Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 26, Issue 11, pp 3436–3444 | Cite as

A Consensus Definition and Classification System of Oncoplastic Surgery Developed by the American Society of Breast Surgeons

  • Abhishek ChatterjeeEmail author
  • Jennifer Gass
  • Krishnabhai Patel
  • Dennis Holmes
  • Katherine Kopkash
  • Lashan Peiris
  • Anne Peled
  • Jessica Ryan
  • Mahmoud El-Tamer
  • Julie Reiland
Breast Oncology



Several definitions of oncoplastic surgery have been reported in the literature. In an effort to facilitate communication regarding oncoplastic surgery to patients, trainees, and among colleagues, the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) aimed to create a consensus definition and classification system for oncoplastic surgery.


We performed a comprehensive literature search for oncoplastic surgery definitions using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Following this, a consensus definition and classification system was created by the ASBrS.


Overall, 30 articles defining oncoplastic surgery were identified, with several articles contradicting each other. The ASBrS definition for oncoplastic surgery defines this set of breast-conserving operations using volume displacement and volume replacement principles as: “Breast conservation surgery incorporating an oncologic partial mastectomy with ipsilateral defect repair using volume displacement or volume replacement techniques with contralateral symmetry surgery as appropriate”. Volume displacement is defined as closing the lumpectomy defect and redistributing the resection volume over the preserved breast, and is divided into two levels: level 1 (< 20%) and level 2 (20–50%). Volume replacement includes those situations when volume is added using flaps or implants to correct the partial mastectomy defect.


The ASBrS oncoplastic surgery definition and classification system provides language to facilitate discussion and teaching of oncoplastic surgery among breast surgeons, trainees, and patients.



  1. 1.
    SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2015. National Cancer Institute. 2018 [cited 21 Sep 2018].
  2. 2.
    American College of Surgeons. Cancer Program Standards: Ensuring Patient-Centered Care (2016 edition). Chicago: American College of Surgeons; 2016. pp. 58–9.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    American College of Surgeons. National accreditation program for breast centers standards manual. Chicago: American College of Surgeons; 2018. pp. 58–60.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    McLaughlin S, Cornell L, Mussallem D. Sexual function and breast-specific sensuality remain important after breast cancer surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(12):3475–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rojas K, Onstad M, Raker C, Clark M, Stuckey A, Gass J. The impact of mastectomy type on the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), satisfaction with appearance, and the reconstructed breast’s role in intimacy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;163(2):273–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gass J, Mitchell S, Hanna M. The psychosocial impact of surgical scars in survivorship: findings from a nationwide survey of women breast cancer survivors [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 5–9 Dec 2017; San Antonio, TX.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aerts L, Christiaens M, Enzlin P, Neven P, Amant F. Sexual functioning in women after mastectomy versus breast conserving therapy for early-stage breast cancer: a prospective controlled study. Breast. 2014;23(5):629–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carter S, Lyons G, Kuerer H, Bassett RJ, Oates S, Thompson A. 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
  9. 9.
    Jonczyk M, Jean J, Graham R, Chatterjee A. Surgical trends in breast cancer: a rise in novel operative treatment options over a 12 year analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019;173(2):267–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chatterjee A, Offodile AC II, Asban A, Minasian RA, Losken A, Graham R, et al. A cost-utility analysis comparing oncoplastic breast surgery to standard lumpectomy in large breasted women. Adv Breast Cancer Res. 2018;7(2):14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    El-Tamer M. Principles and techniques in oncoplastic breast cancer surgery. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co Inc.; 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kelsall J, McCulley S, Brock L, Akerlund M, Macmillan R. Comparing oncoplastic breast conserving surgery with mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction: case-matched patient reported outcomes. J Plastic Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2017;70(10):1377–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Palsdottir E, Lund L, Asgeirsson A. Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery in Iceland: a population-based study. Scand J Surg. 2018;107(3):224–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Clough K, Kroll S, Audretsch W. An approach to the repair of partial mastectomy defects. Plastic Reconstr Surg. 1999;104(2):409–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Masetti R, Pirulli P, Magno S, Franceschini G, Chiesa F, Antinori A. Oncoplastic techniques in the conservative surgical treatment of breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2000;7(4):276–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Audretsch W, Rezai M, Kolotas C, Zamboglou N, Schnabel T, Bojar H. Tumor-specific immediate reconstruction in breast cancer patients. Semin Plast Surg. 1998;11(1):71–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 2010;8(5):336–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weber W, Soysal S, El-tamer M. First international consensus conference on standardization of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;165(1):139–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Clough K, Kaufman G, Nos C. Improving breast cancer surgery: a classification and quadrant per quadrant atlas for oncoplastic surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:1375–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cohen WA, Mundy LR, Ballard TN, Klassen A, Cano SJ, Browne J, et al. The BREAST-Q in surgical research: a review of the literature 2009–2015. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016;69(2):149–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Visser NJ, Damen TH, Timman R, Hofer SO, Mureau MA. Surgical results, aesthetic outcome, and patient satisfaction after microsurgical autologous breast reconstruction following failed implant reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126(1):26–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. From cancer patient to cancer survivor: lost in transition. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2006.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    McCabe M, Bhatia S, Oeffinger K, Reaman G, Tyne C, Wollins D, et al. American society of clinical oncology statement: achieving high-quality cancer survivorship care. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(5):631–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Habermann E, Abbott A, Parsons H, Virnig B, Al-Refaie W, Tuttle T. Are mastectomy rates really increasing in the United States? J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(21):3437–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tan M. Is there an ideal breast conservation rate for the treatment of breast cancer? Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(9):2825–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Petit J, Rietjens M, Botteri E, Rotmensz N, Bertolini F, Curigliano G, et al. Evaluation of fat grafting safety in patients with intra epithelial neoplasia: a matched-cohort study. Ann Oncol. 2013;24(6):1479–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Petit JY, Lohsiriwat V, Clough KB, Sarfati I, Ihrai T, Rietjens M, et al. The oncologic outcome and immediate surgical complications of lipofilling in breast cancer patients: a multicenter study—Milan–Paris–Lyon experience of 646 lipofilling procedures. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128(2):341–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    De La Cruz L, Blankenship S, Chatterjee A, Geha R, Nocera N, Czerniecki B, et al. Outcomes after oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery in breast cancer patients: a systematic literature review. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(10):3247–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Losken A, Hart A, Chatterjee A. Updated Evidence on the oncoplastic approach to breast conservation therapy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(5S Advances in Breast Reconstruction):14S–22S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Losken A, Dugal C, Styblo T, Carlson G. A Meta-analysis comparing breast conservation therapy alone to the oncoplastic technique. Ann Plast Surg. 2014;72(2):145–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Munhoz A, Aldrighi C, Montag E, Arruda E, Brasil J, Filassi J, et al. Outcome analysis of immediate and delayed conservative breast surgery reconstruction with mastopexy and reduction mammaplasty techniques. Ann Plast Surg. 2011;67(3):220–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Asban A, Homsy C, Chen L, Fisher C, Losken A, Chatterjee A. A cost-utility analysis comparing large volume displacement oncoplastic surgery to mastectomy with single stage implant reconstruction in the treatment of breast cancer. Breast. 2018;41:159–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chatterjee A, Asban A, Jonczyk M, Chen L, Czerniecki B, Fisher CS. A cost-utility analysis comparing large volume displacement oncoplastic surgery to mastectomy with free flap reconstruction in the treatment of breast cancer. Am J Surg. 2019;41:159. Scholar
  34. 34.
    Silverstein M, Savalia N, Khan S, Ryan J. Extreme oncoplasty: breast conservation for patients who need mastectomy. Breast J. 2015;21(1):52–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Anderson B, Masetti R, Silverstein M. Oncoplastic approaches to partial mastectomy: an overview of volume-displacement techniques. Lancet Oncol. 2005;6(3):145–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Chatterjee A, Khakpour N, Czerniecki B. Oncoplastic surgery: keeping it simple with 5 essential volume displacement techniques for breast conservation in a patient with moderate to large sized breasts. Cancer Control. 2017;24(4):1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Holmes D, Schooler W, Smith R. Oncoplastic approaches to breast conservation. Int J Breast Cancer. 2011;2011:1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hu J, Rainsbury R, Segaran A, Predescu O, Roy P. Objective assessment of clinical, oncological and cosmetic outcomes following volume replacement in patients undergoing oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery: protocol for a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2018;8(7):e020859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rainsbury R. Surgery insight: oncoplastic breast-conserving reconstruction—indications, benefits, choices and outcomes. Nat Clin Pract Oncol. 2007;4(11):657–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rancati A, Gonzalez E, Dorr J, Angrigiani C. Oncoplastic surgery in the treatment of breast cancer. Ecancermedicalscience. 2013;7:293.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kopkash K, Clark P. Basic oncoplastic surgery for breast conservation: tips and techniques. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(10):2823–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Andree C, Farhadi J, Goossens D. A position statement on optimizing the role of oncoplastic breast surgery. Eplasty. 2012;12:e40.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Baildam A, Bishop H, Boland G. Oncoplastic breast surgery: a guide to good practice. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2007;33 Suppl 1:S1–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bali R, Kankam H, Borkar N, Provenzano E, Agrawal A. Wide local excision versus oncoplastic breast surgery: differences in surgical outcome for an assumed margin (0, 1, or 2 mm) distance. Clin Breast Cancer. 2018;18(5):e1053–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Calì Cassi L, Vanni G, Petrella G. Comparative study of oncoplastic versus non-oncoplastic breast conserving surgery in a group of 211 breast cancer patients. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2016;20(14):2950–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Chauhan A, Sharma M, Kumar K. Evaluation of surgical outcomes of oncoplasty breast surgery in locally advanced breast cancer and comparison with conventional breast conservation surgery. Indian J Surg Oncol. 2016;7(4):413–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    De Lorenzi F. Oncoplastic surgery: the evolution of breast cancer treatment. Breast J. 2010;16 Suppl 1:S20–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Emiroğlu M, Sert İ, İnal A. The role of oncoplastic breast surgery in breast cancer treatment. J Breast Health. 2015;11(1):1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Franceschinin G, Magno S, Fabbri C. Conservative and radical oncoplastic approaches in the surgical treatment of breast cancer. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2008;12(6):387–96.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hamdi M, Sinove Y, DePypere H, Broucke VD, Vakaef L, Cocquyt V, et al. The role of oncoplastic surgery in breast cancer. Acta Chir Belg. 2008;108(6):666–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Hoffmann J, Wallwiener D. Classifying breast cancer surgery: a novel, complexity-based system for oncological, oncoplastic and reconstructive procedures, and proof of principle by analysis of 1225 operations in 1166 patients. MC Cancer. 2009;9:108.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kaviani A, Sodagari N, Sheikhbahaei S. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Khayat E, Brackstone M, Maxwell J. Training Canadian surgeons in oncoplastic breast surgery: where do we stand? Can J Surg. 2017;60(6):369–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Lebovic G. Oncoplastic surgery: a creative approach to breast cancer management. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2010;19(3):567–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Macmillan R, Mcculley S. Oncoplastic breast surgery: what, when and for whom? Curr Breast Cancer Rep. 2016;8:112–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Mcculley S, Durani P, Macmillan R. Therapeutic mammaplasty for centrally located breast tumors. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;117(2):366–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Mukhtar R, Wong J, Piper M. Breast conservation and negative margins in invasive Lobular Carcinoma: the impact of oncoplastic surgery and shave margins in 358 patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(11):3165–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Perez R. Incision patterns in breast oncoplastic surgery. 2015.
  59. 59.
    Munhoz A, Montag E, Gemperli R. Oncoplastic breast surgery: indications, techniques and perspectives. Gland Surg. 2013;2(3):143–57.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Pillarisetti R, Querci Della Rovere G. Oncoplastic breast surgery. Indian J Surg. 2012;74(3):255–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Urban C. New classification for oncoplastic procedures in surgical practice. The Breast. 2008;17(4):321–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Weber W, Soysal S, Fulco I. Standardization of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43(7):1236–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Yazar S, Altınel D, Serin M, Aksoy Ş, Yazar M. Oncoplastic Breast Conserving Surgery: Aesthetic Satisfaction and Oncological Outcomes. Eur J Breast Health. 2018;14(1):35–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abhishek Chatterjee
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jennifer Gass
    • 2
  • Krishnabhai Patel
    • 1
  • Dennis Holmes
    • 3
  • Katherine Kopkash
    • 4
  • Lashan Peiris
    • 5
  • Anne Peled
    • 6
  • Jessica Ryan
    • 7
  • Mahmoud El-Tamer
    • 8
  • Julie Reiland
    • 9
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryTufts Medical CenterBostonUSA
  2. 2.Breast Health CenterWomen and Infants’ HospitalProvidenceUSA
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryJohn Wayne Cancer InstituteSanta MonicaUSA
  4. 4.Department of SurgeryNorthShore University HealthSystemEvanstonUSA
  5. 5.Department of SurgeryUniversity of Alberta (Misericordia Community Hospital)EdmontonCanada
  6. 6.San FranciscoUSA
  7. 7.Catholic Medical CenterManchesterUSA
  8. 8.Department of SurgeryMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  9. 9.Avera Medical Group McHale InstituteSioux FallsUSA

Personalised recommendations