Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

OPS:

Oncoplastic breast conservation surgery

BCT:

Breast conserving treatment

BCS:

Breast conserving surgery

RCTs:

Randomized controlled trials

DCIS:

Ductal carcinoma in situ

References

  1. Siegel R, Miller KD, Jemal A, et al. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:7–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. DeSantis CE, Lin CC, Mariotto AB, et al. Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64:252–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

  4. Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, Margolese RG, Deutsch M, Fisher ER, et al. 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. 2002;347:1233–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L, Greco M, Saccozzi R, Luini A, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1227–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bartelink H, Horiot JC, Poortmans PM, et al. Impact of a higher radiation dose on local control and survival in breast-conserving therapy of early breast cancer: 10-year results of the randomized boost versus no boost EORTC 22881-10882 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:3259–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bartelink H, Horiot JC, Poortmans PM, et al. Recurrence rates after treatment of breast cancer with standard radiotherapy with or without additional radiation. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:1378–87.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

  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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Clough KB, Lewis JS, Couturaud B, et al. Oncoplastic techniques allow extensive resections for breast-conserving therapy of breast carcinomas. Ann Surg. 2003;237:26–34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Huemer GM, Schrenk P, Moser F, et al. Oncoplastic techniques allow breast-conserving treatment in centrally located breast cancers. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120:390–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  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 

  13. Morrow M. Minimally invasive surgery for breast cancer. BMJ. 2009;19(338):b557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Rainsbury RM. Training and skills for breast surgeons in the new millennium. ANZ J Surg. 2003;73:511–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Baildam AD. Oncoplastic surgery of the breast. Br J Surg. 2002;89:532–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rew DA. Towards a scientific basis for oncoplastic breast surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2003;29:105–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Clough KB, Kroll SS, Audretsch W. An approach to the repair of partial mastectomy defects. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;104:409–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Noguchi M, Saito Y, Mizukami Y, Nonomura A, Ohta N, Koyasaki N, et al. Breast deformity, its correction and assessment of breast-conserving surgery. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1991;18:111–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Dixon JM, Venizelos B, Chan P. Latissimus dorsi miniflap: a new technique for extending breast conservation. Breast. 2002;11:58–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rainsbury RM, Paramanathan N. Recent progress with breast conserving volume replacement using latissimus dorsi miniflaps in UK patients. Breast Cancer. 1998;5:139–47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Raja MA, Straker VF, Rainsbury RM. Extending the role of breast-conserving surgery by immediate volume replacement. Br J Surg. 1997;84:101–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Anderson BO, Masetti R, Silverstein MJ. Oncoplastic approaches to partial mastectomy: an overview of volume-displacement techniques. Lancet Oncol. 2005;6:145–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Nos C, Fitoussi A, Bourgeois D, Fourquet A, Salmon RJ, Klough KB. Conservative treatment of lower pole breast cancers by bilateral mammoplasty and radiotherapy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1998;24:508–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Rietjens M, Urban CA, Rey PC, Mazzarol G, Maisonneuve P, Garusi C, et al. Long-term oncological results of breast conservative treatment with oncoplastic surgery. Breast. 2007;16:387–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  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.

  26. Meretoja TJ, Svarvar C, Jahkola TA. Outcome of oncoplastic breast surgery in 90 prospective patients. Am J Surg. 2010;200:224–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Rusby JE, Paramanathan N, Laws SA, Rainsbury RM. Immediate latissimus dorsi miniflap volume replacement for partial mastectomy: use of intra-operative frozen sections to confirm negative margins. Am J Surg. 2008;196:512–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kaviani A, Safavi A, Mohammadzadeh N, et al. Oncoplastic surgery in breast conservation: a prospective evaluation of the patients, techniques, and oncologic outcomes. Am J Surg. 2014;208:727–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Mansell J, Weiler-Mithoff E, Stallard S, et al. Oncoplastic breast conservation surgery is oncologically safe when compared to wide local excision and mastectomy. Breast. 2017;32:179–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Adimulam G, Challa VR, Dhar A, et al. Assessment of cosmetic outcome of oncoplastic breast conservation surgery in women with early breast cancer: a prospective cohort study. Indian J Cancer. 2014;51:58–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Colombo PE, Lefévre M, Delmond L, et al. Oncoplastic resection of breast cancers located in the lower-inner or lower-outer quadrant with the modified McKissock mammaplasty technique. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:486–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Giacalone PL, Roger P, Dubon O, El Gareh N, Rihaoui S, Taourel P, et al. Comparative study of the accuracy of breast resection in oncoplastic surgery and quadrantectomy in breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:605–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kaur N, Petit JY, Rietjens M, Maffini F, Luini A, Gatti G, et al. Comparative study of surgical margins in oncoplastic surgery and quadrantectomy in breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2005;12:539–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Veiga DF, Veiga-Filho J, Ribeiro LM, et al. Quality-of-life and self-esteem outcomes after oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125:811–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Veiga DF, Veiga-Filho J, Ribeiro LM, et al. Evaluations of aesthetic outcomes of oncoplastic surgery by surgeons of different gender and specialty: a prospective controlled study. Breast. 2011;20:407–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Chan SWW, Cheung PSY, Lam SH. Cosmetic outcome and percentage of breast volume excision in oncoplastic breast conserving surgery. World J Surg. 2010;34:1447–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Bong J, Parker J, Clapper R, et al. Clinical series of oncoplastic mastopexy to optimize cosmesis of large-volume resections for breast conservation. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:3247–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Yang JD, Bae SG, Chung HY, et al. The usefulness of oncoplastic volume displacement techniques in the superiorly located breast cancers for Korean patients with small to moderate-sized breasts. Ann Plast Surg. 2011;67:474–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Asgiersson KS, Rasheed T, McCulley SJ, Macmillan RD. Oncological and cosmetic outcomes of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2005;31:817–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Kaufmann M, Morrow M, von Minckwitz G, et al. Locoregional treatment of primary breast cancer: consensus recommendations from an International Expert Panel. Cancer. 2010;116:1184–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Meric F, Mirza NQ, Vlastos G, et al. Positive surgical margins and ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence predict disease-specific survival after breastconserving therapy. Cancer. 2003;97:926–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Singletary SE. Surgical margins in patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast conservation therapy. Am J Surg. 2002;184:383–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Gabka CJ, Bohmert H. Future prospects for reconstructive surgery in breast cancer. Semin Surg Oncol. 1996;12:67–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Cochrane RA, Valasiadou P, Wilson AR, Al-Ghazal SK, Macmillan RD. Cosmesis and satisfaction after breast-conserving surgery correlates with the percentage of breast volume excised. Br J Surg. 2003;90:1505–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. McCulley SJ, Macmillan RD. Planning and the use of therapeutic mammoplasty e Nottingham approach. Br J Plast Surg. 2005;58:889–901.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Spear SL, Pelletiere CV, Wolfe A, Tsangaris TN, Pennanen MF. Experience with reduction mammaplasty combined with breast conservation therapy in the treatment of breast cancer. Plast Recosntr Surg. 2003;111:1102–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. McCulley SJ, Macmillan RD. Therapeutic mammaplasty e analysis of 50 consecutive cases. Br J Plast Surg. 2005;58:902–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Clough KB, Kaufman GJ, Nos C, et al. Improving breast cancer surgery: a classification and quadrant per quadrant atlas for oncoplastic surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:1375–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Galimberti V, Zurrida S, Zanini V, et al. Central small size breast cancer; how to overcome the problem of nipple and areola involvement. Eur J Cancer. 1993;29A:1093–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Group. http://www.consort-statement.org/. Accessed 1 Apr 2013.

  51. Adie S, Harris IA, Naylor JM. Mittal R. CONSORT compliance in surgical randomized trials: are we there yet? A systematic review. Ann Surg. 2013;258:872–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Haloua MH, Krekel NM, Winters HA, et al. A systematic review of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery: current weaknesses and future prospects. Ann Surg. 2013;257:609–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Fitoussi AD, Berry MG, Fama F, et al. Oncoplastic breast surgery for cancer: analysis of 540 consecutive cases [outcomes article]. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125:454–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Chakravorty A, Shrestha AK, Sanmugalingam N, et al. How safe is oncoplastic breast conservation? Comparative analysis with standard breast conserving surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2012;38:395–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Vrieling C, Collette L, Fourquet A, et al. The influence of patient, tumor and treatment factors on the cosmetic results after breast-conserving therapy in the EORTC “boost vs. no boost” trial. Radiother Oncol. 2000;55:219–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Santos G, Urban C, Edelweiss MI, et al. Long-term comparison of aesthetical outcomes after oncoplastic surgery and lumpectomy in breast cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:2500–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Winters ZE, Afzal M, Balta V, Freeman J, Llewellyn-Bennett R, Rayter Z, et al. Patient-reported outcomes and their predictors at 2- and 3-year follow-up after immediate latissimus dorsi breast reconstruction and adjuvant treatment. Br J Surg. 2016;103:524e36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Weber WP, Soysal SD, Fulco I, et al. Standardization of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery. EJSO. 2017;43:1236–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Sacchini V, Luini A, Tana S, et al. Quantitative and qualitative cosmetic evaluation after conservative treatment for breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 1991;27:1395–400.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Losken A, Dugal CS, Styblo TM, et al. A metaanalysis comparing breast conservation therapy alone to the oncoplastic technique. Ann Plast Surg. 2014;72:145–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Tenofsky PL, Dowell P, Topalovski T, Helmer SD. Surgical, oncologic, and cosmetic differences between oncoplastic and nononcoplastic breast conserving surgery in breast cancer patients. Am J Surg. 2014;207:398e402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Park CC, Mitsumori M, Nixon A, et al. Outcome at 8 years after breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy for invasive breast cancer: influence of margin status and systemic therapy on local recurrence. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:1668–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Weber WP, Soysal SD, El-Tamer M, et al. First international consensus conference on standardization of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;165:139–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Pukancsik D, Kelemen P, Ujhelyi M, et al. Objective decision making between conventional and oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy: an aesthetic and functional prospective cohort study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43:303–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Cardoso MJ, Cardoso JS, Vrieling C, et al. Recommendation for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;135(3):629–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Breast Unit, 1st Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 11 Pyrgou street, 16675, Glyfada, Athens, Greece

    I. G. Papanikolaou, C. Dimitrakakis, S. Marinopoulos, A. Giannos, A. Rodolakis & D. Loutradis

  2. 1st Department of Propaedeutic Surgery, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece

    E. Zografos, C. G. Zografos & G. C. Zografos

  3. Department of Clinical Therapeutics, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece

    F. Zagouri & D. Kritikou

Authors
  1. I. G. Papanikolaou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. Dimitrakakis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. F. Zagouri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Marinopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A. Giannos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. E. Zografos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. C. G. Zografos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. D. Kritikou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. A. Rodolakis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. G. C. Zografos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. D. Loutradis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to I. G. Papanikolaou.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Papanikolaou, I.G., Dimitrakakis, C., Zagouri, F. et al. 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. Breast Cancer 26, 416–427 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-019-00968-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-019-00968-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation