Ann Surg Treat Res.  2023 May;104(5):249-257. 10.4174/astr.2023.104.5.249.

Aesthetic outcomes of breast-conserving surgery and oncoplastic surgery with the new scale named Quality of Life Questionnaire Breast Reconstruction Module-23

• Duymus ME
• Gumus S

• KMID: 2542231
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4174/astr.2023.104.5.249

Abstract

Purpose
Oncoplastic surgery (OPS) has been developed with the aim of improving breast-conserving surgery (BCS) to provide better aesthetic and functional outcomes for breast cancer patients. We aimed to compare overall quality of life (QoL) and satisfaction with breast reconstruction in patients undergoing BCS and OPS using the Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and recently validated QLQ-Breast Reconstruction module (QLQ-BRECON23).
Methods
A total of 87 patients were included in this single-center study between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2021; 43 underwent OPS (49.4%) and 44 underwent BCS (50.6%). The data on patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics were obtained from the prospectively collected database at the hospital. QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BRECON23 were used to evaluate psychosocial well-being, fatigue symptoms, overall QoL, sexual well-being, sensation of the operative area, and satisfaction with the reconstruction.
Results
According to QLQ-C30 evaluation there were significantly better outcomes for patients treated with OPS than BCS in terms of psychosocial well-being, fatigue symptoms, and overall QoL (P = 0.005, P = 0.016, and P = 0.004; respectively), according to QLQ-BRECON23 evaluation there were also significantly better outcomes in terms of sexual well-being, sensation of the operative area, and satisfaction of the reconstruction (P < 0.001, P = 0.002, and P < 0.001; respectively).
Conclusion
We found that the overall QoL and satisfaction with breast reconstruction in patients undergoing OPS are better than those undergoing BCS. Our study is critical because it is the first study comparing OPS and BCS using the QLQBRECON23, which was recently validated.

Keyword

Breast neoplasms; Breast-conserving surgery; Breast reconstruction; Patients reported outcome; Patients satisfaction

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Intraoperative (A) and postoperative (B) photos illustrate a rocket oncoplasty technique performed for a 47-year-old female patient with a 2.7 cm located tumor at the upper outer quadrant of the breast.

• 

  Fig. 2 Intraoperative (A) and postoperative (B) photos illustrate a round block oncoplasty technique performed for a 68-year-old female patient with a 1.3 cm located tumor at the center of the breast.

• 

  Fig. 3 Intraoperative (A) and postoperative (B) photos illustrate a wise pattern oncoplasty technique performed for a 68-year-old female patient with a 3.1 cm located tumor at the lower inner quadrant of the breast.

• 

  Fig. 4 Intraoperative (A) and postoperative (B) photos illustrate a Grisotti oncoplasty technique performed for a 55-year-old female patient with a 2.4 cm located tumor at the center of the breast.

• 

  Fig. 5 Intraoperative (A) and postoperative (B) photos illustrate a batwing oncoplasty technique performed for a 57-year-old female patient with a 1.2 cm located tumor at the upper outer quadrant of the breast.

Reference

1. Kummerow KL, Du L, Penson DF, Shyr Y, Hooks MA. Nationwide trends in mastectomy for early-stage breast cancer. JAMA Surg. 2015; 150:9–16. PMID: 25408966.

2. Poggi MM, Danforth DN, Sciuto LC, Smith SL, Steinberg SM, Liewehr DJ, et al. Eighteen-year results in the treatment of early breast carcinoma with mastectomy versus breast conservation therapy: the National Cancer Institute Randomized Trial. Cancer. 2003; 98:697–702. PMID: 12910512.

3. Al-Ghazal SK, Fallowfield L, Blamey RW. Comparison of psychological aspects and patient satisfaction following breast conserving surgery, simple mastectomy and breast reconstruction. Eur J Cancer. 2000; 36:1938–1943. PMID: 11000574.

4. Weber WP, Soysal SD, Fulco I, Barandun M, Babst D, Kalbermatten D, et al. Standardization of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017; 43:1236–1243. PMID: 28214053.

5. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993; 85:365–376. PMID: 8433390.

6. Sprangers MA, Groenvold M, Arraras JI, Franklin J, te Velde A, Muller M, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer breast cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaire module: first results from a three-country field study. J Clin Oncol. 1996; 14:2756–2768. PMID: 8874337.

7. Tan ML, Idris DB, Teo LW, Loh SY, Seow GC, Chia YY, et al. Validation of EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 questionnaires in the measurement of quality of life of breast cancer patients in Singapore. Asia Pac J Oncol Nurs. 2014; 1:22–32. PMID: 27981079.

8. Winters ZE, Afzal M, Rutherford C, Holzner B, Rumpold G, da Costa Vieira RA, et al. International validation of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-BRECON23 quality-of-life questionnaire for women undergoing breast reconstruction. Br J Surg. 2018; 105:209–222. PMID: 29116657.

9. Davies CF, Macefield R, Avery K, Blazeby JM, Potter S. Patient-reported outcome measures for post-mastectomy breast reconstruction: a systematic review of development and measurement properties. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021; 28:386–404. PMID: 32602063.

10. Weick L, Brorson F, Jepsen C, Lidén M, Jensen EW, Hansson E. Giving meaning to patient reported outcomes in breast reconstruction after mastectomy: a systematic review of available scores and suggestions for further research. Breast. 2022; 61:91–97. PMID: 34929423.

11. Chatterjee A, Gass J, Patel K, Holmes D, Kopkash K, Peiris L, et al. A Consensus Definition and Classification System of Oncoplastic Surgery Developed by the American Society of Breast Surgeons. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019; 26:3436–3444. PMID: 30977016.

12. Gradishar WJ, Moran MS, Abraham J, Aft R, Agnese D, Allison KH, et al. Breast Cancer, Version 3.2022, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2022; 20:691–722. PMID: 35714673.

13. Guzelant A, Goksel T, Ozkok S, Tasbakan S, Aysan T, Bottomley A. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: an examination into the cultural validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the EORTC QLQ-C30. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2004; 13:135–144. PMID: 15115469.

14. Dalci K, Gumus S, Saritas AG, Gul MO, Rencuzogullari A, Akcam AT, et al. Modified techniques versus Hadfield’s procedure in patients with periductal mastitis. BMC Surg. 2022; 22:40. PMID: 35120473.

15. Curran D, van Dongen JP, Aaronson NK, Kiebert G, Fentiman IS, Mignolet F, et al. Quality of life of early-stage breast cancer patients treated with radical mastectomy or breast-conserving procedures: results of EORTC Trial 10801. Eur J Cancer. 1998; 34:307–314. PMID: 9640214.

16. Kronowitz SJ, Feledy JA, Hunt KK, Kuerer HM, Youssef A, Koutz CA, et al. Determining the optimal approach to breast reconstruction after partial mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006; 117:1–14. PMID: 16404237.

17. Meretoja TJ, Svarvar C, Jahkola TA. Outcome of oncoplastic breast surgery in 90 prospective patients. Am J Surg. 2010; 200:224–228. PMID: 20573334.

18. Santos G, Urban C, Edelweiss MI, Zucca-Matthes G, de Oliveira VM, Arana GH, et al. Long-term comparison of aesthetical outcomes after oncoplastic surgery and lumpectomy in breast cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015; 22:2500–2508. PMID: 25519931.

19. Chan SW, Cheung PS, Lam SH. Cosmetic outcome and percentage of breast volume excision in oncoplastic breast conserving surgery. World J Surg. 2010; 34:1447–1452. PMID: 19936979.

20. Down SK, Jha PK, Burger A, Hussien MI. Oncological advantages of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery in treatment of early breast cancer. Breast J. 2013; 19:56–63. PMID: 23301761.

21. Chen JY, Huang YJ, Zhang LL, Yang CQ, Wang K. Comparison of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery and breast-conserving surgery alone: a meta-analysis. J Breast Cancer. 2018; 21:321–329. PMID: 30275861.

22. Ojala K, Meretoja TJ, Leidenius MH. Aesthetic and functional outcome after breast conserving surgery: comparison between conventional and oncoplastic resection. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017; 43:658–664. PMID: 28040314.

23. Cardoso MJ, Cardoso J, Amaral N, Azevedo I, Barreau L, Bernardo M, et al. Turning subjective into objective: the BCCT. core software for evaluation of cosmetic results in breast cancer conservative treatment. Breast. 2007; 16:456–461. PMID: 17606373.

24. Dahlbäck C, Ul lmark JH, Rehn M, Ringberg A, Manjer J. Aesthetic result after breast-conserving therapy is associated with quality of life several years after treatment. Swedish women evaluated with BCCT.core and BREAST-Q™. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017; 164:679–687. PMID: 28536951.

25. Kim KD, Kim Z, Kuk JC, Jeong J, Choi KS, Hur SM, et al. Long-term results of oncoplastic breast surgery with latissimus dorsi flap reconstruction: a pilot study of the objective cosmetic results and patient reported outcome. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2016; 90:117–123. PMID: 26942154.

26. 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. PMID: 31989380.

27. Bok SK, Song Y, Lim A, Choi H, Shin H, Jin S. Korean translation and psychometric evaluation of Korean version EORTC QLQ-BRECON23. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 17:9163. PMID: 33302470.