Cosmetic Outcome Assessment following Breast-Conserving Therapy: A Comparison between BCCT.core Software and Panel Evaluation

Max Hendrik Haloua, Nicole Marianna Alexandra Krekel, Gerrit Johannes Albertus Jacobs, Barbara Zonderhuis, Mark-Bram Bouman, Marlon Eugène Buncamper, Franciscus Bernardus Niessen, Henri Adolf Hubert Winters, Caroline Terwee, Sybren Meijer, Monique Petrousjka van den Tol, Max Hendrik Haloua, Nicole Marianna Alexandra Krekel, Gerrit Johannes Albertus Jacobs, Barbara Zonderhuis, Mark-Bram Bouman, Marlon Eugène Buncamper, Franciscus Bernardus Niessen, Henri Adolf Hubert Winters, Caroline Terwee, Sybren Meijer, Monique Petrousjka van den Tol

Abstract

Purpose. Over recent decades, no consensus has yet been reached on the optimal approach to cosmetic evaluation following breast-conserving therapy (BCT). The present study compared the strengths and weaknesses of the BCCT.core software with a 10-member panel from various backgrounds. Methods. Digital photographs of 109 consecutive patients after BCT were evaluated for 7 items by a panel consisting of 2 breast surgeons, 2 residents, 2 laypersons, and 4 plastic surgeons. All photographs were objectively evaluated using the BCCT.core software (version 20), and an overall cosmetic outcome score was reached using a four-point Likert scale. Results. Based on the mean BCCT.core software score, 41% of all patients had fair or poor overall cosmetic results (10% poor), compared with 51% (14% poor) obtained with panel evaluation. Mean overall BCCT.core score and mean overall panel score substantially agreed (weighted kappa: 0.68). By contrast, analysis of the evaluation of scar tissue revealed large discrepancies between the BCCT.core software and the panel. The analysis of subgroups formed from different combinations of the panel members still showed substantial agreement with the BCCT.core software (range 0.64-0.69), independent of personal background. Conclusions. Although the analysis of scar tissue by the software shows room for improvement, the BCCT.core represents a valid and efficient alternative to panel evaluation.

References

    1. Nederlands Kankerregistratie (NKR) cijfers, overleving; borst. 6e editie; 2003–2007.
    1. Borgstein PJ, Pijpers R, Comans EF, van Diest PJ, Boom RP, Meijer S. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer: guidelines and pitfalls of lymphoscintigraphy and gamma probe detection. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 1998;186(3):275–283.
    1. Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2002;347(16):1233–1241.
    1. Rahusen FD, Pijpers R, van Diest PJ, Bleichrodt RP, Torrenga H, Meijer S. The implementation of the sentinel node biopsy as a routine procedure for patients with breast cancer. Surgery. 2000;128(1):6–12.
    1. Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. 2002;347(16):1227–1232.
    1. Al-Ghazal SK, Fallowfield L, Blamey RW. Does cosmetic outcome from treatment of primary breast cancer influence psychosocial morbidity? European Journal of Surgical Oncology. 1999;25(6):571–573.
    1. Waljee JF, Hu ES, Ubel PA, Smith DM, Newman LA, Alderman AK. Effect of esthetic outcome after breast-conserving surgery on psychosocial functioning and quality of life. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2008;26(20):3331–3337.
    1. Sneeuw KCA, Aaronson NK, Yarnold JR, et al. Cosmetic and functional outcomes of breast conserving treatment for early stage breast cancer. 2. Relationship with psychosocial functioning. Radiotherapy & Oncology. 1992;25(3):160–166.
    1. Curran D, van Dongen JP, Aaronson NK, et al. Quality of life of early-stage breast cancer patients treated with radical mastectomy or breast-conserving procedures: results of EORTC trial 10801. European Journal of Cancer. 1998;34(3):307–314.
    1. Haloua MH, Krekel NMA, Winters HAH, et al. A systematic review of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery: current weaknesses and future prospects. Annals of Surgery. 2013;257(4):609–620.
    1. Krekel NM, Haloua MH, Lopes Cardozo AM, et al. Intraoperative ultrasound guidance for palpable breast cancer excision (COBALT trial): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet Oncology. 2013;14(1):48–54.
    1. Poortmans P, Aznar M, Bartelink H. Quality indicators for breast cancer: revisiting historical evidence in the context of technology changes. Seminars in Radiation Oncology. 2012;22(1):29–39.
    1. Pezner RD, Patterson MP, Hill LR, et al. Breast retraction assessment: an objective evaluation of cosmetic results of patients treated conservatively for breast cancer. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics. 1985;11(3):575–578.
    1. Aaronson NK, Bartelink H, van Dongen JA, van Dam FSAM. Evaluation of breast conserving therapy: clinical, methodological and psychosocial perspectives. European Journal of Surgical Oncology. 1988;14(2):133–140.
    1. Van Limbergen E, Rijnders A, van der Schueren E, Lerut T, Christiaens R. Cosmetic evaluation of breast conserving treatment for mammary cancer. 2. A quantitative analysis of the influence of radiation dose, fractionation schedules and surgical treatment techniques on cosmetic results. Radiotherapy and Oncology. 1989;16(4):253–267.
    1. Vrieling C, Collette L, Bartelink E, et al. Validation of the methods of cosmetic assessment after breast-conserving therapy in the EORTC 'boost versus no boost' trial. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 1999;45(3):667–676.
    1. Sacchini V, Luini A, Tana S, et al. Quantitative and qualitative cosmetic evaluation after conservative treatment for breast cancer. European Journal of Cancer and Clinical Oncology. 1991;27(11):1395–1400.
    1. Cardoso MJ, Cardoso J, Amaral N, et al. Turning subjective into objective: the BCCT.core software for evaluation of cosmetic results in breast cancer conservative treatment. Breast. 2007;16(5):456–461.
    1. Harris JR, Levene MB, Svensson G, Hellman S. Analysis of cosmetic results following primary radiation therapy for stages I and II carcinoma of the breast. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 1979;5(2):257–261.
    1. Krekel N, Zonderhuis B, Muller S, et al. Excessive resections in breast-conserving surgery: a retrospective multicentre study. Breast Journal. 2011;17(6):602–609.
    1. Immink JM, Putter H, Bartelink H, et al. Long-term cosmetic changes after breast-conserving treatment of patients with stage I-II breast cancer and included in the EORTC 'boost versus no boost' trial. Annals of Oncology. 2012;23(10):2591–2598.
    1. Cardoso JS, Cardoso MJ. Towards an intelligent medical system for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine. 2007;40(2):115–126.
    1. Fleiss JL, Cohen J. The equivalence of the weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1973;33:613–619.
    1. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–174.
    1. Sneeuw KCA, Aaronson NK, Yarnold JR, et al. Cosmetic and functional outcomes of breast conserving treatment for early stage breast cancer. 1. Comparison of patients' ratings, observers' ratings and objective assessments. Radiotherapy and Oncology. 1992;25(3):153–159.
    1. Vrieling C, Collette L, Fourquet A, et al. The influence of patient, tumor and treatment factors on the cosmetic results after breast-conserving therapy in the EORTC 'boost vs. no boost' trial. Radiotherapy and Oncology. 2000;55(3):219–232.
    1. Cardoso MJ, Cardoso J, Santos AC, Barros H, de Oliveira MC. Interobserver agreement and consensus over the esthetic evaluation of conservative treatment for breast cancer. Breast. 2006;15(1):52–57.
    1. Heil J, Carolus A, Dahlkamp J, et al. Objective assessment of aesthetic outcome after breast conserving therapy: subjective third party panel rating and objective BCCT.core software evaluation. Breast. 2012;21(1):61–65.
    1. Eder M, Waldenfels FV, Swobodnik A, et al. Objective breast symmetry evaluation using 3-D surface imaging. Breast. 2012;21(2):152–158.
    1. Fougo JL, Reis P, Giesteira L, Dias T, Araújo C, Dinis-Ribeiro M. The impact of the sentinel node concept on the aesthetic outcome of breast cancer conservative surgery. Breast Cancer. 2014;21(1):33–39.
    1. Hau E, Browne LH, Khanna S, et al. Radiotherapy breast boost with reduced whole-breast dose is associated with improved cosmesis: the results of a comprehensive assessment from the St. George and Wollongong randomized breast boost trial. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2012;82(2):682–689.
    1. Hernanz F, Sánchez S, Cerdeira MP, Figuero CR. Long-term results of breast conservation and immediate volume replacement with myocutaneous latissimus dorsi flap. World Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2011;9, article 159
    1. Keshtgar MRS, Williams NR, Bulsara M, et al. Objective assessment of cosmetic outcome after targeted intraoperative radiotherapy in breast cancer: results from a randomised controlled trial. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. 2013;140(3):519–525.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir