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

  • Joerg HeilEmail author
  • Fabian Riedel
  • Christine Solbach
  • Bernd Gerber
  • Mario Marx
  • Sara Brucker
  • Christoph Heitmann
  • Jürgen Hoffmann
  • Markus Wallwiener
  • Michael P. Lux
  • Diethelm Wallwiener
  • Markus Hahn
Gynecologic Oncology



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.


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.


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.


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.


Breast surgery Breast-conserving therapy Oncoplastic surgery Consensus 


Author 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.


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

Compliance with ethical standards

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.


  1. 1.
    Audretsch W, Rezai M, Kolotas C (1998) Tumor-specific immediate reconstruction in breast cancer patients. Perspect Plastic Surg 11:71–100Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rezai M, Nestle-Krämling C (1999) Oncoplastic surgical techniques in breast-conserving therapy for carcinoma of the breast. Der Gynäkologe 32:83–90Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clough KB, Kroll SS, Audretsch W (1999) An approach to the repair of partial mastectomy defects. Plast Reconstr Surg 104:409–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clough KB, Lewis JS, Couturaud B et al (2003) Oncoplastic techniques allow extensive resections for breast-conserving therapy of breast carcinomas. Ann Surg 237:26–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Anderson BO, Masetti R, Silverstein MJ (2005) Oncoplastic approaches to partial mastectomy: an overview of volume-displacement techniques. Lancet Oncol 6:145–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 320:822–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 312:665–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 26:668–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 305:6–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kramer S, Darsow M, Kummel S et al (2008) Breast-conserving treatment of breast cancer-oncological and reconstructive aspects. Gynakol Geburtshilf Rundsch 48:56–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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 17:1375–1391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Weber WP, Soysal SD, Fulco I et al (2017) Standardization of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol 43:1236–1243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 9:108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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. Accessed 10 Jan 2018
  15. 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 257:609–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 165:139–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weber WP, Soysal SD, Zeindler J et al (2017) Current standards in oncoplastic breast conserving surgery. Breast (Edinb Scotl) 34(Suppl 1):S78–S81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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) 19:470–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 110:801–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 23:1744–1751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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) 38:58–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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 126:154–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joerg Heil
    • 1
    Email author
  • Fabian Riedel
    • 1
  • Christine Solbach
    • 2
  • Bernd Gerber
    • 3
  • Mario Marx
    • 4
  • Sara Brucker
    • 5
  • Christoph Heitmann
    • 6
  • Jürgen Hoffmann
    • 7
  • Markus Wallwiener
    • 1
  • Michael P. Lux
    • 8
  • Diethelm Wallwiener
    • 5
  • Markus Hahn
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsHeidelberg University HospitalHeidelbergGermany
  2. 2.Department of Gynecology and ObestricsFrankfurt University HospitalFrankfurt am MainGermany
  3. 3.Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsKlinikum Südstadt RostockRostockGermany
  4. 4.Department for Plastic, Reconstructive and Breast SurgeryElblandklinikum RadebeulRadebeulGermany
  5. 5.Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsTübingen University HospitalTübingenGermany
  6. 6.Gemeinschaftspraxis für Plastisch Ästhetische Chirurgie Heitmann und FansaMunichGermany
  7. 7.Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsDüsseldorf University HospitalDüsseldorfGermany
  8. 8.Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsErlangen University HospitalErlangenGermany

Personalised recommendations