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
- 45 Downloads
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.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsOncoplastic surgery Breast cancer Breast conservation Oncologic outcomes Aesthetic outcomes Cosmesis
Oncoplastic breast conservation surgery
Breast conserving treatment
Breast conserving surgery
Randomized controlled trials
Ductal carcinoma in situ
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
- 3.International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). World Health Organization, GLOBOCAN 2012: estimated cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide in 2012. http://globocan.iarc.fr/old/FactSheets/cancers/breast-new.asp-TOP. Accessed Dec 2016.
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 25.Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine e levels of evidence, 2009. http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1025. Accessed 1 Apr 2013.
- 50.The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Group. http://www.consort-statement.org/. Accessed 1 Apr 2013.
- 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar