Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 100, Issue 1, pp 65–70 | Cite as

Cosmetic outcomes following breast conservation therapy: in search of a reliable scale

  • Amanda J. Fortin
  • Mary Cheang
  • Steven Latosinsky
CLINICAL STUDY

Abstract

Introduction

Multiple scales to evaluate breast cosmesis following breast conserving treatment (BCT) have been developed, however reliability is a problem. Panel scores, where scores from two or more individuals are combined, were assessed to examine their effect on reliability for two different cosmetic scales.

Methods

Women, two or more years following BCT, were recruited from a single breast centre. Photographs of each participant were evaluated independently by six health care professionals on two separate occasions. A simple four-point scale and more involved multi-item scale were used to assess cosmetic outcome. Reliability was assessed with the weighted kappa statistic for increasing panel sizes.

Results

Ninety-nine women were evaluated. Intra rater reliability increased from 0.73 to 0.83 for the four-point scale, for increasing panel sizes, however 95% confidence intervals generally overlapped. A smaller and more unpredictable effect was seen on the multi-item subscale, range 0.69 to 0.73. Inter rater reliability increased from 0.68 to 0.93 for the four-point scale, and 0.75 to 0.96 for the multi-item scale, for increasing panel sizes; 95% confidence intervals did not overlap. A panel of three for either scale provided almost perfect kappa values with only small improvements with larger panel sizes.

Conclusions

Care should be used in interpreting results where cosmetic outcomes have been obtained from a single evaluator. Panel scores can be used to significantly improve inter-rater, but not intra rater reliability, for the scales studied. Comparable reliability, in combination with simplicity of use and interpretation, would favour the four-point scale for breast cosmetic evaluation over the multi-item scale.

Keywords

Breast cancer Breast conservation Cosmetic scale Cosmetic outcomes Reliability 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Fisher B, Redmond C, Poisson R, Margolese R, Wolmark N, Wickerham L 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 320:822–828PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Whelan T, Levine M, Gafni A, Sanders K, Willan A, Mirsky D et’al (1999) Mastectomy or lumpectomy? Helping women make informed choices. J Clin Oncol 17:1727–1735PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Al-Ghazal SK, Blamey RW, Stewart J, Morgan AA (1999) The cosmetic outcome in early breast cancer treated with breast conservation. Eur J Surg Oncol 25:566–570PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beadle GF, Silver B, Botnick L, Hellman S, Harris JR (1984) Cosmetic results following primary radiation therapy for early breast cancer. Cancer 54:2911–2918PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sacchini V, Luini A, Tana S, Lozza L, Galimberti V, Merson M et’al (1991) Quantitative and qualitative cosmetic evaluation after conservative treatment for breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 27:1395–1400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ramon Y, Ullmann Y, Moscona R, Ofiram E, Tamir A, Har-Shai Y et’al (1997) Aesthetic results and patient satisfaction with immediate breast reconstruction using tissue expansion: a follow-up study. Plast Reconstr Surg 99:686–691PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Roelstraete A, van Lancker LM, De Schryver A, Storme G (1993) Adjuvant radiation after conservative surgery for early breast cancer. Local control and cosmetic outcome. Am J Clin Oncol 16:284–290PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Danoff BF, Goodman RL, Glick JH, Haller DG, Pajak TF (1983) The effect of adjuvant chemotherapy on cosmesis and complications in patients with breast cancer treated by definitive irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 9:1625–1630PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liljegren G, Holmberg L, Westman G (1993) The cosmetic outcome in early breast cancer treated with sector resection with or without radiotherapy. Uppsala-Orebro Breast Cancer Study Group. Eur J Cancer 29A:2083–2089PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lowery JC, Wilkins EG, Kuzon WM, Davis JA (1996) Evaluations of aesthetic results in breast reconstruction: an analysis of reliability. Ann Plast Surg 36:601–606PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Asplund O, Nilsson B (1984) Interobserver variation and cosmetic result of submuscular breast reconstruction. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg 18:215–220PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pezner RD, Lipsett JA, Vora NL, Desai KR (1985) Limited usefulness of observer-based cosmesis scales employed to evaluate patients treated conservatively for breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 11:1117–1119PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sneeuw KC, Aaronson NK, Yarnold JR, Broderick M, Regan J, Ross G et’al (1992) Cosmetic and functional outcomes of breast conserving treatment for early stage breast cancer. 1. Comparison of patients’ ratings, observers’ ratings, and objective assessments. Radiother Oncol 25:153–159PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vrieling C, Collette L, Bartelink E, Borger JH, Brenninkmeyer SJ, Horiot JC et’al (1999) 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 45:667–676PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    DiBernardo BE, Adams RL, Krause J, Fiorillo MA, Gheradini G (1998) Photographic standards in plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 102:559–568PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Landis J, Koch G (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Krishnan L, Stanton AL, Collins CA, Liston VE, Jewell WR (2001) Form or function? Part 2. Objective cosmetic and functional correlates of quality of life in women treated with breast-conserving surgical procedures and radiotherapy. Cancer 91:2282–2287PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    D’Aniello C, Grimaldi L, Barbato A, Bosi B, Carli A (1999) Cosmetic results in 242 patients treated by conservative surgery for breast cancer. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 33:419–422PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Eadie C, Herd A, Stallard S (2000) An investigation into digital imaging in assessing cosmetic outcome after breast surgery. J␣Audiov Media Med 23:12–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lindsey I, Serpell JW, Johnson WR, Rodger A (1997) Cosmesis following complete local excision of breast cancer. Aust NZ J␣Surg 67:428–432Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moody AM, Mayles WP, Bliss JM, A’Hern RP, Owen JR, Regan J et’al (1994) The influence of breast size on late radiation effects and association with radiotherapy dose inhomogeneity. Radiother Oncol 33:106–112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Borger JH, Keijser AH (1987) Conservative breast cancer treatment: analysis of cosmetic results and the role of concomitant adjuvant chemotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 13:1173–1177PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yeo W, Kwan WH, Teo PM, Leung WT, King W, Johnson PJ (1997) Cosmetic outcome of breast-conserving therapy in Chinese patients with early breast cancer. Aust NZ J Surg 67:771–774Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Curran D, van Dongen JP, Aaronson NK, Kiebert G, Fentiman IS, Mignolet F et’al (1998) Quality of life of early-stage breast cancer patients treated with radical mastectomy or breast-conserving procedures:results of EORTC Trial 10801. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), Breast Cancer Co-operative Group (BCCG). Eur J Cancer 34:307–314PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Johansen J, Overgaard J, Rose C, Engelholm SA, Gadeberg CC, Kjaer M et’al (2002) Cosmetic outcome and breast morbidity in breast-conserving treatment—results from the Danish DBCG-82TM national randomized trial in breast cancer. Acta Oncol 41:369–380PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Woerdeman LA, Hage JJ, Thio EA, Zoetmulder FA, Rutgers EJ (2004) Breast-conserving therapy in patients with a relatively large (T2 or T3) breast cancer: long-term local control and cosmetic outcome of a feasibility study. Plast Reconstr Surg 113:1607–1616PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gendy RK, Able JA, Rainsbury RM (2003) Impact of skin-sparing mastectomy with immediate reconstruction and breast-sparing reconstruction with miniflaps on the outcomes of oncoplastic breast surgery. Br J Surg 90:433–439PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cochrane RA, Valasiadou P, Wilson AR, Al-Ghazal SK, Macmillan RD (2003) Cosmesis and satisfaction after breast-conserving surgery correlates with the percentage of breast volume excised. Br J Surg 90:1505–1509PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Raja MA, Straker VF, Rainsbury RM (1997) Extending the role of breast-conserving surgery by immediate volume replacement. Br J Surg 84:101–105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amanda J. Fortin
    • 1
  • Mary Cheang
    • 3
  • Steven Latosinsky
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Divsion of Plastic SurgeryUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada
  2. 2.Divsion of Surgical OncologyUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada
  3. 3.Department of Community Health SciencesUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada

Personalised recommendations