Oncoplastic Surgery and the Clinical Features of Breast Cancer—Relevant Factors Associated with Reoperation in Breast Oncoplastic Surgery
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Patients and Methods
3. Statistical Analysis
4. Results
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
ALND | axillary lymph node dissection |
BCT | breast-conserving therapy |
ERs | estrogen receptors |
OR | odds ratio |
PRs | progesterone receptors |
SNB | sentinel lymph node biopsy |
WHO | World Health Organization |
WLE | wide local excision |
Appendix A
The Assessed Characteristic | Number of Patients | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Shape | 3 | 8 | 42 | 25 |
Nipple position | 4 | 10 | 37 | 30 |
Volume | 8 | 10 | 43 | 20 |
Visible scars | 10 | 11 | 34 | 26 |
Symmetry | 9 | 23 | 29 | 20 |
General satisfaction | 7 | 17 | 38 | 19 |
Grading scale | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
The Assessed Characteristic | Number of Patients | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Shape | 6 | 11 | 36 | 19 |
Nipple position | 5 | 14 | 39 | 23 |
Volume | 9 | 12 | 41 | 19 |
Visible scars | 9 | 13 | 35 | 24 |
Symmetry | 12 | 27 | 26 | 16 |
General satisfaction | 9 | 20 | 34 | 18 |
Grading scale | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
The Assessed Characteristic | Number of Patients | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Shape | 4 | 11 | 45 | 21 |
Nipple position | 3 | 12 | 41 | 25 |
Volume | 10 | 16 | 33 | 22 |
Visible scars | 7 | 10 | 44 | 20 |
Symmetry | 14 | 22 | 26 | 19 |
Overall aesthetic outcome | 5 | 24 | 37 | 15 |
Grading scale | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
The Assessed Characteristic | Number of Patients | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Shape | 7 | 15 | 41 | 18 |
Nipple position | 3 | 17 | 39 | 22 |
Volume | 10 | 17 | 34 | 21 |
Visible scars | 4 | 12 | 44 | 21 |
Symmetry | 14 | 24 | 27 | 16 |
Overall aesthetic outcome | 9 | 21 | 38 | 13 |
Grading scale | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
The Assessed Characteristic | Number of Patients | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Shape | 93 | 154 | 246 | 105 |
Nipple position | 89 | 146 | 268 | 95 |
Volume | 100 | 179 | 289 | 30 |
Visible scars | 78 | 212 | 217 | 91 |
Symmetry | 68 | 197 | 208 | 125 |
Satisfaction | 61 | 167 | 231 | 139 |
Grading scale | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
The Assessed Characteristic | Number of Patients | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Shape | 119 | 215 | 185 | 79 |
Nipple position | 114 | 221 | 189 | 74 |
Volume | 132 | 156 | 277 | 33 |
Visible scars | 70 | 204 | 240 | 84 |
Symmetry | 103 | 248 | 160 | 87 |
Satisfaction | 89 | 210 | 198 | 101 |
Grading scale | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
The Assessed Characteristic | Number of Patients | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Shape | 100 | 171 | 253 | 74 |
Nipple position | 76 | 179 | 197 | 146 |
Volume | 112 | 193 | 214 | 79 |
Visible scars | 97 | 306 | 119 | 76 |
Symmetry | 98 | 179 | 245 | 76 |
Overall aesthetic outcome | 79 | 193 | 228 | 98 |
Grading scale | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
The Assessed Characteristic | Number of Patients | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Shape | 124 | 204 | 222 | 48 |
Nipple position | 114 | 205 | 243 | 36 |
Volume | 103 | 198 | 227 | 70 |
Visible scars | 79 | 243 | 207 | 69 |
Symmetry | 114 | 207 | 219 | 58 |
Overall aesthetic outcome | 96 | 235 | 186 | 81 |
Grading scale | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
References
- Sun, Y.-S.; Zhao, Z.; Yang, Z.-N.; Xu, F.; Lu, H.-J.; Zhu, Z.-Y.; Shi, W.; Jiang, J.; Yao, P.-P.; Zhu, H.-P. Risk Factors and Preventions of Breast Cancer. Int. J. Biol. Sci. 2017, 13, 1387–1397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Azamjah, N.; Soltan-Zadeh, Y.; Zayeri, F. Global Trend of Breast Cancer Mortality Rate: A 25-Year Study. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2019, 20, 2015–2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hoda, S.A.; Rosen, P.P. Rosens Breast Pathology; Wolters Kluwer Health: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Weigelt, B.; Geyer, F.C.; Reis-Filho, J.S. Histological types of breast cancer: How special are they? Mol. Oncol. 2010, 4, 192–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Al-Thoubaity, F.K. Molecular classification of breast cancer: A retrospective cohort study. Ann. Med. Surg. 2020, 49, 44–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Moo, T.-A.; Sanford, R.; Dang, C.; Morrow, M. Overview of Breast Cancer Therapy. PET Clin. 2018, 13, 339–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaufman, C.S. Increasing Role of Oncoplastic Surgery for Breast Cancer. Curr. Oncol. Rep. 2019, 21, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rose, M.; Svensson, H.; Handler, J.; Hoyer, U.; Ringberg, A.; Manjer, J. Patient-reported outcome after oncoplastic breast surgery compared with conventional breast-conserving surgery in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2020, 180, 247–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sinn, H.P.; Kreipe, H. A Brief Overview of the WHO Classification of Breast Tumors, 4th Edition, Focusing on Issues and Updates from the 3rd Edition. Breast Care 2013, 8, 149–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Adamson, K.; Chavez-MacGregor, M.; Caudle, A.; Smith, B.; Baumann, D.; Liu, J.; Schaverien, M. Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy does not Increase Complications in Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2019, 26, 2730–2737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biasio, F.; Bertozzi, S.; Londero, A.P.; Almesberger, D.; Zanin, C.; Marchesi, A.; Cedolini, C.; Risaliti, A.; Parodi, P.C. Surgical and oncological outcomes of free dermal fat graft for breast reconstruction after breast-conserving surgery. Adv. Clin. Exp. Med. 2018, 27, 773–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Losken, A.; Dugal, C.S.; Styblo, T.M.; Carlson, G.W. A meta-analysis comparing breast conservation therapy alone to the oncoplastic technique. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2014, 72, 145–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Chakravorty, A.; Shrestha, A.K.; Sanmugalingam, N.; Rapisarda, F.; Roche, N.; Querci Della Rovere, G.; Macneill, F.A. How safe is oncoplastic breast conservation? Comparative analysis with standard breast conserving surgery. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2012, 38, 395–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lim, G.; Pineda, L.A. Applicability of Oncoplastic Breast Conserving Surgery in Asian Breast Cancer Patients. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2016, 17, 3325–3328. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Behluli, I.; Le Renard, P.E.; Rozwag, K.; Oppelt, P.; Kaufmann, A.; Schneider, A. Oncoplastic breast surgery versus conventional breast-conserving surgery: A comparative retrospective study. ANZ J. Surg. 2019, 89, 1236–1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clough, K.B.; Lewis, J.L.; Couturaud, B.; Fitoussi, A.; Nos, C.; Falcou, M.C. Oncoplastic techniques allow extensive resections for breast-conserving therapy of breast carcinomas. Ann. Surg. 2003, 237, 26–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCulley, S.J.; Macmillan, R.D. Therapeutic mammaplasty e analysis of 50 consecutive cases. Br. J. Plast. Surg. 2005, 58, 902–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papanikolaou, I.G.; Dimitrakakis, C.; Zagouri, F.; Marinopoulos, S.; Giannos, A.; Zografos, E.; Zografos, C.G.; Kritikou, D.; Rodolakis, A.; Zografos, G.C.; et al. Paving the way for changing perceptions in breast surgery: A systematic literature review focused on oncological and aesthetic outcomes of oncoplastic surgery for breast cancer. Breast Cancer 2019, 26, 416–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Noguchi, M.; Yokoi-Noguchi, M.; Ohno, Y.; Morioka, E.; Nakano, Y.; Kosaka, T.; Kurita, T. Oncoplastic breast conserving surgery: Volume replacement vs. volume displacement. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016, 42, 926–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palsdottir, E.P.; Lund, S.H.L.; Asgeirsson, K.S.A. Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery in Iceland: A Population-Based Study. Scand. J. Surg. 2018, 107, 224–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Carter, S.A.; Lyons, G.R.; Kuerer, H.M.; Bassett, R.L., Jr.; Oates, S.; Thompson, A.; Caudle, A.S.; Mittendorf, E.A.; Bedrosian, I.; Lucci, A.; et al. Operative and Oncologic Outcomes in 9861 Patients with Operable Breast Cancer: Single-Institution Analysis of Breast Conservation with Oncoplastic Reconstruction. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2016, 23, 3190–3198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berry, M.G.; Fitoussi, A.D.; Curnier, A.; Couturaud, B.; Salmon, R.J. Oncoplastic breast surgery: A review and systematic approach. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 2010, 63, 1233–1243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Clough, K.B.; Kaufman, G.J.; Nos, C.; Buccimazza, I.; Sarfati, I.M. Improving breast cancer surgery: A classification and quadrant per quadrant atlas for oncoplastic surgery. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2010, 17, 1375–1391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rietjens, M.; Urban, C.A.; Rey, P.C.; Mazzarol, G.; Maisonneuve, P.; Garusi, C.; Intra, M.; Yamaguchi, S.; Kaur, N.; de Lorenzi, F. Long-term oncological results of breast conservative treatment with oncoplastic surgery. Breast 2007, 16, 387–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meretolja, T.J.; Svarvar, C.; Jahkola, T.A. Outcome of oncoplastic breast surgery in 90 prospective patients. Am. J. Surg. 2010, 200, 224–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Roughton, M.C.; Shenaq, D.; Jaskowiak, N.; Park, J.E.; Song, D.H. Optimizing delivery of breast conservation therapy: A multidisciplinary approach to oncoplastic surgery. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2012, 69, 250–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ojala, K.; Meretoja, T.J.; Leidenius, M.H. Aesthetic and functional outcome after breast conserving surgery—Comparison between conventional and oncoplastic resection. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2017, 43, 658–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Broecker, J.S.; Hart, A.M.; Styblo, T.M.; Losken, A. Neoadjuvant Therapy Combined with Oncoplastic Reduction for High-Stage Breast Cancer Patients. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2017, 78 (Suppl. S5), S258–S262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kosasih, S.; Tayeh, S.; Mokbel, K.; Kasem, A. Is oncoplastic breast conserving surgery oncologically safe? A meta-analysis of 18,103 patients. Am. J. Surg. 2020, 220, 385–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Characteristics | Study Group (81 Patients) | Control Group (598 Patients) | |
---|---|---|---|
Type of surgical procedure | BCT (WLE + ALND) | 20 (24.69%) | 145 (24.25%) |
WLE + SNB | 61 (75.31%) | 453 (75.75%) | |
Surgical margins | 1 to 5 mm | 20 (25%) | 153 (25.93%) |
2–5 mm and >5 mm | 60 (75%) | 437 (74.07%) | |
Type of breast carcinoma | Carcinoma in situ | 2 (2.47%) | 29 (4.85%) |
Carcinoma ductale infiltrativum | 63 (77.78%) | 465 (77.76%) | |
Carcinoma lobulare infiltrativum | 5 (6.17%) | 29 (4.85%) | |
Other * | 11 (13.58%) | 74 (12.37%) | |
Metastasis to the axillary lymph nodes | None | 52 (71.23%) | 423 (72.68%) |
1 metastatic lymph node | 17 (23.29%) | 86 (14.78%) | |
2–3 metastatic lymph nodes | 1 (1.37%) | 39 (6.7%) | |
4 and more metastatic lymph nodes | 3 (4.11%) | 34 (5.84%) | |
TNM classification | In situ | 0 (0%) | 8 (1.34%) |
T1 | 49 (60.50%) | 384 (64.21%) | |
T2 | 28 (34.57%) | 153 (25.59%) | |
T3 | 3 (3.70%) | 47 (7.86%) | |
T4 | 1 (1.23%) | 6 (1.00%) | |
Surgical intervention in the lymph system | SNB | 13 (16.05%) | 152 (25.42%) |
ALND | 68 (83.95%) | 446 (74.58%) | |
Expression of ERs and/or PRs ** | Positive | 57 (73.08%) | 475 (84.37%) |
Negative | 21 (26.92%) | 88 (15.63%) | |
Expression of HER2 receptor | Positive | 8 (10.96%) | 73 (13.42%) |
Negative | 65 (89.04%) | 471 (86.58%) | |
Bloom–Richardson classification | Bloom 1 | 16 (20.25%) | 105 (18.72%) |
Bloom 2 | 29 (10.32%) | 252 (89.68%) | |
Bloom 3 | 34 (43.04%) | 204 (36.36%) |
Study Group n = 81 | Control Group n = 598 | p-Value | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | % | n | % | |||
Histological type of breast cancer | Carcinoma ductale infiltrativum | 38 | 46.91 | 490 | 81.94 | 0.00000 |
Other | 43 | 53.09 | 108 | 18.06 | ||
Histological type of breast cancer | Carcinoma lobulare infiltrativum | 2 | 2.47 | 32 | 5.35 | 0.26437 |
Other | 79 | 97.53 | 566 | 94.65 | ||
Histological type of breast cancer | Other invasive than carcinoma ductale/ lobulare infiltrativum * | 36 | 44.44 | 50 | 8.36 | 0.0000 |
Other | 45 | 55.56 | 548 | 91.64 | ||
Removal of 1 lymph node | Positive metastasis | 22 | 28.57 | 158 | 27.34 | 0.81950 |
Negative metastasis | 55 | 71.43 | 420 | 72.66 | ||
Removal of 2 ≥ positive metastatic lymph nodes | ALN (1–2 and more metastatic lymph nodes) | 10 | 12.99 | 67 | 11.59 | 0.72101 |
Other (1≤) | 67 | 87.01 | 511 | 88.41 | ||
Removal of 4 ≥ positive metastatic lymph nodes | ALN (3 ≤ metastatic lymph nodes) | 76 | 98.7 | 542 | 93.77 | 0.07838 |
ALN (4 ≥ metastatic lymph nodes) | 1 | 1.3 | 36 | 6.23 | ||
TNM classification | Tis | 2 | 2.86 | 6 | 1.07 | 0.20928 |
Other | 68 | 97.14 | 553 | 98.93 | ||
TNM classification | T1 | 49 | 70 | 384 | 68.69 | 0.82401 |
Other | 21 | 30 | 175 | 31.31 | ||
TNM classification | T1 + T2 | 68 | 97.14 | 546 | 97.67 | 0.78348 |
Other | 2 | 2.86 | 13 | 2.33 | ||
Expression of ERs and PRs | Positive ** | 57 | 73.08 | 475 | 84.37 | 0.01285 |
Negative *** | 21 | 26.92 | 88 | 15.63 | ||
Expression of HER2 receptor | Positive | 8 | 10.96 | 73 | 13.42 | 0.55891 |
Negative | 65 | 89.04 | 471 | 86.58 | ||
Bloom–Richardson classification | Bloom = 1 | 16 | 20.25 | 105 | 18.72 | 0.74400 |
Other | 63 | 79.75 | 456 | 81.28 | ||
Bloom–Richardson classification | Bloom = 1 + 2 | 45 | 56.96 | 357 | 63.64 | 0.25048 |
Bloom = 3 | 34 | 43.04 | 204 | 36.36 | ||
Reoperation—ALND | Performed | 14 | 17.28 | 62 | 10.44 | 0.06746 |
None | 67 | 82.72 | 532 | 89.56 | ||
Reoperation—extension of the boundaries | Performed | 4 | 4.94 | 39 | 6.57 | 0.57372 |
None | 77 | 95.06 | 555 | 93.43 | ||
Reoperation—mastectomy | Performed | 5 | 6.17 | 52 | 8.75 | 0.43316 |
None | 76 | 93.83 | 542 | 91.25 |
Reoperation | Study Group (81 Patients) | Control Group (598 Patients) |
---|---|---|
ALND | 14 (17.28%) | 62 (10.37%) |
Extension of the borders | 4 (4.94%) | 39 (6.52%) |
Mastectomy | 5 (6.17%) | 52 (8.70%) |
None | 58 (71.61%) | 445 (74.41%) |
p-Value | OR | No. Patients Who Underwent Oncoplastic Surgery | −95% CL | +95% CL | 1/OR | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
T: T1, T2 vs. T3, T4 | 0.358 | 0.36 | 68 (11.1%) vs. 2 (13.3%) | 0.04 | 3.17 | 2.76 |
Expression of ERs and PRs: positive vs. negative | 0.185 | 0.60 | 57 (10.7%) vs. 21 (19.3%) | 0.28 | 1.28 | 1.67 |
Expression of HER2: positive vs. negative | 0.312 | 0.61 | 8 (9.9%) vs. 65 (12.1%) | 0.23 | 1.59 | 1.64 |
ALN: positive vs. negative | 0.696 | 0.87 | 22 (12.2%) vs. 55 (11.6%) | 0.42 | 1.77 | 1.15 |
Histopathology: carcinoma ductale infiltrativum vs. other | 0.005 | 0.13 | 38 (7.2%) vs. 43 (28.5%) | 0.03 | 0.54 | 7.74 |
Histopathology: carcinoma lobulare infiltrativum vs. other | 0.097 | 0.18 | 2 (5.29%) vs. 79 (12.25%) | 0.02 | 1.37 | 5.66 |
Histopathology: invasive carcinoma other than carcinoma ductale infiltrativum and carcinoma lobulare infiltrativum vs. other | 0.456 | 1.73 | 36 (41.9%) vs. 45 (7.6%) | 0.41 | 7.34 | 0.58 |
Bloom: 3 vs. 1.2 | 0.920 | 1.03 | 34 (14.4%) vs. 45 (11.2%) | 0.55 | 1.94 | 0.97 |
p-Value | OR | No. Patients Who Underwent Oncoplastic Surgery | −95% CL | +95% CL | 1/OR | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ALND: performed vs. not performed | 0.069 | 0.56 | 13 (7.9%) vs. 68 (13.2%) | 0.30 | 1.05 | 1.78 |
p-Value | OR | No. Patients Who Underwent Oncoplastic Surgery | −95% CL | +95% CL | 1/OR | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ALND: performed vs. not performed | 0.045 | 1.94 | 14 (18.4%) vs. 67 (11.2%) | 1.01 | 3.72 | 0.51 |
Extension of the borders: performed vs. not performed | 0.562 | 0.73 | 4 (9.3%) vs. 77 (12.2%) | 0.25 | 2.11 | 1.37 |
Mastectomy: performed vs. not performed | 0.252 | 0.57 | 5 (8.8%) vs. 76 (12.3%) | 0.21 | 1.50 | 1.77 |
p-Value | OR | No. Patients Who Underwent Oncoplastic Surgery | −95% CL | +95% CL | 1/OR | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ALN: positive vs. negative | 0.979 | 1.01 | 22 (12.2%) vs. 55 (11.6%) | 0.60 | 1.68 | 0.99 |
Removal: 2 or more | 0.083 | 2.20 | 10 (12.9%) vs. 67 (11.6%) | 0.90 | 5.38 | 0.45 |
Removal: 4 or more | 0.030 | 0.10 | 1 (2.7%) vs. 76 (12.3%) | 0.01 | 0.80 | 10.45 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Forma, A.; Sitarz, R.; Baj, J.; Sołowiej, K.; Łukasiewicz, S.; Stanisławek, A. Oncoplastic Surgery and the Clinical Features of Breast Cancer—Relevant Factors Associated with Reoperation in Breast Oncoplastic Surgery. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 817. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11030817
Forma A, Sitarz R, Baj J, Sołowiej K, Łukasiewicz S, Stanisławek A. Oncoplastic Surgery and the Clinical Features of Breast Cancer—Relevant Factors Associated with Reoperation in Breast Oncoplastic Surgery. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2022; 11(3):817. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11030817
Chicago/Turabian StyleForma, Alicja, Robert Sitarz, Jacek Baj, Krzysztof Sołowiej, Sergiusz Łukasiewicz, and Andrzej Stanisławek. 2022. "Oncoplastic Surgery and the Clinical Features of Breast Cancer—Relevant Factors Associated with Reoperation in Breast Oncoplastic Surgery" Journal of Clinical Medicine 11, no. 3: 817. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11030817
APA StyleForma, A., Sitarz, R., Baj, J., Sołowiej, K., Łukasiewicz, S., & Stanisławek, A. (2022). Oncoplastic Surgery and the Clinical Features of Breast Cancer—Relevant Factors Associated with Reoperation in Breast Oncoplastic Surgery. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 11(3), 817. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11030817