Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Typ-2-Diabetes und Adipositas Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende Patientenratgeber
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Breast Cancer
Erschienen in:

06.04.2019 | Review Article

Paving the way for changing perceptions in breast surgery: a systematic literature review focused on oncological and aesthetic outcomes of oncoplastic surgery for breast cancer

verfasst von: I. G. Papanikolaou, C. Dimitrakakis, F. Zagouri, S. Marinopoulos, A. Giannos, E. Zografos, C. G. Zografos, D. Kritikou, A. Rodolakis, G. C. Zografos, D. Loutradis

Erschienen in: Breast Cancer | Ausgabe 4/2019

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

The emphasis on aesthetic outcomes and quality of life after breast cancer surgery has motivated breast surgeons to develop oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (OPS). Training programs are still rare in most countries, and there is little standardization, which challenges the scientific evaluation of these techniques. This systematic review aims to assess oncological and cosmetic outcomes of OPS.

Methods

After a strict selection process with precise inclusion and exclusion criteria, oncologic and aesthetic outcomes of oncoplastic surgery were searched, using the MEDLINE database up to September 30th, 2017. Available published literature was classified in levels of evidence. After a thorough screening process, only studies with the best level of evidence were included on selection. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were not included for methodological reasons.

Results

Titles and abstracts of 2.854 citations were identified and after screening 15 prospective studies including 1.391 patients were reviewed and scored in detail. Local relapse was found in 2.8% of cases with a wide range of follow-up (from 6 to 74 months). Close margins were retrieved in 11% of cases and positive margins in 9.4% of cases. Mastectomy was implemented in 6.9% of breast cancer patients to whom OPS was performed. Good cosmetic outcomes were detected in 90.2% of patients undergoing OPS, leaving open issues for who should perform cosmetic evaluation and which method should be used.

Conclusion

Tumor margins, mastectomy rates, and cosmetic outcomes of OPS have to be further improved by standardizing various aspects of OPS. Research efforts should focus on level I evidence assessing both oncological and aesthetic outcomes of OPS and survival rates.
Literatur
1.
Siegel R, Miller KD, Jemal A, et al. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:7–30.CrossRefPubMed
2.
DeSantis CE, Lin CC, Mariotto AB, et al. Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64:252–71.CrossRef
3.
4.
Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, Margolese RG, Deutsch M, Fisher ER, 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;347:1233–41.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L, Greco M, Saccozzi R, Luini A, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1227–35.CrossRef
6.
Bartelink H, Horiot JC, Poortmans PM, et al. Impact of a higher radiation dose on local control and survival in breast-conserving therapy of early breast cancer: 10-year results of the randomized boost versus no boost EORTC 22881-10882 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:3259–65.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Bartelink H, Horiot JC, Poortmans PM, et al. Recurrence rates after treatment of breast cancer with standard radiotherapy with or without additional radiation. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:1378–87.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Rowland JH, Desmond KA, Meyerowitz BE, et al. Role of breast reconstructive surgery in physical and emotional outcomes among breast cancer survivors. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 1422–1429.
9.
Kaviani A, Sodagari N, Sheikhbahaei S, et al. From radical mastectomy to breast-conserving therapy and oncoplastic breast surgery: a narrative review comparing oncological result, cosmetic outcome, quality of life, and health economy. ISRN Oncol. 2013;2013:742462.PubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Clough KB, Lewis JS, Couturaud B, et al. Oncoplastic techniques allow extensive resections for breast-conserving therapy of breast carcinomas. Ann Surg. 2003;237:26–34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Huemer GM, Schrenk P, Moser F, et al. Oncoplastic techniques allow breast-conserving treatment in centrally located breast cancers. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120:390–8.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Association of Breast Surgery at BASO; Association of Breast Surgery at BAPRAS; Training Interface Group in Breast Surgery. Baildam A, Bishop H, Boland G, et al. Oncoplastic breast surgery—a guide to good practice. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2007; 33 Suppl 1: 1–23.
13.
Morrow M. Minimally invasive surgery for breast cancer. BMJ. 2009;19(338):b557.CrossRef
14.
Rainsbury RM. Training and skills for breast surgeons in the new millennium. ANZ J Surg. 2003;73:511–6.CrossRefPubMed
15.
16.
Rew DA. Towards a scientific basis for oncoplastic breast surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2003;29:105–6.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Clough KB, Kroll SS, Audretsch W. An approach to the repair of partial mastectomy defects. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;104:409–20.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Noguchi M, Saito Y, Mizukami Y, Nonomura A, Ohta N, Koyasaki N, et al. Breast deformity, its correction and assessment of breast-conserving surgery. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1991;18:111–8.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Dixon JM, Venizelos B, Chan P. Latissimus dorsi miniflap: a new technique for extending breast conservation. Breast. 2002;11:58–65.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Rainsbury RM, Paramanathan N. Recent progress with breast conserving volume replacement using latissimus dorsi miniflaps in UK patients. Breast Cancer. 1998;5:139–47.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Raja MA, Straker VF, Rainsbury RM. Extending the role of breast-conserving surgery by immediate volume replacement. Br J Surg. 1997;84:101–5.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Anderson BO, Masetti R, Silverstein MJ. Oncoplastic approaches to partial mastectomy: an overview of volume-displacement techniques. Lancet Oncol. 2005;6:145–57.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Nos C, Fitoussi A, Bourgeois D, Fourquet A, Salmon RJ, Klough KB. Conservative treatment of lower pole breast cancers by bilateral mammoplasty and radiotherapy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1998;24:508–14.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Rietjens M, Urban CA, Rey PC, Mazzarol G, Maisonneuve P, Garusi C, et al. Long-term oncological results of breast conservative treatment with oncoplastic surgery. Breast. 2007;16:387–95.CrossRefPubMed
25.
26.
Meretoja TJ, Svarvar C, Jahkola TA. Outcome of oncoplastic breast surgery in 90 prospective patients. Am J Surg. 2010;200:224–8.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Rusby JE, Paramanathan N, Laws SA, Rainsbury RM. Immediate latissimus dorsi miniflap volume replacement for partial mastectomy: use of intra-operative frozen sections to confirm negative margins. Am J Surg. 2008;196:512–8.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Kaviani A, Safavi A, Mohammadzadeh N, et al. Oncoplastic surgery in breast conservation: a prospective evaluation of the patients, techniques, and oncologic outcomes. Am J Surg. 2014;208:727–34.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Mansell J, Weiler-Mithoff E, Stallard S, et al. Oncoplastic breast conservation surgery is oncologically safe when compared to wide local excision and mastectomy. Breast. 2017;32:179–85.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Adimulam G, Challa VR, Dhar A, et al. Assessment of cosmetic outcome of oncoplastic breast conservation surgery in women with early breast cancer: a prospective cohort study. Indian J Cancer. 2014;51:58–62.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Colombo PE, Lefévre M, Delmond L, et al. Oncoplastic resection of breast cancers located in the lower-inner or lower-outer quadrant with the modified McKissock mammaplasty technique. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:486–94.CrossRef
32.
Giacalone PL, Roger P, Dubon O, El Gareh N, Rihaoui S, Taourel P, et al. Comparative study of the accuracy of breast resection in oncoplastic surgery and quadrantectomy in breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:605–14.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Kaur N, Petit JY, Rietjens M, Maffini F, Luini A, Gatti G, et al. Comparative study of surgical margins in oncoplastic surgery and quadrantectomy in breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2005;12:539–45.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Veiga DF, Veiga-Filho J, Ribeiro LM, et al. Quality-of-life and self-esteem outcomes after oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125:811–7.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Veiga DF, Veiga-Filho J, Ribeiro LM, et al. Evaluations of aesthetic outcomes of oncoplastic surgery by surgeons of different gender and specialty: a prospective controlled study. Breast. 2011;20:407–12.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Chan SWW, Cheung PSY, Lam SH. Cosmetic outcome and percentage of breast volume excision in oncoplastic breast conserving surgery. World J Surg. 2010;34:1447–52.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Bong J, Parker J, Clapper R, et al. Clinical series of oncoplastic mastopexy to optimize cosmesis of large-volume resections for breast conservation. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:3247–51.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Yang JD, Bae SG, Chung HY, et al. The usefulness of oncoplastic volume displacement techniques in the superiorly located breast cancers for Korean patients with small to moderate-sized breasts. Ann Plast Surg. 2011;67:474–80.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Asgiersson KS, Rasheed T, McCulley SJ, Macmillan RD. Oncological and cosmetic outcomes of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2005;31:817–23.CrossRef
40.
Kaufmann M, Morrow M, von Minckwitz G, et al. Locoregional treatment of primary breast cancer: consensus recommendations from an International Expert Panel. Cancer. 2010;116:1184–91.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Meric F, Mirza NQ, Vlastos G, et al. Positive surgical margins and ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence predict disease-specific survival after breastconserving therapy. Cancer. 2003;97:926–33.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Singletary SE. Surgical margins in patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast conservation therapy. Am J Surg. 2002;184:383–93.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Gabka CJ, Bohmert H. Future prospects for reconstructive surgery in breast cancer. Semin Surg Oncol. 1996;12:67–75.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Cochrane RA, Valasiadou P, Wilson AR, Al-Ghazal SK, Macmillan RD. Cosmesis and satisfaction after breast-conserving surgery correlates with the percentage of breast volume excised. Br J Surg. 2003;90:1505–9.CrossRefPubMed
45.
McCulley SJ, Macmillan RD. Planning and the use of therapeutic mammoplasty e Nottingham approach. Br J Plast Surg. 2005;58:889–901.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Spear SL, Pelletiere CV, Wolfe A, Tsangaris TN, Pennanen MF. Experience with reduction mammaplasty combined with breast conservation therapy in the treatment of breast cancer. Plast Recosntr Surg. 2003;111:1102–9.CrossRef
47.
McCulley SJ, Macmillan RD. Therapeutic mammaplasty e analysis of 50 consecutive cases. Br J Plast Surg. 2005;58:902–7.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Clough KB, Kaufman GJ, Nos C, et al. Improving breast cancer surgery: a classification and quadrant per quadrant atlas for oncoplastic surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:1375–91.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Galimberti V, Zurrida S, Zanini V, et al. Central small size breast cancer; how to overcome the problem of nipple and areola involvement. Eur J Cancer. 1993;29A:1093–6.CrossRefPubMed
50.
51.
Adie S, Harris IA, Naylor JM. Mittal R. CONSORT compliance in surgical randomized trials: are we there yet? A systematic review. Ann Surg. 2013;258:872–8.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Haloua MH, Krekel NM, Winters HA, et al. A systematic review of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery: current weaknesses and future prospects. Ann Surg. 2013;257:609–20.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Fitoussi AD, Berry MG, Fama F, et al. Oncoplastic breast surgery for cancer: analysis of 540 consecutive cases [outcomes article]. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125:454–62.CrossRefPubMed
54.
Chakravorty A, Shrestha AK, Sanmugalingam N, et al. How safe is oncoplastic breast conservation? Comparative analysis with standard breast conserving surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2012;38:395–8.CrossRefPubMed
55.
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. Radiother Oncol. 2000;55:219–32.CrossRefPubMed
56.
Santos G, Urban C, Edelweiss MI, et al. Long-term comparison of aesthetical outcomes after oncoplastic surgery and lumpectomy in breast cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:2500–8.CrossRefPubMed
57.
Winters ZE, Afzal M, Balta V, Freeman J, Llewellyn-Bennett R, Rayter Z, et al. Patient-reported outcomes and their predictors at 2- and 3-year follow-up after immediate latissimus dorsi breast reconstruction and adjuvant treatment. Br J Surg. 2016;103:524e36.CrossRef
58.
Weber WP, Soysal SD, Fulco I, et al. Standardization of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery. EJSO. 2017;43:1236–43.CrossRefPubMed
59.
Sacchini V, Luini A, Tana S, et al. Quantitative and qualitative cosmetic evaluation after conservative treatment for breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 1991;27:1395–400.CrossRefPubMed
60.
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. EORTC Radiotherapy and Breast Cancer Cooperative Groups. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;45:667–76.CrossRefPubMed
61.
Losken A, Dugal CS, Styblo TM, et al. A metaanalysis comparing breast conservation therapy alone to the oncoplastic technique. Ann Plast Surg. 2014;72:145–9.CrossRefPubMed
62.
Tenofsky PL, Dowell P, Topalovski T, Helmer SD. Surgical, oncologic, and cosmetic differences between oncoplastic and nononcoplastic breast conserving surgery in breast cancer patients. Am J Surg. 2014;207:398e402.CrossRef
63.
Park CC, Mitsumori M, Nixon A, et al. Outcome at 8 years after breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy for invasive breast cancer: influence of margin status and systemic therapy on local recurrence. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:1668–75.CrossRefPubMed
64.
Weber WP, Soysal SD, El-Tamer M, et al. First international consensus conference on standardization of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;165:139–49.CrossRefPubMed
65.
Pukancsik D, Kelemen P, Ujhelyi M, et al. Objective decision making between conventional and oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy: an aesthetic and functional prospective cohort study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43:303–10.CrossRefPubMed
66.
Cardoso MJ, Cardoso JS, Vrieling C, et al. Recommendation for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;135(3):629–37.CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Paving the way for changing perceptions in breast surgery: a systematic literature review focused on oncological and aesthetic outcomes of oncoplastic surgery for breast cancer
verfasst von
I. G. Papanikolaou
C. Dimitrakakis
F. Zagouri
S. Marinopoulos
A. Giannos
E. Zografos
C. G. Zografos
D. Kritikou
A. Rodolakis
G. C. Zografos
D. Loutradis
Publikationsdatum
06.04.2019
Verlag
Springer Japan
Erschienen in
Breast Cancer / Ausgabe 4/2019
Print ISSN: 1340-6868
Elektronische ISSN: 1880-4233
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-019-00968-1

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2019

Clinical application of ceramide in cancer treatment

  • Review Article

Apocrine papillary lesion: comparison of pathological findings from 22 years previously and the present

  • Case Report

Cancer stem-like properties of hormonal therapy-resistant breast cancer cells

  • Original Article

Breast cancer incidence, mortality and mortality-to-incidence ratio (MIR) are associated with human development, 1990–2016: evidence from Global Burden of Disease Study 2016

  • Original Article

Nomogram to predict non-sentinel lymph node status using total tumor load determined by one-step nucleic acid amplification: first report from Thailand

  • Original Article

URG4 expression in invasive breast carcinoma and its relation to clinicopathological characteristics

  • Original Article

Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie

Polypen bei nahen Verwandten – erhöhtes Darmkrebsrisiko

Werden bei erstgradigen Verwandten gutartige Darmpolypen identifiziert, ist das Risiko, selbst an einem Kolorektalkarzinom zu erkranken, deutlich erhöht – vor allem das für eine früh beginnende Erkrankung. Hier könnte sich eine frühe Koloskopie besonders lohnen.

KI-gestütztes Mammografiescreening überzeugt im Praxistest

Mit dem Einsatz künstlicher Intelligenz lässt sich die Detektionsrate im Mammografiescreening offenbar deutlich steigern. Mehr unnötige Zusatzuntersuchungen sind laut der Studie aus Deutschland nicht zu befürchten.

Welche Krebserkrankungen bei Zöliakie häufiger auftreten

Eine große Kohortenstudie hat den Zusammenhang zwischen Zöliakie und gastrointestinalen Krebserkrankungen und inflammatorischen Krankheiten untersucht. Neben gastrointestinalen Tumoren ist auch ein nicht solider Krebs häufiger.

Adjuvanter PD-L1-Hemmer verhindert Rezidive bei Hochrisiko-Urothelkarzinom

Sind Menschen mit muskelinvasivem Urothelkarzinom für die neoadjuvante platinbasierte Therapie nicht geeignet oder sprechen sie darauf nicht gut an, ist Pembrolizumab eine adjuvante Alternative: Die krankheitsfreie Lebenszeit wird dadurch mehr als verdoppelt.

Update Onkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen
Bildnachweise