I G Papanikolaou1, C Dimitrakakis2, F Zagouri3, S Marinopoulos2, A Giannos2, E Zografos4, C G Zografos4, D Kritikou3, A Rodolakis2, G C Zografos4, D Loutradis2. 1. Breast Unit, 1st Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 11 Pyrgou street, 16675, Glyfada, Athens, Greece. papanikolaou85@gmail.com. 2. Breast Unit, 1st Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 11 Pyrgou street, 16675, Glyfada, Athens, Greece. 3. Department of Clinical Therapeutics, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece. 4. 1st Department of Propaedeutic Surgery, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The emphasis on aesthetic outcomes and quality of life after breast cancer surgery has motivated breast surgeons to develop oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (OPS). Training programs are still rare in most countries, and there is little standardization, which challenges the scientific evaluation of these techniques. This systematic review aims to assess oncological and cosmetic outcomes of OPS. METHODS: After a strict selection process with precise inclusion and exclusion criteria, oncologic and aesthetic outcomes of oncoplastic surgery were searched, using the MEDLINE database up to September 30th, 2017. Available published literature was classified in levels of evidence. After a thorough screening process, only studies with the best level of evidence were included on selection. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were not included for methodological reasons. RESULTS: Titles and abstracts of 2.854 citations were identified and after screening 15 prospective studies including 1.391 patients were reviewed and scored in detail. Local relapse was found in 2.8% of cases with a wide range of follow-up (from 6 to 74 months). Close margins were retrieved in 11% of cases and positive margins in 9.4% of cases. Mastectomy was implemented in 6.9% of breast cancer patients to whom OPS was performed. Good cosmetic outcomes were detected in 90.2% of patients undergoing OPS, leaving open issues for who should perform cosmetic evaluation and which method should be used. CONCLUSION: Tumor margins, mastectomy rates, and cosmetic outcomes of OPS have to be further improved by standardizing various aspects of OPS. Research efforts should focus on level I evidence assessing both oncological and aesthetic outcomes of OPS and survival rates.
BACKGROUND: The emphasis on aesthetic outcomes and quality of life after breast cancer surgery has motivated breast surgeons to develop oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (OPS). Training programs are still rare in most countries, and there is little standardization, which challenges the scientific evaluation of these techniques. This systematic review aims to assess oncological and cosmetic outcomes of OPS. METHODS: After a strict selection process with precise inclusion and exclusion criteria, oncologic and aesthetic outcomes of oncoplastic surgery were searched, using the MEDLINE database up to September 30th, 2017. Available published literature was classified in levels of evidence. After a thorough screening process, only studies with the best level of evidence were included on selection. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were not included for methodological reasons. RESULTS: Titles and abstracts of 2.854 citations were identified and after screening 15 prospective studies including 1.391 patients were reviewed and scored in detail. Local relapse was found in 2.8% of cases with a wide range of follow-up (from 6 to 74 months). Close margins were retrieved in 11% of cases and positive margins in 9.4% of cases. Mastectomy was implemented in 6.9% of breast cancerpatients to whom OPS was performed. Good cosmetic outcomes were detected in 90.2% of patients undergoing OPS, leaving open issues for who should perform cosmetic evaluation and which method should be used. CONCLUSION: Tumor margins, mastectomy rates, and cosmetic outcomes of OPS have to be further improved by standardizing various aspects of OPS. Research efforts should focus on level I evidence assessing both oncological and aesthetic outcomes of OPS and survival rates.
Entities:
Keywords:
Aesthetic outcomes; Breast cancer; Breast conservation; Cosmesis; Oncologic outcomes; Oncoplastic surgery
Authors: H Bartelink; J C Horiot; P Poortmans; H Struikmans; W Van den Bogaert; I Barillot; A Fourquet; J Borger; J Jager; W Hoogenraad; L Collette; M Pierart Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-11-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Harry Bartelink; Jean-Claude Horiot; Philip M Poortmans; Henk Struikmans; Walter Van den Bogaert; Alain Fourquet; Jos J Jager; Willem J Hoogenraad; S Bing Oei; Carla C Wárlám-Rodenhuis; Marianne Pierart; Laurence Collette Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-06-18 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Krishna B Clough; Jacqueline S Lewis; Benoit Couturaud; Alfred Fitoussi; Claude Nos; Marie-Christine Falcou Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Bernard Fisher; Stewart Anderson; John Bryant; Richard G Margolese; Melvin Deutsch; Edwin R Fisher; Jong-Hyeon Jeong; Norman Wolmark Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-10-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ahmad Kaviani; Nassim Sodagari; Sara Sheikhbahaei; Vahid Eslami; Nima Hafezi-Nejad; Amin Safavi; Maryam Noparast; Alfred Fitoussi Journal: ISRN Oncol Date: 2013-09-12
Authors: Alicja Forma; Robert Sitarz; Jacek Baj; Krzysztof Sołowiej; Sergiusz Łukasiewicz; Andrzej Stanisławek Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-02-03 Impact factor: 4.241