Luca Tagliaferri1, Valentina Lancellotta2, Tiziano Zinicola3, Stefano Gentileschi4, Pietro Sollena5, Giorgia Garganese6, José L Guinot7, Agata Rembielak8, Tamer Soror9, Rosa Autorino1, Silvia Cammelli10, Maria A Gambacorta11, Cynthia Aristei2, Vincenzo Valentini11, György Kovacs12. 1. Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, UOC Radioterapia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Roma, Italia. 2. Department of Surgery and Biomedical Sciences, Radiation Oncology Section, University of Perugia and Perugia General Hospital, Perugia, Italia. 3. Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Istituto di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Roma, Italia. Electronic address: tiziano.z@hotmail.it. 4. Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Dipartimento di Chirurgia Plastica e Ricostruttiva, Centro di Trattamento Chirurgico del Linfedema, Roma, Italia. 5. Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, UOC di Dermatologia, Roma, Italia. 6. Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino, Roma, Italia. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, Foundation Instituto Valenciano de Oncologia (I.V.O.), València, Spain. 8. Department of Clinical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester and Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom. 9. Department of Clinical Radiation Oncology, Ernst von Bergmann Medical Center, Academic Teaching Hospital of Humboldt University Berlin (Charité), Berlin, Germany; National Cancer Institute (NCI), Radiation Oncology Department, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt. 10. Radiation Oncology Unit, Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine - DIMES, University of Bologna, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italia. 11. Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, UOC Radioterapia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Roma, Italia; Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Istituto di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Roma, Italia. 12. Interdisciplinary Brachytherapy Unit, UKSH CL, Lübeck, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This review was to focus on breast brachytherapy cosmetic assessment methods state of the art and to define the advantages and disadvantages related to. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We conducted a literature review of the major experience on breast brachytherapy cosmetic assessment methods in several databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases). To identify the relevant works, a task force screened citations at title and abstract level to identify potentially relevant paper. An expert board reviewed and approved the text. The assessment systems were classified into three main groups: (1) the Oncological Toxicity Scales, (2) the Independent Patients Perspective Measures, (3) the Patient-Related Outcome Measures. Each cosmetic assessment method was evaluated following six parameters: (1) anatomical site, (2) advantages, (3) disadvantages, (4) subjective/objective, (5) quantitative/qualitative, (6) computers or pictures needs. RESULTS: Eleven assessment methods were selected. Three methods were classified as Oncological Toxicity Scale, six in the Independent Patients Perspective Measures classification, and two as Patient-Related Outcome Measures. Six methods are subjective, while eight are objective. Four systems are classified as quantitative, four as qualitative while three both. Five systems need informatics support. Moreover, each method was discussed individually reporting the main characteristics and peculiarities. CONCLUSIONS: Cosmesis is one major end point for the patient who has a malignancy of low lethal potential. In modern personalized medicine, there is a need for standardized cosmetic outcome assessments to analyze and compare the results of treatments. No gold standard methods currently exist. The result of this review is to summarize the various cosmesis methods, defining the strengths and weaknesses of each one and giving a line in research and clinical practice.
PURPOSE: This review was to focus on breast brachytherapy cosmetic assessment methods state of the art and to define the advantages and disadvantages related to. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We conducted a literature review of the major experience on breast brachytherapy cosmetic assessment methods in several databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases). To identify the relevant works, a task force screened citations at title and abstract level to identify potentially relevant paper. An expert board reviewed and approved the text. The assessment systems were classified into three main groups: (1) the Oncological Toxicity Scales, (2) the Independent Patients Perspective Measures, (3) the Patient-Related Outcome Measures. Each cosmetic assessment method was evaluated following six parameters: (1) anatomical site, (2) advantages, (3) disadvantages, (4) subjective/objective, (5) quantitative/qualitative, (6) computers or pictures needs. RESULTS: Eleven assessment methods were selected. Three methods were classified as Oncological Toxicity Scale, six in the Independent Patients Perspective Measures classification, and two as Patient-Related Outcome Measures. Six methods are subjective, while eight are objective. Four systems are classified as quantitative, four as qualitative while three both. Five systems need informatics support. Moreover, each method was discussed individually reporting the main characteristics and peculiarities. CONCLUSIONS: Cosmesis is one major end point for the patient who has a malignancy of low lethal potential. In modern personalized medicine, there is a need for standardized cosmetic outcome assessments to analyze and compare the results of treatments. No gold standard methods currently exist. The result of this review is to summarize the various cosmesis methods, defining the strengths and weaknesses of each one and giving a line in research and clinical practice.
Authors: Cheryl Duzenli; Elisa K Chan; Theodora Koulis; Sheri Grahame; Joel Singer; David Morris; Josslynn Spence; Terry Lee; Levi Burns; Robert A Olson Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2022-07-07 Impact factor: 3.109