Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 25, Issue 13, pp 3867–3873 | Cite as

Trends in Lumpectomy and Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery in the US, 2011–2016

  • Chloe Christina Kimball
  • Christine Ida Nichols
  • Joshua Greene Vose
  • Anne Warren Peled
Reconstructive Oncology



Oncoplastic breast surgery aims to optimize efficacy of surgical resection and cosmesis to maximize patient satisfaction; however, despite the benefits, oncoplastic techniques have not been widely adopted in the US. This study examined trends in the incidence of lumpectomy (partial mastectomy) with or without oncoplastic techniques from 2011 to 2016.


This was a retrospective analysis of claims from the Optum Clinformatics database (January 2010–March 2017). Female patients with no history of breast surgery in the prior year were categorized into three independent cohorts: isolated lumpectomy (Lx), lumpectomy with tissue transfer (LxTT), or lumpectomy with mammaplasty and/or mastopexy (LxMM). Oncoplastic techniques (in cohorts two and three) were performed at either time of the initial lumpectomy or during 90-day follow-up.


Overall, 19,253 patients met the inclusion criteria (91.1% Lx, 5.2% LxTT, and 3.7% LxMM). Significantly fewer patients with Lx had a family history of breast cancer compared with patients with oncoplastic techniques (26.4% vs. 33.7% and 37.9%, respectively; p < 0.001). The incidence of Lx declined significantly from 2011 (92.9%) to 2016 (88.1%), while LxTT and LxMM increased from 4.2 to 7.2% and 2.8 to 4.7%, respectively (both p < 0.001). The greatest utilization of oncoplastic techniques was observed in the Pacific census division (19.2%), while lowest utilization was in the East South Central division (3.2%; p < 0.001).


While increased adoption of oncoplastic techniques was observed, the compound annual growth rate remained below 10% and varied significantly by region. Further adoption of oncoplastic techniques is necessary to improve cosmetic outcomes and patient satisfaction following breast-conserving surgery.



The authors thank Jeanne McAdara, Ph.D., for professional assistance with manuscript preparation.


Medtronic provided funds for professional medical writing. The authors maintained control over the study design and manuscript preparation.


Chloe Christina Kimball and Christine Ida Nichols are employees of Medtronic; Joshua Greene Vose was an employee of Medtronic at the time this research was conducted. Anne Warren Peled is a paid consultant for Medtronic, but for services unrelated to this present research.


  1. 1.
    Urban C, Lima R, Schunemann E, Spautz C, Rabinovich I, Anselmi K. Oncoplastic principles in breast conserving surgery. Breast 2011;20(Suppl 3):S92–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Losken A, Kapadia S, Egro FM, Baecher KM, Styblo TM, Carlson GW. Current opinion on the oncoplastic approach in the USA. Breast J. 2016;22(4):437–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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(1):139–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kawamura M, Itoh Y, Sawaki M, et al. A phase I/II trial of intraoperative breast radiotherapy in an Asian population: 5-year results of local control and cosmetic outcome. Radiat Oncol. 2015;10(1):150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hennigs A, Hartmann B, Rauch G, et al. Long-term objective esthetic outcome after breast-conserving therapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;153(2):345–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Waljee JF, Hu ES, Ubel PA, Smith DM, Newman LA, Alderman AK. Effect of esthetic outcome after breast-conserving surgery on psychosocial functioning and quality of life. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(20):3331–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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(12):1505–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dahlbäck C, Manjer J, Rehn M, Ringberg A. Determinants for patient satisfaction regarding aesthetic outcome and skin sensitivity after breast-conserving surgery. World J Surg Oncol. 2016;14(1):303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hennigs A, Biehl H, Rauch G, et al. Change of patient-reported aesthetic outcome over time and identification of factors characterizing poor aesthetic outcome after breast-conserving therapy: long-term results of a prospective cohort study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(5):1744–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Foersterling E, Golatta M, Hennigs A, et al. Predictors of early poor aesthetic outcome after breast-conserving surgery in patients with breast cancer: initial results of a prospective cohort study at a single institution. J Surg Oncol. 2014;110(7):801–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Losken A, Dugal CS, Styblo TM, Carlson GW. A meta-analysis comparing breast conservation therapy alone to the oncoplastic technique. Ann Plast Surg. 2014;72(2):145–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carter SA, Lyons GR, Kuerer HM, et al. Operative and oncologic outcomes in 9861 patients with operable breast cancer: single-institution analysis of breast conservation with oncoplastic reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(10):3190–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Piper ML, Esserman LJ, Sbitany H, Peled AW. Outcomes following oncoplastic reduction mammoplasty: a systematic review. Ann Plast Surg. 2016;76(Suppl 3):S222–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chloe Christina Kimball
    • 1
  • Christine Ida Nichols
    • 1
  • Joshua Greene Vose
    • 1
  • Anne Warren Peled
    • 2
  1. 1.MedtronicPortsmouthUSA
  2. 2.Plastic Surgery Private PracticeSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations