Aesthetic outcome following breast‐conserving surgery assessed by three evaluation modalities in relation to health‐related quality of life. BJS 2019; 106: 90-99.
Published: 30th August 2018
Authors: C. Dahlbäck, A. Ringberg, J. Manjer
The aim of this study was to compare the agreement between three different methods for evaluation of aesthetic outcome following breast‐conserving surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy: a patient questionnaire, panel evaluation of photographs and the software BCCT.core. A further aim was to examine how these modalities predict health‐related quality of life as measured by the validated Breast‐Q™ questionnaire.
At 1‐year follow‐up after breast‐conserving surgery, patients completed a study‐specific questionnaire. Postoperative photographs were evaluated using the software BCCT.core. A panel of three healthcare professionals assessed preoperative and postoperative photographs. Agreement between methods was assessed using Spearman's correlation coefficients (r
A total of 532 patients undergoing breast‐conserving surgery were examined before surgery. At 1‐year follow‐up, 334 patients completed the study‐specific questionnaire. Postoperative photographs from 310 patients were evaluated using BCCT.core. The panel of healthcare professionals assessed photographs from 215 patients. Agreement between the different evaluation modalities was poor. The strongest agreement was noted between the panel evaluation for symmetry and BCCT.core results (r
There is currently no ideal method for evaluating aesthetic outcome after breast‐conserving surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy. These results emphasize the use of patient‐related outcome measures.Full text
You may also be interested in
Prognostic impact of repeat sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence. BJS 2019; 106: 574-585.
Authors: I. G. M. Poodt, G. Vugts, R. J. Schipper, R. M. H. Roumen, H. J. T. Rutten, A. J. G. Maaskant‐Braat et al.
Notes: No impact
Effect of preoperative injection of superparamagnetic iron oxide particles on rates of sentinel lymph node dissection in women undergoing surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ (SentiNot study). BJS 2019; 106: 720-728.
Authors: A. Karakatsanis, A.‐F. Hersi, L. Pistiolis, R. Olofsson Bagge, P. M. Lykoudis, S. Eriksson et al.
Short‐term cost‐effectiveness of one‐stage implant‐based breast reconstruction with an acellular dermal matrix versus two‐stage expander‐implant reconstruction from a multicentre randomized clinical trial. BJS 2019; 106: 586-595.
Authors: V. L. Negenborn, J. M. Smit, R. E. G. Dikmans, H. A. H. Winters, J. W. R. Twisk, P. Q. Ruhé et al.
Autologous fat transplantation alters gene expression patterns related to inflammation and hypoxia in the irradiated human breast. BJS 2019; 106: 563-573.
Authors: A. Lindegren, I. Schultz, I. Sinha, L. Cheung, A. A. Khan, M. Tekle et al.
Notes: Effects on fibrosis after radiotherapy
Authors: F. Magnoni, G. Massari, G. Santomauro, V. Bagnardi, E. Pagan, G. Peruzzotti et al.
Authors: Y. Grant, R. Al‐Khudairi, E. St John, M. Barschkett, D. Cunningham, R. Al‐Mufti et al.
Notes: Reoperations expensive
Meta‐analysis of sentinel lymph node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with initial biopsy‐proven node‐positive breast cancer. BJS 2018; 105: 1541-1552.
Authors: S. R. Tee, L. A. Devane, D. Evoy, J. Rothwell, J. Geraghty, R. S. Prichard et al.
Notes: In selected patients using dual tracer
Feasibility study of combined dynamic imaging and lymphaticovenous anastomosis surgery for breast cancer‐related lymphoedema. BJS 2019; 106: 100-110.
Authors: A. A. Khan, I. Hernan, J. A. Adamthwaite, K. W. D. Ramsey
Notes: Effective in selected patients
Randomized clinical trial
INTEND II randomized clinical trial of intraoperative duct endoscopy in pathological nipple discharge. BJS 2018; 105: 1583-1590.
Authors: G. Gui, A. Agusti, D. Twelves, S. Tang, M. Kabir, C. Montgomery et al.
Notes: Identifies causative lesion
Current practice and short‐term outcomes of therapeutic mammaplasty in the international TeaM multicentre prospective cohort study. BJS 2018; 105: 1778-1792.
Authors: R. L. O'Connell, E. Baker, A. Trickey, T. Rattay, L. Whisker, R. D. Macmillan et al.
Notes: Reduces mastectomy rates
Nationwide population‐based study of trends and regional variation in breast‐conserving treatment for breast cancer. BJS 2018; 105: 1768-1777.
Authors: M. C. van Maaren, L. J. A. Strobbe, L. B. Koppert, P. M. P. Poortmans, S. Siesling
Notes: Regional differences remain
Survival and risk of breast cancer recurrence after breast reconstruction with deep inferior epigastric perforator flap. BJS 2018; 105: 1446-1453.
Authors: A. Svee, M. Mani, K. Sandquist, T. Audolfsson, Y. Folkvaljon, A. E. Isern et al.