Advertisement

Comparing two objective methods for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment

  • Maria João CardosoEmail author
  • Jaime S. Cardoso
  • Thomas Wild
  • Wilfried Krois
  • Florian Fitzal
Clinical Trial

Abstract

Two programs were recently developed for the aesthetic evaluation of results in breast cancer conservative treatment: the Breast Cancer Conservative Treatment cosmetic results (BCCT.core) and the Breast Analyzing Tool (BAT). Both make use of a face-only photographic view of the patient and were developed to overcome the lack of reproducibility observed with subjective visual evaluation. The BCCT.core analyses several parameters related to asymmetry, color differences and scar appearance, while the BAT considers only asymmetry measurements. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of these two methods. Material and methods Digital pictures of 59 patients from Porto and 60 from Vienna were evaluated subjectively by two panels using the four-class Harris scale. The Porto photographs had a similar backlight and better quality, and were evaluated by an international panel of 23 experts. The Vienna photographs had different backlight and lower quality, and were evaluated by four students and two breast cancer specialists. All 119 cases were submitted to analysis using the BCCT.core and BAT. Agreement between the software programs and the subjective evaluation was calculated using kappa (k), weighted kappa statistics (wk) and error rate (er). Results In overall analysis, BCCT.core program obtained a better agreement with the subjective evaluation (k = 0.56; wk = 0,64; er = 0.20) than the BAT software (k = 0.39; wk = 0.46; er = 0.42) (P < 0.0007). Results were again better for the BCCT.core program, when analysing the photographs obtained in Porto (k = 0.71; wk = 0.78; er = 0.14) than for the BAT (k = 0.35; wk = 0.41; er = 0.51) (P < 0.0003) while no significant differences in agreement were obtained regarding the Vienna images (P > 0.1). Conclusions The results suggest that the inclusion of multiple parameters in image analyses of aesthetic results has the potential to improve results. However, picture quality is probably important for analysis of other features besides asymmetry.

Keywords

Breast cancer conservative treatment Aesthetic evaluation Objective methods Software BCCT.core BAT 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Prof. Ayres-de-Campos for his help in preparation of the manuscript. This work was partially funded by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT)-Portugal through project PTDC/EIA/64914/2006.

References

  1. 1.
    Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J et al (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(16):1233–1241. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa022152 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L et al (2002) Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347(16):1227–1232. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa020989 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Al-Ghazal SK, Blamey RW (1999) Cosmetic assessment of breast-conserving surgery for primary breast cancer. Breast 8(4):162–168. doi: 10.1054/brst.1999.0017 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Christie D, O’Brien M, Christie J et al (1996) A comparison of methods of cosmetic assessment in breast conservation treatment. Breast 5:358–367. doi: 10.1016/S0960-9776(96)90004-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sacchini V, Luini A, Tana S et al (1991) Quantitative and qualitative cosmetic evaluation after conservative treatment for breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 27(11):1395–1400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vrieling C, Collette L, Bartelink E 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(3):667–676. doi: 10.1016/S0360-3016(99)00215-1 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cardoso MJ, Cardoso J, Santos AC, Barros H, Oliveira MC (2005) Interobserver agreement and consensus over the esthetic evaluation of conservative treatment for breast cancer. Breast 15:52–57Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    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(6):1117–1119PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pezner RD, Patterson MP, Hill LR et al (1985) Breast retraction assessment: an objective evaluation of cosmetic results of patients treated conservatively for breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 11(3):575–578PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Van Limbergen E, van der Schueren E, Van Tongelen K (1989) Cosmetic evaluation of breast conserving treatment for mammary cancer. 1. Proposal of a quantitative scoring system. Radiother Oncol 16(3):159–167. doi: 10.1016/0167-8140(89)90016-9 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Van Limbergen E, Rijnders A, van der Schueren E, Lerut T, Christiaens R (1989) Cosmetic evaluation of breast conserving treatment for mammary cancer. 2. A quantitative analysis of the influence of radiation dose, fractionation schedules and surgical treatment techniques on cosmetic results. Radiother Oncol 16(4):253–267. doi: 10.1016/0167-8140(89)90037-6 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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(12):2282–2287. doi:10.1002/1097-0142(20010615)91:12<2282::AID-CNCR1259>3.0.CO;2-0PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cardoso MJ, Cardoso J, Amaral N et al (2007) Turning subjective into objective: the BCCT.core software for evaluation of cosmetic results in breast cancer conservative treatment. Breast 16(5):456–461. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2007.05.002 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fitzal F, Krois W, Trischler H et al (2007) The use of a breast symmetry index for objective evaluation of breast cosmesis. Breast 16(4):429–435. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2007.01.013 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cardoso JS, Cardoso MJ (2007) Towards an intelligent medical system for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment. Artif Intell Med 40(2):115–126. doi: 10.1016/j.artmed.2007.02.007 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria João Cardoso
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Jaime S. Cardoso
    • 2
    • 3
  • Thomas Wild
    • 4
  • Wilfried Krois
    • 4
  • Florian Fitzal
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Surgery, Faculdade de Medicina do PortoHospital S. JoãoPortoPortugal
  2. 2.INESCPortoPortugal
  3. 3.University of Porto – Faculty of EngineeringPortoPortugal
  4. 4.Department of SurgeryMedical UniversityViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations