Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Recommendations for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment

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

Abstract

During the Turning Subjective Into Objective seminar held in Lisbon in May 2011, experts in the topic gathered to discuss the unsolved problems of aesthetic evaluation of breast-conserving treatment (BCT). The purpose of this study is to review the main methodological issues related to the aesthetic evaluation of BCT, to discuss currently used methods of evaluation and the lack of a gold standard, and to write a set of recommendations that can be used as guidance for the aesthetic evaluation of BCT.

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

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(16):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(16):1227–1232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Christiaens MR, van der Schueren E, Vantongelen K (1996) More detailed documentation of operative procedures in breast conserving treatment: what good will it do us? Eur J Surg Oncol 22(4):326–330

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Christie D, O’Brien M, Christie J, Kron T, Ferguson S, Hamilton C, Denham J (1996) A comparison of methods of cosmetic assessment in breast conservation treatment. Breast 5:358–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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(5):456–461

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cardoso MJ, Magalhaes A, Almeida T, Costa S, Vrieling C, Christie D, Johansen J, Cardoso JS (2008) Is face-only photographic view enough for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment? Breast Cancer Res Treat 112(3):565–568

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hau E, Browne LH, Khanna S, Cail S, Cert G, Chin Y, Clark C, Inder S, Szwajcer A, Graham PH (2011) Radiotherapy breast boost with reduced whole-breast dose is associated with improved cosmesis: the results of a comprehensive assessment from the St. George and Wollongong randomized breast boost trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 82(2):682–689

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Heil J, Carolus A, Dahlkamp J, Golatta M, Domschke C, Schuetz F, Blumenstein M, Rauch G, Sohn C (2011) Objective assessment of aesthetic outcome after breast conserving therapy: Subjective third party panel rating and objective BCCT.core software evaluation. Breast. doi:10.1016/j.breast.2011.07.013

  10. Heil J, Dahlkamp J, Golatta M, Rom J, Domschke C, Rauch G, Cardoso MJ, Sohn C (2010) Aesthetics in breast conserving therapy: do objectively measured results match patients’ evaluations? Ann Surg Oncol 18(1):134–138

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Keshtgar M, Williams N, Corica T, Saunders C, Joseph D, Group TT (2011) Significantly better cosmetic outcome after intra-operative radiotherapy compared with external beam radiotherapy for early breast cancer: objective assesment of patients from a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg Oncol 18(2):S171

    Google Scholar 

  12. Rainsbury RM (2007) Surgery insight: oncoplastic breast-conserving reconstruction–indications, benefits, choices and outcomes. Nat Clin Pract Oncol 4(11):657–664

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rainsbury RM, MacNeill F (2009) Surgery for breast cancer. Oncoplastic surgery is promising. BMJ 338:b1743. doi:10.1136/bmj.b1743

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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(3):667–676

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Vrieling C, Collette L, Fourquet A, Hoogenraad WJ, Horiot JH, Jager JJ, Pierart M, Poortmans PM, Struikmans H, Maat B, Van Limbergen E, Bartelink H (2000) The influence of patient, tumor and treatment factors on the cosmetic results after breast-conserving therapy in the EORTC ‘boost vs. no boost’ trial. EORTC Radiotherapy and Breast Cancer Cooperative Groups. Radiother Oncol 55(3):219–232

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Fink A, Kosecoff J, Chassin M, Brook RH (1984) Consensus methods: characteristics and guidelines for use. Am J Public Health 74(9):979–983

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Cochrane RA, Valasiadou P, Wilson AR, Al-Ghazal SK, Macmillan RD (2003) Cosmesis and satisfaction after breast-conserving surgery correlates with the percentage of breast volume excised. Br J Surg 90(12):1505–1509

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. 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(3):575–578

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Triedman SA, Osteen R, Harris JR (1990) Factors influencing cosmetic outcome of conservative surgery and radiotherapy for breast cancer. Surg Clin N Am 70(4):901–916

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. 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(11):1395–1400

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. 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(6):566–570

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. 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(3):153–159

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Kurtz J (1995) Impact of radiotherapy on breast cosmesis. Breast 4:163–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Al-Ghazal SK, Blamey RW (1999) Cosmetic assessment of breast-conserving surgery for primary breast cancer. Breast 8(4):162–168

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Al-Ghazal SK, Fallowfield L, Blamey RW (1999) Patient evaluation of cosmetic outcome after conserving surgery for treatment of primary breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 25(4):344–346

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Clarke D, Martinez A, Cox RS (1983) Analysis of cosmetic results and complications in patients with stage I and II breast cancer treated by biopsy and irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 9(12):1807–1813

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Borger JH, Keijser AH (1987) Conservative breast cancer treatment: analysis of cosmetic results and the role of concomitant adjuvant chemotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 13(8):1173–1177

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Beadle GF, Come S, Henderson IC, Silver B, Hellman S, Harris JR (1984) The effect of adjuvant chemotherapy on the cosmetic results after primary radiation treatment for early stage breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 10(11):2131–2137

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. 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(2):257–261

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Kaija H, Rauni S, Jorma I, Matti H (1997) Consistency of patient- and doctor-assessed cosmetic outcome after conservative treatment of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 45(3):225–228

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Liljegren G, Holmberg L, Westman G (1993) The cosmetic outcome in early breast cancer treated with sector resection with or without radiotherapy. Uppsala-Orebro Breast Cancer Study Group. Eur J Cancer 29A(15):2083–2089

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Stanton AL, Krishnan L, Collins CA (2001) Form or function? Part 1. Subjective cosmetic and functional correlates of quality of life in women treated with breast-conserving surgical procedures and radiotherapy. Cancer 91(12):2273–2281

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Heil J, Czink E, Golatta M, Schott S, Hof H, Jenetzky E, Blumenstein M, Maleika A, Rauch G, Sohn C (2011) Change of aesthetic and functional outcome over time and their relationship to quality of life after breast conserving therapy. Eur J Surg Oncol 37(2):116–121

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Waljee JF, Hu ES, Ubel PA, Smith DM, Newman LA, Alderman AK (2008) Effect of esthetic outcome after breast-conserving surgery on psychosocial functioning and quality of life. J Clin Oncol 26(20):3331–3337

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Sacchini V, Luini A, Agresti R, Greco M, Manzari A, Mariani L, Zucali R, McCormick B (1995) The influence of radiotherapy on cosmetic outcome after breast conservative surgery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 33(1):59–64

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Abner AL, Recht A, Vicini FA, Silver B, Hayes D, Come S, Harris JR (1991) Cosmetic results after surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy for early breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 21(2):331–338

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Ash DV, Benson EA, Sainsbury JR, Round C, Head C (1995) Seven-year follow-up on 334 patients treated by breast conserving surgery and short course radical postoperative radiotherapy: a report of the Yorkshire Breast Cancer Group. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 7(2):93–96

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Gray JR, McCormick B, Cox L, Yahalom J (1991) Primary breast irradiation in large-breasted or heavy women: analysis of cosmetic outcome. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 21(2):347–354

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Lindsey I, Serpell JW, Johnson WR, Rodger A (1997) Cosmesis following complete local excision of breast cancer. Aust N Z J Surg 67(7):428–432

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Amichetti M, Busana L, Caffo O (1995) Long-term cosmetic outcome and toxicity in patients treated with quadrantectomy and radiation therapy for early-stage breast cancer. Oncology 52(3):177–181

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. D’Aniello C, Grimaldi L, Barbato A, Bosi B, Carli A (1999) Cosmetic results in 242 patients treated by conservative surgery for breast cancer. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 33(4):419–422

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Davidson NG, Khanna S, Windle R, Barrie WW, Agrawal RK, Mitchell S (1990) Cosmetic results of early breast carcinoma treated with wide local excision, external beam radiotherapy and iridium-192 boost. J R Coll Surg Edinb 35(3):175–177

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. de la Rochefordiere A, Abner AL, Silver B, Vicini F, Recht A, Harris JR (1992) Are cosmetic results following conservative surgery and radiation therapy for early breast cancer dependent on technique? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 23(5):925–931

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Sarin R, Dinshaw KA, Shrivastava SK, Sharma V, Deore SM (1993) Therapeutic factors influencing the cosmetic outcome and late complications in the conservative management of early breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 27(2):285–292

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Dewar JA, Benhamou S, Benhamou E, Arriagada R, Petit JY, Fontaine F, Sarrazin D (1988) Cosmetic results following lumpectomy, axillary dissection and radiotherapy for small breast cancers. Radiother Oncol 12(4):273–280

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Touboul E, Belkacemi Y, Lefranc JP, Uzan S, Ozsahin M, Korbas D, Buffat L, Balosso J, Pene F, Blondon J et al (1995) Early breast cancer: influence of type of boost (electrons vs iridium-192 implant) on local control and cosmesis after conservative surgery and radiation therapy. Radiother Oncol 34(2):105–113

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Danoff BF, Goodman RL, Glick JH, Haller DG, Pajak TF (1983) The effect of adjuvant chemotherapy on cosmesis and complications in patients with breast cancer treated by definitive irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 9(11):1625–1630

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Eadie C, Herd A, Stallard S (2000) An investigation into digital imaging in assessing cosmetic outcome after breast surgery. J Audiov Media Med 23(1):12–16

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Fagundes MA, Fagundes HM, Brito CS, Fagundes MH, Daudt A, Bruno LA, Azevedo SJ, Fagundes LA (1993) Breast-conserving surgery and definitive radiation: a comparison between quadrantectomy and local excision with special focus on local-regional control and cosmesis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 27(3):553–560

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Greco M, Sacchini V, Agresti A, Luini MdV, Farante G, Raselli R (1994) Quadrantectomy is not a disfiguring operation for small breast cancer. Breast 3(1):3–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Roelstraete A, Van Lancker M, De Schryver A, Storme G (1993) Adjuvant radiation after conservative surgery for early breast cancer. Local control and cosmetic outcome. Am J Clin Oncol 16(4):284–290

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Rose MA, Olivotto I, Cady B, Koufman C, Osteen R, Silver B, Recht A, Harris JR (1989) Conservative surgery and radiation therapy for early breast cancer. Long-term cosmetic results. Arch Surg 124(2):153–157

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Cetintas SK, Ozkan L, Kurt M, Saran A, Tasdelen I, Tolunay S, Topal U, Engin K (2002) Factors influencing cosmetic results after breast conserving management (Turkish experience). Breast 11(1):72–80. doi:10.1054/brst.2001.0372

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Van Dam FS, Aaranson NK, Engelsmen E (1998) Various aspects of ‘quality of life’ and the treatment of patients with breast cancer. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 132(29):1323–1326

    Google Scholar 

  57. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Wazer DE, DiPetrillo T, Schmidt-Ullrich R, Weld L, Smith TJ, Marchant DJ, Robert NJ (1992) Factors influencing cosmetic outcome and complication risk after conservative surgery and radiotherapy for early-stage breast carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 10(3):356–363

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Bajaj AK, Kon PS, Oberg KC, Miles DA (2004) Aesthetic outcomes in patients undergoing breast conservation therapy for the treatment of localized breast cancer. Plast Reconstr Surg 114(6):1442–1449

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. 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(3):185–190

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Noguchi M, Saito Y, Mizukami Y, Nonomura A, Ohta N, Koyasaki N, Taniya T, Miyazaki I (1991) Breast deformity, its correction, and assessment of breast conserving surgery. Breast Cancer Res Treat 18(2):111–118

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. 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(4):429–435

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Cardoso MJ, Cardoso J, Santos AC, Barros H, Cardoso de Oliveira M (2006) Interobserver agreement and consensus over the esthetic evaluation of conservative treatment for breast cancer. Breast 15(1):52–57

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Cardoso MJ, Cardoso JS, Wild T, Krois W, Fitzal F (2009) Comparing two objective methods for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment. Breast Cancer Res Treat 116(1):149–152

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Catanuto G, Spano A, Pennati A, Nava M (2009) Three-dimensional digital evaluation of breast symmetry after breast conservation therapy. J Am Coll Surg 208(1):166 author reply 166-167

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Losken A, Fishman I, Denson DD, Moyer HR, Carlson GW (2005) An objective evaluation of breast symmetry and shape differences using 3-dimensional images. Ann Plast Surg 55(6):571–575

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Moyer HR, Carlson GW, Styblo TM, Losken A (2008) Three-dimensional digital evaluation of breast symmetry after breast conservation therapy. J Am Coll Surg 207(2):227–232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Eder M, Waldenfels FV, Swobodnik A, Kloppel M, Pape AK, Schuster T, Raith S, Kitzler E, Papadopulos NA, Machens HG, Kovacs L (2011) Objective breast symmetry evaluation using 3-D surface imaging. Breast. doi:10.1016/j.breast.2011.07.016

  69. Losken A, Seify H, Denson DD, Paredes AA Jr, Carlson GW (2005) Validating three-dimensional imaging of the breast. Ann Plast Surg 54(5):471–476 discussion 477-478

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. EORTC BCCG (2004) Manual for clinical research and treatment in breast cancer, 5th edn. Greenwich Medical Media, London

    Google Scholar 

  71. Turesson I, Notter G (1984) The influence of fraction size in radiotherapy on the late normal tissue reaction–I: comparison of the effects of daily and once-a-week fractionation on human skin. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 10(5):593–598

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Turesson I, Notter G (1984) The influence of fraction size in radiotherapy on the late normal tissue reaction–II: comparison of the effects of daily and twice-a-week fractionation on human skin. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 10(5):599–606

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Barnett GC, Wilkinson JS, Moody AM, Wilson CB, Twyman N, Wishart GC, Burnet NG, Coles CE (2011) Randomized controlled trial of forward-planned intensity-modulated radiotherapy for early breast cancer: interim results at 2 years. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 82(2):715–723

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Al-Ghazal SK, Fallowfield L, Blamey RW (1999) Does cosmetic outcome from treatment of primary breast cancer influence psychosocial morbidity? Eur J Surg Oncol 25(6):571–573

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Christie D, Sharpley C, Curtis T (2005) Improving the accuracy of a photographic assessment system for breast cosmesis. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 17(1):27–31

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Galdino GM, Swier P, Manson PN, Vander Kolk CA (2000) Converting to digital photography: a model for a large group or academic practice. Plast Reconstr Surg 106(1):119–124

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Galdino GM, Vogel JE, Vander Kolk CA (2001) Standardizing digital photography: it’s not all in the eye of the beholder. Plast Reconstr Surg 108(5):1334–1344

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Catanuto G, Patete P, Spano A, Pennati A, Baroni G, Nava MB (2009) New technologies for the assessment of breast surgical outcomes. Aesthet Surg J 29(6):505–508

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Galdino GM, Nahabedian M, Chiaramonte M, Geng JZ, Klatsky S, Manson P (2002) Clinical applications of three-dimensional photography in breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 110(1):58–70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Kovacs L, Eder M, Papadopulos NA, Biemer E (2005) Validating 3-dimensional imaging of the breast. Ann Plast Surg 55(6):695–696

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Patete P, Riboldi M, Spadea MF, Catanuto G, Spano A, Nava M, Baroni G (2009) Motion compensation in hand-held laser scanning for surface modeling in plastic and reconstructive surgery. Ann Biomed Eng 37(9):1877–1885

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

Maria João Cardoso and Jaime Cardoso are the main developers of the BCCT core software (available free online). The author(s) declare there are no conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and publication of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Breast Unit, Champalimaud Cancer Centre, Lisbon, Portugal

    Maria João Cardoso

  2. INESC Porto Breast Research Group, Faculdade de Engenharia, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal

    Jaime Santos Cardoso

  3. Centre de Radio-oncologie des Eaux-Vives, Geneve, Switzerland

    Conny Vrieling

  4. Nottingham Breast Institute, Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham, UK

    Douglas Macmillan

  5. Winchester and Andover Breast Unit, Winchester, UK

    Dick Rainsbury

  6. Breast Unit, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

    Joerg Heil

  7. Cancer Care Centre, St. George Hospital, Kogarah, Sidney, NSW, Australia

    Eric Hau

  8. Royal Free Hospital and University College London (UCL), London, UK

    Mohammed Keshtgar

Authors
  1. Maria João Cardoso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jaime Santos Cardoso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Conny Vrieling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Douglas Macmillan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Dick Rainsbury
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Joerg Heil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Eric Hau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Mohammed Keshtgar
    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., Vrieling, C. et al. Recommendations for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment. Breast Cancer Res Treat 135, 629–637 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-012-1978-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-012-1978-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation