Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of Oncoplastic Surgery for Breast Cancer

  • Breast Cancer (WJ Gradishar, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Treatment Options in Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Opinion statement

Oncoplastic surgery (OPS) expands the indications and possibilities of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) by allowing for a wider cancer resection than lumpectomy. Ongoing investigation and reporting of OPS outcomes along with improvements in comprehensive training in breast surgical oncology will impact on awareness and lead to increased adoption of these techniques. Indications for OPS include concern about clear margins, poor tumor location (upper inner pole and lower quadrant), multifocality, need for skin excision, and poor candidacy for mastectomy and reconstruction. OPS has been proven to be oncological safe with comparable rates of complications, positive margins, and re-excisions with BCS. Additionally, OPS has a positive impact on the quality of life and self-esteem when compared with those patients that underwent BCT.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

  1. Strach MC, et al. Optimise not compromise: the importance of a multidisciplinary breast cancer patient pathway in the era of oncoplastic and reconstructive surgery. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2019;134:10–21.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Macmillan RD, McCulley SJ. Oncoplastic breast surgery: what, when and for whom? Curr Breast Cancer Rep. 2016;8:112–7.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Clough KB, et al. Conservative treatment of breast cancers by mammaplasty and irradiation: a new approach to lower quadrant tumors. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1995;96(2):363–70.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Galimberti V, et al. Central small size breast cancer: how to overcome the problem of nipple and areola involvement. Eur J Cancer. 1993;29A(8):1093–6.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Losken A, et al. A meta-analysis comparing breast conservation therapy alone to the oncoplastic technique. Ann Plast Surg. 2014;72(2):145–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kopkash K, Clark P. Basic oncoplastic surgery for breast conservation: tips and techniques. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(10):2823–8.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Rietjens M, et al. Long-term oncological results of breast conservative treatment with oncoplastic surgery. Breast. 2007;16(4):387–95.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Clough KB, et al. Oncoplastic techniques allow extensive resections for breast-conserving therapy of breast carcinomas. Ann Surg. 2003;237(1):26–34.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Carter SA, et al. Operative and oncologic outcomes in 9861 patients with operable breast cancer: single-institution analysis of breast conservation with oncoplastic reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(10):3190–8.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Blankensteijn LL, et al. The influence of surgical specialty on oncoplastic breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019;7(5):e2248.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kimball CC, et al. Trends in lumpectomy and oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery in the US, 2011–2016. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(13):3867–73.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Losken A, et al. Current opinion on the oncoplastic approach in the USA. Breast J. 2016;22(4):437–41.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Regano S, et al. Oncoplastic techniques extend breast-conserving surgery to patients with neoadjuvant chemotherapy response unfit for conventional techniques. World J Surg. 2009;33(10):2082–6.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Losken A, Hart AM, Chatterjee A. Updated evidence on the oncoplastic approach to breast conservation therapy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(5S Advances in Breast Reconstruction):14S–22S.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Campbell EJ, Romics L. Oncological safety and cosmetic outcomes in oncoplastic breast conservation surgery, a review of the best level of evidence literature. Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press). 2017;9:521–30.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Patel K, et al. An oncoplastic surgery primer: common indications, techniques, and complications in level 1 and 2 volume displacement oncoplastic surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26(10):3063–70.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Clough KB, et al. Long-term results after oncoplastic surgery for breast cancer: a 10-year follow-up. Ann Surg. 2018;268(1):165–71.

    Google Scholar 

  18. 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(11):3436–44.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Clough KB, et al. Positive margins after oncoplastic surgery for breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(13):4247–53.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Fisher B, 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(16):1233–41.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Veronesi U, 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(16):1227–32.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Bosma SC, et al. Very low local recurrence rates after breast-conserving therapy: analysis of 8485 patients treated over a 28-year period. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;156(2):391–400.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Mansell J, et al. Oncoplastic breast conservation surgery is oncologically safe when compared to wide local excision and mastectomy. Breast. 2017;32:179–85.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Pilewskie M, Morrow M. Margins in breast cancer: how much is enough? Cancer. 2018;124(7):1335–41.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Chen JY, et al. Comparison of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery and breast-conserving surgery alone: a meta-analysis. J Breast Cancer. 2018;21(3):321–9.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Yiannakopoulou EC, Mathelin C. Oncoplastic breast conserving surgery and oncological outcome: systematic review. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016;42(5):625–30.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Emiroglu M, et al. Oncoplastic reduction mammoplasty for breast cancer in women with macromastia: oncological long-term outcomes. Asian J Surg. 2017;40(1):41–7.

    Google Scholar 

  28. van Dongen JA, et al. Long-term results of a randomized trial comparing breast-conserving therapy with mastectomy: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 10,801 trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92(14):1143–50.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Losken A, et al. The oncoplastic reduction approach to breast conservation therapy: benefits for margin control. Aesthet Surg J. 2014;34(8):1185–91.

    Google Scholar 

  30. De La Cruz L, et al. Outcomes after oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery in breast cancer patients: a systematic literature review. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(10):3247–58.

    Google Scholar 

  31. McIntosh J, O’Donoghue JM. Therapeutic mammaplasty--a systematic review of the evidence. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2012;38(3):196–202.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Wang K, et al. Prevalence of pain in patients with breast cancer post-treatment: a systematic review. Breast. 2018;42:113–27.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Cornelissen AJM, et al. Sensation of the autologous reconstructed breast improves quality of life: a pilot study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;167(3):687–95.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Temple CL, et al. Sensibility following innervated free TRAM flap for breast reconstruction: Part II. Innervation improves patient-rated quality of life. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124(5):1419–25.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Cochrane RA, et al. Cosmesis and satisfaction after breast-conserving surgery correlates with the percentage of breast volume excised. Br J Surg. 2003;90(12):1505–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Chauhan A, Sharma MM. Evaluation of surgical outcomes following oncoplastic breast surgery in early breast cancer and comparison with conventional breast conservation surgery. Med J Armed Forces India. 2016;72(1):12–8.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Down SK, et al. Oncological advantages of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery in treatment of early breast cancer. Breast J. 2013;19(1):56–63.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Losken A, et al. Oncoplastic breast reduction technique and outcomes: an evolution over 20 years. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139(4):824e–33e.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Tong WM, et al. Obese women experience fewer complications after oncoplastic breast repair following partial mastectomy than after immediate total breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137(3):777–91.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Losken A, Pinell XA, Eskenazi B. The benefits of partial versus total breast reconstruction for women with macromastia. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125(4):1051–6.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Nakada H, et al. Fat necrosis after breast-conserving oncoplastic surgery. Breast Cancer. 2019;26(1):125–30.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Kapadia SM, et al. Time to radiation after oncoplastic reduction. Ann Plast Surg. 2019;82(1):15–8.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Bartelink H, 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 22881–10,882 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(22):3259–65.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Romestaing P, et al. Role of a 10-Gy boost in the conservative treatment of early breast cancer: results of a randomized clinical trial in Lyon, France. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15(3):963–8.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Litiere S, et al. Breast conserving therapy versus mastectomy for stage I-II breast cancer: 20 year follow-up of the EORTC 10801 phase 3 randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(4):412–9.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Punglia RS, et al. Impact of interval from breast conserving surgery to radiotherapy on local recurrence in older women with breast cancer: retrospective cohort analysis. BMJ. 2010;340:c845.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Huang J, et al. Does delay in starting treatment affect the outcomes of radiotherapy? A systematic review. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(3):555–63.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Hershman DL, et al. Delay of adjuvant chemotherapy initiation following breast cancer surgery among elderly women. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006;99(3):313–21.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Tenofsky PL, et al. Surgical, oncologic, and cosmetic differences between oncoplastic and nononcoplastic breast conserving surgery in breast cancer patients. Am J Surg. 2014;207(3):398–402 discussion 402.

  50. Shah C, Al-Hilli Z, Schwarz G. Oncoplastic surgery in breast cancer: do not forget the boost! Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(9):2509–11.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Furet E, et al. Plastic surgery for breast conservation therapy: how to define the volume of the tumor bed for the boost? Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;40(7):830–4.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Khan J, et al. Oncoplastic breast conservation does not lead to a delay in the commencement of adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2013;39(8):887–91.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Kronowitz SJ, et al. Practical guidelines for repair of partial mastectomy defects using the breast reduction technique in patients undergoing breast conservation therapy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120(7):1755–68.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Losken A, et al. Management algorithm and outcome evaluation of partial mastectomy defects treated using reduction or mastopexy techniques. Ann Plast Surg. 2007;59(3):235–42.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Munhoz AM, et al. Critical analysis of reduction mammaplasty techniques in combination with conservative breast surgery for early breast cancer treatment. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;117(4):1091–103 discussion 1104–7.

  56. Spear SL, et al. Experience with reduction mammaplasty combined with breast conservation therapy in the treatment of breast cancer. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;111(3):1102–9.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Perry S, Kowalski TL, Chang CH. Quality of life assessment in women with breast cancer: benefits, acceptability and utilization. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5:24.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Winters ZE, Benson JR, Pusic AL. A systematic review of the clinical evidence to guide treatment recommendations in breast reconstruction based on patient- reported outcome measures and health-related quality of life. Ann Surg. 2010;252(6):929–42.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Aristokleous I, Saddiq M. Quality of life after oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery: a systematic review. ANZ J Surg. 2019;89(6):639–46.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Kanatas A, et al. Patient-reported outcomes in breast oncology: a review of validated outcome instruments. Tumori. 2012;98(6):678–88.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Chen CM, et al. Measuring quality of life in oncologic breast surgery: a systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures. Breast J. 2010;16(6):587–97.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Hart AM, et al. The psychosexual impact of partial and total breast reconstruction: a prospective one-year longitudinal study. Ann Plast Surg. 2015;75(3):281–6.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Veiga DF, et al. Quality-of-life and self-esteem outcomes after oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125(3):811–7.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Kelsall JE, et al. Comparing oncoplastic breast conserving surgery with mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction: Case-matched patient reported outcomes. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2017;70(10):1377–85.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Di Micco R, et al. Standard wide local excision or bilateral reduction mammoplasty in large-breasted women with small tumours: surgical and patient-reported outcomes. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43(4):636–41.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Losken A, et al. The impact of partial breast reconstruction using reduction techniques on postoperative cancer surveillance. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124(1):9–17.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Piper M, et al. Comparison of mammographic findings following oncoplastic mammoplasty and lumpectomy without reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(1):65–71.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Dolan R, et al. Imaging results following oncoplastic and standard breast conserving surgery. Breast Care (Basel). 2015;10(5):325–9.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Plastic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, A60 Crile Building, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA

    Isis Scomacao MD & Graham Schwarz MD, FACS

  2. Department of General Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Zahraa AlHilli MD

Authors
  1. Isis Scomacao MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zahraa AlHilli MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Graham Schwarz MD, FACS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Isis Scomacao MD.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Isis Scomacao declares that there is no conflict of interest. Zahraa AlHilli declares that there is no conflict of interest. Graham Schwarz declares that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Breast Cancer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Scomacao, I., AlHilli, Z. & Schwarz, G. The Role of Oncoplastic Surgery for Breast Cancer. Curr. Treat. Options in Oncol. 21, 94 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11864-020-00793-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11864-020-00793-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation