Oncoplastic Breast Reconstruction in Breast Conservation Surgery: Improving the Oncological and Aesthetic Outcomes

  • Santosh N. Mathapati
  • Ashish GoelEmail author
  • Sandeep Mehta
  • Juhi Aggarwal
  • R. Aravindan
  • Vikash Nayak
  • Sangram K. Panda
  • Pankaj K. Pande
  • Kapil Kumar
Original Article


Breast conservation surgery (BCS) is now the standard of care for patients with early breast cancer. The main contraindications for BCS besides the presence of multicentricity and diffuse microcalcifications are inadequate tumour size to breast size ratio. With the advent of oncoplastic techniques, the indications of BCS may be further extended to patient with larger tumour size and or small volume breast. We prospectively assessed 42 patients undergoing oncoplastic breast conservation surgery for cosmetic and oncologic outcomes. Cosmetic outcome assessment was done by comparison of operated breast to contralateral breast by an independent surgeon, nurse and patient’s attendant at 6 months post-surgery. Risk factors for compromised oncologic outcomes included grades II/III tumours and non-ductal histology. Intraoperative margin assessment with frozen section analysis proved to be important in order to achieve negative surgical margins on final histopathology. By univariate analysis, tumours located in central quadrant and medial half of the breast had similar cosmetic outcomes comparable to tumours located in other quadrants. Majority of our patients (90%) had overall good to excellent cosmetic outcomes on Harvard scale. Oncoplastic breast conservation surgery techniques allow for larger parenchymal resections without compromising oncologic and cosmetic results. It further allows extension of BCS to patients otherwise denied for the same based on earlier recommendations for mastectomy. Oncoplastic techniques and intraoperative margin assessment with frozen section are vital in attaining adequate margins and also decrease chance of local recurrence and revision surgery for positive margins.


Breast conservation surgery Oncoplasty Cosmetic outcome Oncologic outcome 



  1. 1.
    Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, Margolese RG, Deutsch M, Fisher ER, Jeong J-H, Wolmark N (2002) 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 347:1233–1241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Qiao Q, Zhon G, Ling Y et al (1997) Breast volume measurement in young Chinese women and clinical applications. Aesthet Plast Surg 21:362–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kb C, Js L, Couturaud B et al (2003) Oncoplastic techniques allow extensive resections for breast-conserving therapy of breast carcinomas. Ann Surg 237:26–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Franceschini G, Terribile D, Magno S, Fabbri C, Accetta C, di Leone A, Moschella F, Barbarino R, Scaldaferri A, Darchi S, Carvelli ME, Bove S, Masetti R (2012) Update on oncoplastic breast surgery. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 16:1530–1540Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kaur N, Petit JY, Rietjens M, Maffini F, Luini A, Gatti G, Rey PC, Urban C, de Lorenzi F (2005) Comparative study of surgical margins in oncoplastic surgery and quadrantectomy in breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 12:539–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Giacalone PL, Roger P, Dubon O, Gareh NE, Rihaoui S, Taourel P, Daurés JP (2007) Comparative study of the accuracy of breast resection in oncoplastic surgery and quadrantectomy in breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 14:605–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Saadai P, Moezzi M, Menes T (2011) Preoperative and intraoperative predictors of positive margins after breast conserving surgery: a retrospective review. Breast Cancer 18(3):221–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kurniawan ED, Wong MH, Windle I, Rose A, Mou A, Buchanan M, Collins JP, Miller JA, Gruen RL, Mann GB (2008) Predictors of surgical margin status in breast-conserving surgery within a breast screening program. Ann Surg Oncol 15:2542–2549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cabioglu N, Hunt KK, Sahin AA, Kuerer HM, Babiera GV, Singletary SE, Whitman GJ, Ross MI, Ames FC, Feig BW, Buchholz TA, Meric-Bernstam F (2007) Role for intraoperative margin assessment in patients undergoing breast conservation surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 14(4):1458–1471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lovrics PJ, Cornacchi SD, Farrokhyar F, Garnett A, Chen V, Franic S, Simunovic M (2009) The relationship between surgical factors and margin status after breast-conservation surgery for early stage breast cancer. Am J Surg 197:740–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Caruso F, Ferrara M, Castiglione G, Cannata I, Marziani A, Polino C, Caruso M, Girlando A, Nuciforo G, Catanuto G (2011) Therapeutic mammaplasties: full local control of breast cancer in one surgical stage with frozen section. Eur J Surg Oncol 37:871–875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Osborn JB, Keeney GL, Jakub JW et al (2011) Cost-effectiveness analysis of routine frozen-section analysis of breast margins compared with reoperation for positive margins. Ann Surg Oncol 18:320–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Olson TP, Harter J, Munoz A et al (2007) Frozen section analysis for intraoperative margin assessment during breast-conserving surgery results in low rates of reexcision and local recurrence. Ann Surg Oncol 14:2953–2960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Clarke D, Martinez A, Cox RS et al (1983) Analysis of cosmetic results and complications in patients with stage I and II breast cancer treated by biopsy and irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 9:1807–1813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rose MA, Olivotto I, Cady B et al (1989) Conservative surgery and radiation therapy for early breast cancer. Long-term cosmetic results. Arch Surg 124(2):153–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sacchini V, Luini A, Tana S, Lozza L, Galimberti V, Merson M, Agresti R, Veronesi P, Greco M (1991) Quantitative and qualitative cosmetic evaluation after conservative treatment for breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 27:1395–1400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cochrane RA, Valasiadou P, Wilson AR et al (2003) Cosmesis and satisfaction after breast -conserving surgery correlates with the percentage of breast volume excised. Br J Surg 90(12):1505–1509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Taylor ME, Perez CA, Halverson KJ et al (1995) Factors influencing cosmetic results after conservation therapy for breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 31:753–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ozmen T, Polat AV, Polat AK, Bonaventura M, Johnson R, Soran A (2015) Factors affecting cosmesis after breast conserving surgery without oncoplastic techniques in an experienced comprehensive breast center. Surgeon 13(3):139–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Patterson MP, Pezner RD, Hill LR, Vora NL, Desai KR, Lipsett JA (1985) Patient self-evaluation of cosmetic outcome of breast-preserving cancer treatment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 11:1849–1852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Losken A, Dugal CS, Styblo TM, Carlson GW (2014) A meta-analysis comparing breast conservation therapy alone to the oncoplastic technique. Ann Plast Surg 72:145–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ho W, Stallard S, Doughty J, Mallon E, Romics L (2016) Oncological outcomes and complications after volume replacement oncoplastic breast conservations—the Glasgow experience. Breast Cancer (Auckl) 10:223–228Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Association of Surgical Oncology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Santosh N. Mathapati
    • 1
  • Ashish Goel
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sandeep Mehta
    • 1
  • Juhi Aggarwal
    • 1
  • R. Aravindan
    • 1
  • Vikash Nayak
    • 1
  • Sangram K. Panda
    • 1
  • Pankaj K. Pande
    • 1
  • Kapil Kumar
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Surgical Oncology, BLK Cancer CentreDr BLK Super Speciality HospitalNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations