after obtaining their informed consent. Aesthetic outcomes and quality of life were assessed using the BREAST-Q©, Harris Scale, and BCCT.core software. Data were evaluated using the SPSS statistical software. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. This study was approved by the hospital ethics committees.

RESULTS

A total of 405 (53.29%) partial and 355 (46.71%) total reconstructions were included. Patients who underwent partial reconstruction were older and had higher body mass index. Patients who underwent total reconstruction had larger tumors with advanced clinical and pathological stages. Clinical and surgical complications occurred more frequently in the total reconstruction group. A greater number of reparative surgeries and lipofilling procedures were required for total reconstruction. According to the BREAST-Q, the partial reconstruction group showed significantly higher levels of women's satisfaction with their breasts, the surgical outcomes, psychosocial and sexual well-being, provision of information, and the reconstructive surgeon. Only physical well-being was slightly higher in the total reconstruction group. In most cases, the results were rated good or excellent. Physicians considered partial reconstructions to have better results than total reconstructions, although this difference was not perceived by the BCCT.core software.

CONCLUSION

Women who underwent partial breast reconstruction had higher levels of satisfaction in several domains, lower frequency of complications, and required fewer surgeries to complete their reconstruction than women who underwent total reconstruction. Physicians were also more satisfied with the results of partial reconstructions.

Implementation of a Breast Intraoperative Oncoplastic Form to Aid Management of Oncoplastic Surgery

INTRODUCTION

Oncoplastic breast conservation surgery (BCS) uses concurrent reduction and/or mastopexy with lumpectomy to improve aesthetic outcomes. However, tissue rearrangement can shift the original tumor location site in relation to external breast landmarks, resulting in difficulties during re-excision for a positive margin and accurate radiation targeting. We developed the Breast Intraoperative Oncoplastic (BIO) form to help depict the location of the tumor and breast reduction specimen. This study seeks to assess physician perspectives of the implementation outcomes.

METHODS

From February 2021 to April 2021, the BIO form was used in 11 oncoplastic BCS cases at a single institution. With institutional review board approval, surgical oncologists (SOs), plastic surgeons (PSs), and radiation oncologists (ROs) were administered a 12-question validated survey on Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM), Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM), and Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM), using a 5-point Likert scale during initial implementation and at 6-month reassessment.

RESULTS

Twelve physicians completed the survey initially (4 SOs, 4 PSs, and 4 ROs). The mean scores for Acceptability of Intervention Measure, Intervention Appropriateness Measure, and Feasibility of Intervention Measure were high (4.44, 4.56, and 4.56, respectively). Twelve completed the second survey (5 SOs, 3 PSs, and 4 ROs). The mean scores were marginally lower (4.06, 4.21, and 4.25). There were no significant differences when stratified by number of years in practice or specialty. Free text comments showed that 75% of physicians found the form helpful in oncoplastic BCS.

CONCLUSIONS

The data indicate high feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of the BIO form. Results of this study suggest multidisciplinary benefits of implementing the BIO form in oncoplastic BCS.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

A clinical perspective on oncoplastic breast conserving surgery

Breast conserving surgery (BCS) plus radiation treatment is the favored alternative for mastectomy in patients with breast cancer. To allow for breast conservation in patients with large invasive tumors and poor response to neoadjuvant systemic treatment (NST) or patients with extensive ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (OPBCS) techniques are introduced. OPBCS allows for breast conservation in a selective group of breast cancer patients who initially would have been treated with mastectomy due to the unfavorable tumor-to-breast ratio. With OPBCS, the oncological tumor excision is combined with plastic surgical breast conservation techniques without compromising oncological safety and maintaining aesthetic outcomes by preserving the shape of the breast. OPBCS should however not be applied to all breast cancer patients and the selection of patients who benefit from OPBCS and the timing of OPBCS are best discussed in a multidisciplinary team (MDT). Caution is required in patients with higher risk of positive margins [e.g., multifocal breast cancer, invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC), larger tumors and DCIS]. In these patients, delayed OPBCS is recommended to facilitate re-excision and maintain excellent breast conserving rates. Despite proven benefits in selected patients, the increase in the adoption of OPBCS is relatively low. This article provides a clinical perspective on OPBCS.

Portable Negative Pressure Wound Dressing in Oncoplastic Conservative Surgery for Breast Cancer: A Valid Ally

Background and Objectives: The use of oncoplastic techniques has spread widely in the last decade, with an expansion of the indications and demonstration of excellent oncological safety profiles. A potential downside may be the increased complication rates, which could influence the timing of adjuvant therapy. To date, there is increasing evidence that negative pressure therapy on closed wounds can reduce complication rates after surgery. From this perspective, we tested the use of portable negative pressure wound dressings (NPWDs) in oncoplastic surgery to minimize early post-operative admissions to the outpatient clinic and prevent surgical complications. Materials and Methods: An observational prospective cohort study was conducted on a population of patients who underwent quadrantectomy and wise-pattern reduction mammoplasty for breast cancer. The primary objective of the study is represented by the evaluation of the impact of NPWD on post-operative outcomes in an oncoplastic surgery setting. Patients enrolled between January 2021 and January 2023 were divided into two groups, the conventional dressing (CD) group and the NPWD group, by a simple randomization list. Results: A total of 100 patients were enrolled, with 52 in the CD group and 48 in the NPWD group. The use of NPWD significantly reduced the wound dehiscence rate (2.0% vs. 7.7% p = 0.002) and the number of one-month postoperative admissions to our clinic (3.8 ± 1.1 vs. 5.7 ± 1.3 p = 0.0009). Although not significant, it is possible to note a trend of reduction of clinically relevant postoperative total complications in patients treated with NPWDs. Conclusions: NPWDs may represent a useful tool in the post-surgical management of complex oncoplastic procedures, ensuring less wound dehiscence. Furthermore, the use of these dressings led to a significant reduction in admissions to the clinic, promoting a lower use of resources by hospitals and effective prevention of possible complications.

Uncertainties and controversies in axillary management of patients with breast cancer

The aims of this Oncoplastic Breast Consortium and European Breast Cancer Research Association of Surgical Trialists initiative were to identify uncertainties and controversies in axillary management of early breast cancer and to recommend appropriate strategies to address them. By use of Delphi methods, 15 questions were prioritized by more than 250 breast surgeons, patient advocates and radiation oncologists from 60 countries. Subsequently, a global virtual consensus panel considered available data, ongoing studies and resource utilization. It agreed that research should no longer be prioritized for standardization of axillary imaging, de-escalation of axillary surgery in node-positive cancer and risk evaluation of modern surgery and radiotherapy. Instead, expert consensus recommendations for clinical practice should be based on current evidence and updated once results from ongoing studies become available. Research on de-escalation of radiotherapy and identification of the most relevant endpoints in axillary management should encompass a meta-analysis to identify knowledge gaps, followed by a Delphi process to prioritize and a consensus conference to refine recommendations for specific trial designs. Finally, treatment of residual nodal disease after surgery was recommended to be assessed in a prospective register.

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.

Subaxillary Replacement Flap Compared with the Round Block Displacement Technique in Oncoplastic Breast Conserving Surgery: Functional Outcomes of a Feasible One Stage Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

For selected women diagnosed with breast cancer (BC), partial reconstructive techniques involve displacement or replacement procedures to improve cosmesis without compromising oncological safety. This study aims to evaluate the surgical outcomes of the round block (RB) compared with the subaxillary flap (SF) technique for patients with upper outer tumor.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Thirty-three patients treated with oncoplastic conserving surgery (15 RB and 18 SF) were enrolled in this retrospective study. After carrying out a comparison of baseline characteristics, all cases were recruited for postoperative evaluation of oncological and cosmetic parameters. Moreover, we investigated several scoring combinations to check whether they could discriminate surgeon and patient satisfaction according to different functional results.

RESULTS

Median age (p < 0.05), average tumor size (p > 0.05), estimated resection volume (p > 0.05), and nodal involvement (p > 0.05) were slightly higher in the SF group. A greater frequency of DCIS (p < 0.05) in the RB series correlated with reintervention for positive margins (p > 0.001). At a mean follow-up of 19 months, no locoregional recurrences were recorded and early and late complications were comparable (p > 0.05). The overall satisfaction with cosmesis was characterized by similar proportions of good results (p > 0.05), with some details more related to each procedure.

CONCLUSION

The proposed techniques represent effective solutions for reshaping that follows upper outer wide excision, achieving comparable complication rates, low reinterventions, and good aesthetic results in relation to technical and social functioning evaluations. However, it is crucial to establish a careful patient selection in order to manage correct surgical planning while predicting any potential sequelae or complication.

Breast surgery after neoadjuvant therapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The standard of care in breast surgery has changed, from mastectomy to breast conserving surgery whenever possible, and from axillary dissection to sentinel node biopsy. Neoadjuvant systemic approaches have broadened the indications for organ-conserving and less mutilating surgery, but also raise important questions of balancing locoregional treatment de-escalation and protecting excellent long-term outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies have aimed at investigating the safety of de-escalating surgical approaches not only in the upfront breast surgery situation but also after neoadjuvant systemic therapy. This pertains to both the safety of breast conserving surgery - including more complex oncoplastic approaches - within the new (posttherapeutic) anatomical extent of the residual disease, but more controversially to de-escalating surgical treatment of the axilla. While sentinel node biopsy appears to be the standard of care for node-negative disease also after primary systemic therapy, the optimal procedure in situations of posttherapeutic node-positive disease remains highly controversial.

SUMMARY

Both breast and axillary surgery after neoadjuvant systemic therapy for women with breast cancer has undergone multiple paradigm changes in recent years. For the primary tumor in the breast, breast-conserving surgery constitutes the standard of care, and unnecessary mastectomies should be strongly discouraged. For axillary surgery, sentinel-node biopsy should be aimed at, and completion axillary dissections minimized for situations of extensive disease and or poor neoadjuvant treatment response. Additional techniques such as targeted axillary dissection are currently under evaluation in clinical trials.

[The Significance of Oncoplastic Breast Reconstruction After Tumorectomy in Surgical Breast Cancer Therapy]

Breast-conserving therapy (BCT), meaning tumorectomy in combination with systemic therapy and locoregional radiation therapy has become the preferred method to treat early-stage breast cancer. With excellent long-term recurrence-free and overall survival rates, breast surgeons today must deliver du- rable and aesthetically appealing results that guarantee a good quality of life to meet the high patient expectations. Oncoplas- tic breast surgery (OPBS) is an innovative approach to improve the overall results of BCT. Often carried out by a team of a plastic surgeon and an oncologic breast surgeon, OPBS can actively prevent breast deformities without compromising oncological safety. In the following, an overview of the principles and techniques of oncoplastic breast surgery will be given due to its ever-increasing significance and its advantages and dis- advantages will be discussed in the context of reconstructive breast surgery.

A Retrospective Study Assessing the Outcomes of Immediate Prepectoral and Subpectoral Implant and Mesh-Based Breast Reconstruction

(1) Introduction: In response to patient concerns about breast cancer recurrence, increased use of breast magnetic resonance imaging and genetic testing, and advancements in breast reconstruction techniques, mastectomy rates have been observed to rise over the last decade. The aim of the study is to compare the outcomes of prepectoral and subpectoral implants and long-term, dual-stage resorbable mesh-based breast reconstructions in mutation carriers (prophylactic surgery) and breast cancer patients. (2) Patients and methods: This retrospective, two-center study included 170 consecutive patients after 232 procedures: Prepectoral surgery was performed in 156 cases and subpectoral was performed in 76. (3) Results: Preoperative chemotherapy was associated with more frequent minor late complications (p < 0.001), but not major ones (p = 0.101), while postoperative chemotherapy was related to more frequent serious (p = 0.005) postoperative complications. Postoperative radiotherapy was associated with a higher rate of minor complications (31.03%) than no-radiotherapy (12.21%; p < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression found complications to be significantly associated with an expander (OR = 4.43), skin-reducing mastectomy (OR = 9.97), therapeutic mastectomy vs. risk-reducing mastectomy (OR = 4.08), and postoperative chemotherapy (OR = 12.89). Patients in whom prepectoral surgeries were performed demonstrated significantly shorter median hospitalization time (p < 0.001) and lower minor complication rates (5.77% vs. 26.32% p < 0.001), but similar major late complication rates (p = 0.915). (4) Conclusions: Implant-based breast reconstruction with the use of long-term, dual-stage resorbable, synthetic mesh is a safe and effective method of breast restoration, associated with low morbidity and good cosmesis. Nevertheless, prospective, multicenter, and long-term outcome data studies are needed to further evaluate the benefits of such treatments.

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.