[Oncoplastic versus conventional breast conserving surgery. A comparison of clinicopathological findings, cosmetic results and quality of life in 60 cases].Magy Onkol 2014; 58(2):116-27MO
Oncoplastic surgical techniques seem to be suitable for realizing the goal of retaining cosmesis following radical removal of breast tumors. The purpose of the present study is to provide a clinical and pathological comparison of conventional (BCS) and oncoplastic (OPS) breast-conserving surgeries, supplemented by a subjective assessment of cosmesis and quality of life of patients, the first time on a Hungarian sample. The authors performed a retrospective assessment of clinicopathological data of 60 advanced oncoplastic and 60 conventional breast-conserving surgery cases, and following adjuvant radiotherapy, the authors also surveyed patients for cosmetic results and quality of life (EORTC BR23). Comparison of the results was performed by statistical methods. The two groups did not differ substantially in age, tumor location, breast size, type of axillary surgery (sentinel node biopsy vs. axillary lymphadenectomy), tumor grade and receptor status. Tumor size was significantly greater (p=0.0009), the rate of quadranectomies was higher (p=0.0032), metastases in the regional lymph nodes (p=0.0043) and the administration of adjuvant chemotherapy (p=0.0122) were more frequent in the OPS group. The duration of surgeries was longer (p<0.001), the weight of the specimens was greater (p=0.0308), the rate of completion surgeries due to microscopically positive surgical margins was significantly smaller (p=0.0306) in the OPS than in the BCS group. There was no difference between the two groups in the rate of complications and the time elapsed to the start of adjuvant treatment. The cosmetic outcome was clearly superior in the OPS group (p<0.001), and OPS patients had fewer arm, shoulder (p=0.0399), and chest pain (of the affected side) (p=0.0304), upper limb movements of the operated side were also better (p=0.006). The short follow-up period of the OPS group (mean 32.2 vs. 8.7 months in BCS and OPS, respectively) did not allow a meaningful assessment of oncologic endpoints. When compared to conventional breast conserving surgery, oncoplastic surgery is suitable for microscopically radical tumor removal even in case of larger lesions and true quadranectomy with longer surgical time but lower rate of complications without delaying the adjuvant treatments and thus not increasing the cancer risk. OPS yields better cosmetic results and higher patient satisfaction compared to BCS. More experience and longer follow-up is needed for the assessment of local tumor control achieved by OPS.