Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Clinical Trial
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):1395–1400

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 15:52–57

    Google Scholar 

  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):1117–1119

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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):575–578

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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;2-0

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Faculdade de Medicina do Porto, Hospital S. João, Alameda do Prof. Hernâni Monteiro, 4200-319, Porto, Portugal

    Maria João Cardoso

  2. INESC, Porto, Portugal

    Maria João Cardoso & Jaime S. Cardoso

  3. University of Porto – Faculty of Engineering, Porto, Portugal

    Jaime S. Cardoso

  4. Department of Surgery, Medical University, Vienna, Austria

    Thomas Wild, Wilfried Krois & Florian Fitzal

Authors
  1. Maria João Cardoso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jaime S. Cardoso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thomas Wild
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wilfried Krois
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Florian Fitzal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria João Cardoso.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cardoso, M.J., Cardoso, J.S., Wild, T. et al. Comparing two objective methods for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment. Breast Cancer Res Treat 116, 149–152 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-008-0173-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-008-0173-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation