Patient-reported outcome after oncoplastic breast surgery compared with conventional breast-conserving surgery in breast cancer

Michael Rose, Henry Svensson, Jürgen Handler, Ute Hoyer, Anita Ringberg, Jonas Manjer, Michael Rose, Henry Svensson, Jürgen Handler, Ute Hoyer, Anita Ringberg, Jonas Manjer

Abstract

Introduction: Oncoplastic breast surgery (OBS) has developed as an extension of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in an effort to improve esthetic and functional outcome following surgery for breast cancer. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the possible benefits of OBS, as compared with BCS, with regard to health-related quality of life (HRQoL), using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

Patients and methods: Patients treated with OBS (n = 200) and BCS (n = 1304) in the period 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2013 were identified in a research database and in the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (DBCG) registry. Data on patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics were retrieved from the DBCG registry. Patients were sent a survey including the Breast-Q™ BCT postoperative module and a study-specific questionnaire (SSQ) in 2016. A good outcome in the Breast-Q module was defined as above the median. OBS was compared to BCS using a logistic regression analysis, and then adjusted for potential confounders, yielding odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals.

Results: There was a statistically significant better outcome considering the HRQoL domain "Psychosocial Well-being " for patients treated with OBS as compared with BCS (OR 2.15: 1.25-3.69). No statistically significant differences were found for the domains "Physical Well-being" (0.83: 0.50-1.39), "Satisfaction with Breast" (0.95: 0.57-1.59), or "Sexual Well-being" (1.42: 0.78-2.58).

Conclusion: The present study indicates better outcomes of HRQoL for breast cancer patients treated with OBS as compared to patients treated with BCS. There was no increase in physical discomfort among OBS patients despite more extensive surgery.

Keywords: Breast cancer; Breast conserving surgery; Breast-Q; Oncoplastic breast surgery; Patient-reported outcome.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Breast-Conserving Surgery (BCS) and Oncoplastic Breast Surgery (OBS) cohorts

References

    1. Wolmark N, 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. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1233–1241. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa022152.
    1. Blichert-Toft M, et al. Long-term results of breast conserving surgery vs. mastectomy for early stage invasive breast cancer: 20-Year follow-up of the Danish randomized DBCG-82TM protocol. Acta Oncol. 2008;47:672–681. doi: 10.1080/02841860801971439.
    1. Christiansen P, et al. Breast conserving surgery versus mastectomy: overall and relative survival—a population based study by the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (DBCG ) Supplementary material. Acta Oncol. 2017;57:1–3.
    1. Weber WP, et al. Standardization of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43:1236–1243. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2017.01.006.
    1. Berry MG, Fitoussi AD, Curnier A, Couturaud B, Salmon RJ. Oncoplastic breast surgery: a review and systematic approach. J Plast Reconstr Aesth Surg. 2010;63:1233–1243. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2009.05.006.
    1. Campbel EJ, Romics L. Oncological safety and cosmetic outcomes in oncoplastic breast conservation surgery, a review of the best level of evidence literature. Breast Cancer. 2017;9:521–530.
    1. Clough KB, Kaufman GJ, Nos C, Buccimazza I, Sarfati IM. Improving breast cancer surgery: a classification and quadrant per quadrant atlas for oncoplastic surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:1375–1391. doi: 10.1245/s10434-009-0792-y.
    1. O’Connell RL, et al. Initial experience of the BREAST-Q breast-conserving therapy module. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;160:79–89. doi: 10.1007/s10549-016-3966-x.
    1. Vesprini D, et al. Patient-reported outcomes following breast conservation therapy and barriers to referral for partial breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;141:1–9.
    1. Rose M, Manjer J, Ringberg A, Svensson H. Surgical strategy, methods of reconstruction, surgical margins and postoperative complications in oncoplastic breast surgery. Eur J Plast Surg. 2014;37:205–214. doi: 10.1007/s00238-013-0922-4.
    1. Losken A, Dugal CS, Styblo TM, Carlson GW. A meta-analysis comparing breast conservation therapy alone to the oncoplastic technique. Ann Plast Surg. 2014;72:145–149. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0b013e3182605598.
    1. Wang K, Huang Y-J, Zhang L-L, Chen J-Y, Yang C-Q. Comparison of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery and breast-conserving surgery alone: a meta-analysis. J Breast Cancer. 2018;21:321. doi: 10.4048/jbc.2018.21.e36.
    1. Spautz C, et al. Long-term comparison of aesthetical outcomes after oncoplastic surgery and lumpectomy in breast cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;22:2500–2508.
    1. Massa M, Meszaros P, Baldelli I, Bisso N, Franchelli S. Aesthetic evaluation in oncoplastic and conservative breast surgery: a comparative analysis. J Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;3:e339.
    1. Ojala K, Meretoja TJ, Leidenius MHK. Aesthetic and functional outcome after breast conserving surgery—comparison between conventional and oncoplastic resection. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43:658–664. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.11.019.
    1. Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Klok JA, Cordeiro PG, Cano SJ. Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: The BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124:345–353. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181aee807.
    1. Fuzesi S, Cano SJ, Klassen AF, Atisha D, Pusic AL. Validation of the electronic version of the BREAST-Q in the army of women study. Breast. 2017;33:44–49. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2017.02.015.
    1. Chatterjee A, et al. A consensus definition and classification system of oncoplastic surgery developed by the american society of breast surgeons. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26:3436–3444. doi: 10.1245/s10434-019-07345-4.
    1. Paramanathan N, et al. Patient-reported outcomes are better after oncoplastic breast conservation than after mastectomy and autologous reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;5:e1419.
    1. Di Micco R, et al. Bilateral mammoplasty for cancer: surgical, oncological and patient-reported outcomes. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43:68–75. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.08.013.
    1. DBCG, Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group. .
    1. Sundhedsdatastyrelsen, Danish Cause of Death Register. .
    1. Datatilsynet, Danish Data Protection Agency. .
    1. McCulley SJ, Schaverien MV, Tan VKM, Macmillan RD. Lateral thoracic artery perforator (LTAP) flap in partial breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2015;68:686–691. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2015.01.008.
    1. Rose M, Svensson H. Tunnelled lateral fasciocutaneous thoracodorsal flap with a skin island in breast reconstruction in oncoplastic breast surgery. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2012;46:404–409. doi: 10.3109/2000656X.2012.722095.
    1. Saint-Cyr M, et al. The pedicled descending branch muscle-sparing latissimus dorsi flap for breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009 doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181934838.
    1. REDCap.
    1. OPEN—Syddansk Universitet.
    1. The Danish Clinical Registries, Danish National Board of Health.
    1. Mapi research trust.
    1. Liu LG, Branford OA, Mehigan S. REAST-Q measurement of the patient perspective in oncoplastic breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;6:e1904.
    1. Cohen WA, et al. The BREAST-Q in surgical research: a review of the literature 2009–2015. J Plast Reconstr Aesth Surg. 2016;69:149–162. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2015.11.013.
    1. Stolpner I, et al. Clinical validation of the BREAST-Q Breast-conserving therapy module. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26:2759–2767. doi: 10.1245/s10434-019-07456-y.
    1. Acea-Nebril B, et al. The role of oncoplastic breast reduction in the conservative management of breast cancer: complications, survival, and quality of life. J Surg Oncol. 2017;115:679–686. doi: 10.1002/jso.24550.
    1. Dahlbäck C, Ullmark JH, Rehn M, Ringberg A, Manjer J. Aesthetic result after breast-conserving therapy is associated with quality of life several years after treatment. Swedish women evaluated with BCCT.core and BREAST-Q™. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;164:679–687. doi: 10.1007/s10549-017-4306-5.
    1. Lagendijk M, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures may add value in breast cancer surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25:3563–3571. doi: 10.1245/s10434-018-6729-6.
    1. Morley R, Leech T. Optimal assessment tools in assessing breast surgery : patient reported outcome measures ( PROMs) vs objective measure. Gland Surg. 2019;8:1–9. doi: 10.21037/gs.2019.02.04.
    1. Cronin-Fenton DP, et al. Validity of Danish Breast Cancer Group (DBCG) registry data used in the predictors of breast cancer recurrence (ProBeCaRe) premenopausal breast cancer cohort study. Acta Oncol. 2017;56:1155–1160. doi: 10.1080/0284186X.2017.1327720.

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する