Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Is face-only photographic view enough for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment?

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

Abstract

The breast cancer conservative treatment. cosmetic results (BCCT.core) is a new software tool created for the automatic and objective evaluation of the aesthetic result of BCCT. It makes use of a face-only photographic view of each patient and might thus have been considered insufficient for an accurate evaluation, as others have used multiple views of each patient. The purpose of this work is to compare the performance of the BCCT.core (using face-only views) with a subjective expert analysis using both the face-only and four-view assessment. Photographs in four-views of 150 patients, were evaluated by a panel of experts and a consensus classification was obtained. The agreement between the consensus and the BCCT.core (face-only view) was calculated using the kappa (k) and weighted kappa (wk) statistics. Face-only views, of the same 150 patients, were subsequently sorted out in a different order and sent for individual evaluation by three specialists from the previous panel of experts. The individual agreement between the face-only view and the four-view evaluation by each of the three experts and the consensus was calculated using the same methods. Obtained results were compared to the BCCT.core performance. The software obtained a moderate agreement with the consensus (k = 0.57; wk = 0.68). The highest value of agreement, from the three experts, between the four-view evaluation and the consensus was identical to the software agreement (k = 0.55; wk = 0.67). In the face-only view experiment, the highest value of agreement between the experts and the consensus was only fair (k = 0.37; wk = 0.54). Performance of the software was thus considered equal to that obtained by experts using a four-view evaluation.

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, Margolese RG, Deutsch M, Fisher ER, Jeong JH, Wolmark N (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 347:1233–1241

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L, Greco M, Saccozzi R, Luini A, Aguilar M, Marubini E (2002) Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347:1227–1232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Al-Ghazal SK, Blamey RW (1999) Cosmetic assessment of breast-conserving surgery for primary breast cancer. Breast 8:162–168

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Christie D (1996) A comparison of methods of cosmetic assessment in breast conservation treatment. Breast 5:358–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Sacchini V, Luini A, Tana S, Lozza L, Galimberti V, Merson M, Agresti R, Veronesi P, Greco M (1991) Quantitative and qualitative cosmetic evaluation after conservative treatment for breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 27:1395–1400

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Vrieling C, Collette L, Bartelink E, Borger JH, Brenninkmeyer SJ, Horiot JC, Pierart M, Poortmans PM, Struikmans H, Van der Schueren E, Van Dongen JA, Van Limbergen E, Bartelink H (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 45:667–676

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Cardoso MJ, Santos AC, Cardoso J, Barros H, Cardoso De Oliveira M (2005) Choosing observers for evaluation of aesthetic results in breast cancer conservative treatment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 61:879–881

    PubMed  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 11:1117–1119

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Pezner RD, Patterson MP, Hill LR, Vora N, Desai KR, Archambeau JO, Lipsett JA (1985) Breast retraction assessment: an objective evaluation of cosmetic results of patients treated conservatively for breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 11:575–578

    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 16:159–167

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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 91:2282–2287

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Harris JR, Levene MB, Svensson G, Hellman S (1979) Analysis of cosmetic results following primary radiation therapy for stages i and ii carcinoma of the breast. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 5:257–261

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Cardoso JS, Cardoso MJ (2007) Towards an intelligent medical system for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment. Artif Intell Med 40:115–126

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Cardoso MJ, Cardoso J, Amaral N, Azevedo I, Barreau L, Bernardo M, Christie D, Costa S, Fitzal F, Fougo JL, Johansen J, Macmillan D, Mano MP, Regolo L, Rosa J, Teixeira L, Vrieling C (2007) Turning subjective into objective: the BCCT.Core software for evaluation of cosmetic results in breast cancer conservative treatment. Breast 16:456–461

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hasson F, Keeney S, McKenna H (2000) Research guidelines for the delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs 32:1008–1015

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Jones J, Hunter D (1995) Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ 311:376–380

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Fink A, Kosecoff J, Chassin M, Brook RH (1984) Consensus methods: Characteristics and guidelines for use. Am J Public Health 74:979–983

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Cardoso MJ, Cardoso J, Santos AC, Barros H, Oliveira MC (2005) Interobserver agreement, consensus over the esthetic evaluation of conservative treatment for breast cancer. Breast 15:52–57

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Seigel DG, Podgor MJ, Remaley NA (1992) Acceptable values of kappa for comparison of two groups. Am J Epidemiol 135:571–578

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Al-Ghazal SK, Blamey RW, Stewart J, Morgan AA (1999) The cosmetic outcome in early breast cancer treated with breast conservation. Eur J Surg Oncol 25:566–570

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Sneeuw KC, Aaronson NK, Yarnold JR, Broderick M, Regan J, Ross G, Goddard A (1992) Cosmetic and functional outcomes of breast conserving treatment for early stage breast cancer. 1. Comparison of patients’ ratings, observers’ ratings, and objective assessments. Radiother Oncol 25:153–159

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Noguchi M, Miyazaki I (1994) Breast conserving surgery and radiation in the treatment of operable breast cancer. Int Surg 79:142–147

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Tsouskas LI, Fentiman IS (1990) Breast compliance: a new method for evaluation of cosmetic outcome after conservative treatment of early breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 15:185–190

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Fitzal F, Krois W, Trischler H, Wutzel L, Riedl O, Kuhbelbock U, Wintersteiner B, Cardoso MJ, Dubsky P, Gnant M, Jakesz R, Wild T (2007) The use of a breast symmetry index for objective evaluation of breast cosmesis. Breast 16:429–435

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Zgajnar J (2007) Digital evaluation of breast cosmesis after breast-conserving treatment: end of the beginning. Breast 16:441–442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was partially funded by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) – Portugal through project PTDC/EIA/64914/2006.

Conflicts of interest

The first two authors are the main researchers involved in the development of the BCCT.core software. No commercial conflicts of interest exist.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Faculdade de Medicina do Porto, 4200-319, Porto, Portugal

    Maria João Cardoso, André Magalhães, Teresa Almeida & Susy Costa

  2. Genolier Swiss Medical Network, Genolier, Switzerland

    Conny Vrieling

  3. East Coast Cancer Center, Tugun, Australia

    David Christie

  4. Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark

    Jørgen Johansen

  5. INESC Porto, Porto, Portugal

    Maria João Cardoso & Jaime S. Cardoso

Authors
  1. Maria João Cardoso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. André Magalhães
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Teresa Almeida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Susy Costa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Conny Vrieling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. David Christie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jørgen Johansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jaime S. Cardoso
    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., Magalhães, A., Almeida, T. et al. Is face-only photographic view enough for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment?. Breast Cancer Res Treat 112, 565–568 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-008-9896-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-008-9896-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation