Literature DB >> 10869738

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.

C Vrieling1, L Collette, A Fourquet, W J Hoogenraad, J H Horiot, J J Jager, M Pierart, P M Poortmans, H Struikmans, B Maat, E Van Limbergen, H Bartelink.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To analyze the influence of different patient, tumor, and treatment parameters on the cosmetic outcome after breast-conserving therapy at 3-year follow-up. A subjective and an objective cosmetic scoring method was used and the results of both methods were compared. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In EORTC trial 22881/10882, 5569 early-stage breast cancer patients were treated with tumorectomy and axillary dissection, followed by tangential fields irradiation of the breast to a dose of 50 Gy in 5 weeks, at 2 Gy per fraction. A total of 5318 patients, having a microscopically complete tumorectomy, were randomized between no further treatment and a boost of 16 Gy to the primary tumor bed. The cosmetic result at 3-year follow-up was assessed by a panel for 731 patients, and by digitizer measurements, measuring the displacement of the nipple, for 1141 patients. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to evaluate the correlation between various patient, tumor, and treatment factors and cosmesis.
RESULTS: The factors associated with a worsened cosmesis according to the panel evaluation were: an inferior tumor location, a large excision volume, the presence of postoperative breast complications, and the radiotherapy boost. According to the digitizer measurements, a central/superior tumor location, a large excision volume, an increased pathological tumor size, an increased radiation dose inhomogeneity, and an increased bra cup size resulted in an increased asymmetry in nipple position. It appeared that the evaluation of the nipple position (whether by panel or by digitizer) is only moderately representative of the overall cosmetic outcome.
CONCLUSION: To achieve a good cosmesis, it is necessary to excise the tumor with a limited margin, to avoid postoperative complications, to assess the need for a boost in the individual patient, and to give the radiation dose as homogeneously as possible. As far as the method of evaluation is concerned, the panel evaluation is the most appropriate method for giving an overall impression of the cosmetic result after breast-conserving therapy (BCT). The use of the digitizer is recommended for comparing the cosmetic outcome of two different approaches to BCT or for analyzing cosmetic changes over time.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10869738     DOI: 10.1016/s0167-8140(00)00210-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiother Oncol        ISSN: 0167-8140            Impact factor:   6.280


  57 in total

1.  Contrast-enhanced MRI in breast cancer patients eligible for breast-conserving therapy: complementary value for subgroups of patients.

Authors:  Eline E Deurloo; William F A Klein Zeggelink; H Jelle Teertstra; Johannes L Peterse; Emiel J Th Rutgers; Sara H Muller; Harry Bartelink; Kenneth G A Gilhuijs
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-11-19       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 2.  Recent developments in breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer patients.

Authors:  F Fitzal; O Riedl; R Jakesz
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2008-09-10       Impact factor: 3.445

3.  Immediate breast volume replacement using a free dermal fat graft after breast cancer surgery: multi-institutional joint research of short-term outcomes in 262 Japanese patients.

Authors:  Yuko Kijima; Chihaya Koriyama; Teruhiko Fujii; Kouichi Hirokaga; Kiyoshi Ishigure; Tomoyo Kaneko; Shuji Kayano; Sachio Miyamoto; Yasuaki Sagara; Takashi Sakurai; Teruhisa Sakurai; Keiichi Sotome; Hiroaki Ueo; Kazuyuki Wakita; Masahiro Watatani
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2015-04

4.  Precision biopsy of breast microcalcifications: An improvement in surgical excision.

Authors:  You Peng; Zhong-Yao Luo; Jie Ni; Hai-Dong Cui; Bei Lu; Ai-Zhai Xiang; Jun Zhou; Jin-Wang Ding; Wen-Hui Chen; Jing Zhao; Jian-Hua Fang; Pan Zhao
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2018-05-22       Impact factor: 2.967

5.  Is the simultaneously integrated boost (SIB) technique for early breast cancer ready to be adopted for routine adjuvant radiotherapy? Statement of the German and the Austrian Societies of Radiooncology (DEGRO/ÖGRO).

Authors:  F Sedlmayer; M L Sautter-Bihl; W Budach; J Dunst; P Feyer; R Fietkau; W Haase; W Harms; C Rödel; R Souchon; F Wenz; R Sauer
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 3.621

6.  Oncoplastic breast surgery: Initial experience in an Oncology Center.

Authors:  Mala Mathur Sharma; Ashutosh Chauhan
Journal:  Med J Armed Forces India       Date:  2014-03-12

7.  [Cosmetic results after adjuvant radiotherapy in breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer. Randomized comparison of simple IMRT and 2D radiotherapy].

Authors:  M-L Sautter-Bihl; F Sedlmayer
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 3.621

Review 8.  Clinical and technological transition in breast cancer.

Authors:  Philip Poortmans; Hugo Marsiglia; Manuel De Las Heras; Manuel Algara
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2013-09-09

9.  Comparison of brachytherapy and external beam radiotherapy boost in breast-conserving therapy: Patient-reported outcome measures and aesthetic outcome.

Authors:  I Kindts; A Laenen; M Christiaens; H Janssen; E Van Limbergen; C Weltens
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2018-08-23       Impact factor: 3.621

10.  Radiotherapy of early breast cancer in scleroderma patients: our experience with four cases and a short review of the literature.

Authors:  George Kyrgias; Kiki Theodorou; Anna Zygogianni; Konstantinos Tsanadis; Stefanos Zervoudis; John Tzitzikas; Michael Koukourakis
Journal:  Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press)       Date:  2012-01-24
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.