Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery: More relevant than ever? Results of a survey among breast surgeons

  • Gynecologic Oncology
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery has been part of clinical routine for several years without an internationally accepted nomenclature, standardization or a systematic evaluation of single surgical procedures.

Methods

We carried out a structured survey of breast surgeons (n = 50) during the annual meeting of the German Society for Senology in Berlin 2017. In the run-up to the event, 10 questions were determined and released for an anonymous survey during the consensus meeting.

Results

Most surgeons participating in the consensus meeting had an expertise of more than 200 oncologic breast surgeries in the last 3 years and approved the need of a higher rate of standardization in oncoplastic techniques. From the oncological standpoint, oncoplastic surgery is considered safe with a comparable rate of compilations as seen in conventional breast-conserving procedures. Most surgeons approve that using oncoplastic surgery, higher rates of breast conservation and improved aesthetic results can be accomplished. The majority of the participants would endorse a more systematic review of subjective aesthetic results in clinical routine.

Conclusions

A higher degree in standardization of oncoplastic breast surgery is required for surgical-technical, educational, and scientific reasons as well as for a more differentiated monetary compensation of the surgical procedures. This process has already been started.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Audretsch W, Rezai M, Kolotas C (1998) Tumor-specific immediate reconstruction in breast cancer patients. Perspect Plastic Surg 11:71–100

    Google Scholar 

  2. Rezai M, Nestle-Krämling C (1999) Oncoplastic surgical techniques in breast-conserving therapy for carcinoma of the breast. Der Gynäkologe 32:83–90

    Google Scholar 

  3. Clough KB, Kroll SS, Audretsch W (1999) An approach to the repair of partial mastectomy defects. Plast Reconstr Surg 104:409–420

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Clough KB, Lewis JS, Couturaud B et al (2003) Oncoplastic techniques allow extensive resections for breast-conserving therapy of breast carcinomas. Ann Surg 237:26–34

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Anderson BO, Masetti R, Silverstein MJ (2005) Oncoplastic approaches to partial mastectomy: an overview of volume-displacement techniques. Lancet Oncol 6:145–157

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fisher B, Redmond C, Poisson R et al (1989) Eight-year results of a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy and lumpectomy with or without irradiation in the treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 320:822–828

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Fisher B, Bauer M, Margolese R et al (1985) Five-year results of a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy and segmental mastectomy with or without radiation in the treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 312:665–673

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Veronesi U, Banfi A, Salvadori B et al (1990) Breast conservation is the treatment of choice in small breast cancer: long-term results of a randomized trial. Eur J Cancer 26:668–670

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Veronesi U, Saccozzi R, Del Vecchio M et al (1981) Comparing radical mastectomy with quadrantectomy, axillary dissection, and radiotherapy in patients with small cancers of the breast. N Engl J Med 305:6–11

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kramer S, Darsow M, Kummel S et al (2008) Breast-conserving treatment of breast cancer-oncological and reconstructive aspects. Gynakol Geburtshilf Rundsch 48:56–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Clough KB, Kaufman GJ, Nos C et al (2010) Improving breast cancer surgery: a classification and quadrant per quadrant atlas for oncoplastic surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 17:1375–1391

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Weber WP, Soysal SD, Fulco I et al (2017) Standardization of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol 43:1236–1243

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Hoffmann J, Wallwiener D (2009) Classifying breast cancer surgery: a novel, complexity-based system for oncological, oncoplastic and reconstructive procedures, and proof of principle by analysis of 1225 operations in 1166 patients. BMC Cancer 9:108

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, Deutsche Krebshilfe, AWMF): S3-Leitlinie Früherkennung, Diagnose, Therapie und Nachsorge des Mammakarzinoms, Version 4.0, 2017, AWMF Registernummer: 032–045OL. www.leitlinienprogramm-onkologie.de/leitlinien/mammakarzinom. Accessed 10 Jan 2018

  15. Haloua MH, Krekel NM, Winters HA et al (2013) A systematic review of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery: current weaknesses and future prospects. Ann Surg 257:609–620

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Weber WP, Soysal SD, El-Tamer M et al (2017) First international consensus conference on standardization of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery. Breast Cancer Res Treat 165:139–149

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Weber WP, Soysal SD, Zeindler J et al (2017) Current standards in oncoplastic breast conserving surgery. Breast (Edinb Scotl) 34(Suppl 1):S78–S81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Heil J, Holl S, Golatta M et al (2010) Aesthetic and functional results after breast conserving surgery as correlates of quality of life measured by a German version of the breast cancer treatment outcome scale (BCTOS). Breast (Edinb Scotl) 19:470–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Foersterling E, Golatta M, Hennigs A et al (2014) Predictors of early poor aesthetic outcome after breast-conserving surgery in patients with breast cancer: initial results of a prospective cohort study at a single institution. J Surg Oncol 110:801–806

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hennigs A, Biehl H, Rauch G et al (2016) Change of patient-reported aesthetic outcome over time and identification of factors characterizing poor aesthetic outcome after breast-conserving therapy: long-term results of a prospective cohort study. Ann Surg Oncol 23:1744–1751

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hennigs A, Heil J, Wagner A et al (2018) Development and psychometric validation of a shorter version of the breast cancer treatment outcome scale (BCTOS-12). Breast (Edinb Scotl) 38:58–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Cardoso MJ, Cardoso JS, Oliveira HP et al (2016) The breast cancer conservative treatment. Cosmetic results—BCCT.core—software for objective assessment of esthetic outcome in breast cancer conservative treatment: a narrative review. Comput Methods Progr Biomed 126:154–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 440, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany

    Joerg Heil, Fabian Riedel & Markus Wallwiener

  2. Department of Gynecology and Obestrics, Frankfurt University Hospital, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    Christine Solbach

  3. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Klinikum Südstadt Rostock, Südring 81, 18059, Rostock, Germany

    Bernd Gerber

  4. Department for Plastic, Reconstructive and Breast Surgery, Elblandklinikum Radebeul, Heinrich-Zille-Str. 13, 01445, Radebeul, Germany

    Mario Marx

  5. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Tübingen University Hospital, Calwerstr. 7, 72076, Tübingen, Germany

    Sara Brucker, Diethelm Wallwiener & Markus Hahn

  6. Gemeinschaftspraxis für Plastisch Ästhetische Chirurgie Heitmann und Fansa, Maximilianstr. 38/40, 80539, Munich, Germany

    Christoph Heitmann

  7. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Düsseldorf University Hospital, Moorenstr. 5, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany

    Jürgen Hoffmann

  8. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen University Hospital, Universitätsstr. 21-23, 91054, Erlangen, Germany

    Michael P. Lux

Authors
  1. Joerg Heil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fabian Riedel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christine Solbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bernd Gerber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mario Marx
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sara Brucker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Christoph Heitmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jürgen Hoffmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Markus Wallwiener
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Michael P. Lux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Diethelm Wallwiener
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Markus Hahn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Project development JH, MH. Data collection: JH, FR, CS, BG, MM, SB, CH, JH, MW, ML, DW, MH. Data analysis: JH, MH, FR. Manuscript writing/editing: JH, FR, CS, BG, MM, SB, CH, JH, MW, ML, DW, MH.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joerg Heil.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Not applicable.

Additional information

Joerg Heil and Fabian Riedel share first authorship.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Heil, J., Riedel, F., Solbach, C. et al. Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery: More relevant than ever? Results of a survey among breast surgeons. Arch Gynecol Obstet 299, 1109–1114 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-019-05054-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-019-05054-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation