Breast-Contour-Preserving Procedure as a Multidisciplinary Parameter of Esthetic Outcome in Breast Cancer Treatment in The Netherlands.
Adult
Aged
Breast Neoplasms
/ pathology
Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast
/ pathology
Carcinoma, Lobular
/ pathology
Chemotherapy, Adjuvant
Esthetics
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Mammaplasty
Mastectomy, Segmental
Middle Aged
Neoadjuvant Therapy
Neoplasm Invasiveness
Netherlands
Organ Sparing Treatments
/ methods
Prognosis
Journal
Annals of surgical oncology
ISSN: 1534-4681
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9420840
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2019
Jun 2019
Historique:
received:
04
01
2019
pubmed:
5
3
2019
medline:
12
9
2019
entrez:
5
3
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The rate of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is used as an esthetic outcome parameter, while other treatments contribute also, such as neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) enabling BCS or immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). This study explores these efforts to preserve the patient's breast contour. All patients who underwent surgery for invasive breast cancer in The Netherlands between January 2011 and December 2015 were selected from the Dutch national breast cancer audit (n = 61,309). The breast-contour-preserving procedures (BCPP) rate was defined as the rate of primary BCS, BCS after NAC, or mastectomy with IBR. BCPP rates were calculated and compared by year of diagnosis, age categories, and individual hospitals. The rate of primary BCS remained stable (53%) while the BCPP rate increased from 63% in 2011 to 71% in 2015 due to an increase in patients receiving BCS after NAC and mastectomy with IBR. Primary BCS rates increased with age (from 17% in patients aged < 30 years to 63% in patients aged 60-69 years), while the proportion of patients undergoing mastectomy with IBR decreased from 44% in patients < 30 years to 1% in patients ≥ 70 years. The BCPP rate was similar for all age groups except for patients > 70 years. BCPP rates varied between the different hospitals in The Netherlands, ranging from 47 to 88%. The chance of preserving the breast contour for patients with breast cancer has increased substantially over recent years. BCPP provides a comprehensive parameter of esthetic outcome of breast cancer surgery.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The rate of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is used as an esthetic outcome parameter, while other treatments contribute also, such as neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) enabling BCS or immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). This study explores these efforts to preserve the patient's breast contour.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
METHODS
All patients who underwent surgery for invasive breast cancer in The Netherlands between January 2011 and December 2015 were selected from the Dutch national breast cancer audit (n = 61,309). The breast-contour-preserving procedures (BCPP) rate was defined as the rate of primary BCS, BCS after NAC, or mastectomy with IBR. BCPP rates were calculated and compared by year of diagnosis, age categories, and individual hospitals.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The rate of primary BCS remained stable (53%) while the BCPP rate increased from 63% in 2011 to 71% in 2015 due to an increase in patients receiving BCS after NAC and mastectomy with IBR. Primary BCS rates increased with age (from 17% in patients aged < 30 years to 63% in patients aged 60-69 years), while the proportion of patients undergoing mastectomy with IBR decreased from 44% in patients < 30 years to 1% in patients ≥ 70 years. The BCPP rate was similar for all age groups except for patients > 70 years. BCPP rates varied between the different hospitals in The Netherlands, ranging from 47 to 88%.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The chance of preserving the breast contour for patients with breast cancer has increased substantially over recent years. BCPP provides a comprehensive parameter of esthetic outcome of breast cancer surgery.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30830541
doi: 10.1245/s10434-019-07265-3
pii: 10.1245/s10434-019-07265-3
pmc: PMC6510878
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1704-1711Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Clin Breast Cancer. 2002 Oct;3 Suppl 2:S69-74
pubmed: 12435290
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006 Sep;99(2):209-14
pubmed: 16862450
Ann Surg Oncol. 2009 Oct;16(10):2682-90
pubmed: 19653046
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jul 20;28(21):3437-41
pubmed: 20548000
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2010 Sep;36 Suppl 1:S36-43
pubmed: 20620013
Eur J Cancer. 2010 Sep;46(13):2344-56
pubmed: 20675120
Cancer. 2011 Feb 15;117(4):698-704
pubmed: 20886632
Ann Surg. 2011 Aug;254(2):339-45
pubmed: 21725233
Eur J Cancer. 2012 Sep;48(13):1947-56
pubmed: 22483323
Breast J. 2012 Jul-Aug;18(4):318-25
pubmed: 22607016
Ann Surg Oncol. 2013 May;20(5):1436-43
pubmed: 23135312
PLoS One. 2013 Dec 20;8(12):e84535
pubmed: 24376822
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Mar 20;32(9):919-26
pubmed: 24550418
Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2015 Mar;24(2):242-52
pubmed: 24684189
JAMA Surg. 2015 Jan;150(1):9-16
pubmed: 25408966
J Am Coll Surg. 2015 Jun;220(6):1063-9
pubmed: 25868410
Cancer. 2015 Aug 1;121(15):2544-52
pubmed: 25902916
Ann Surg Oncol. 2015 Oct;22(10):3376-82
pubmed: 26202561
Eur J Cancer. 2016 Aug;63:118-26
pubmed: 27299664
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017 Jan;43(1):52-61
pubmed: 27776942
J Surg Oncol. 2017 Mar;115(3):243-249
pubmed: 27885679
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2017 Feb;70(2):215-221
pubmed: 27993547
Ann Plast Surg. 2017 Jun;78(6):717-722
pubmed: 28079533
J Surg Oncol. 2017 Apr;115(5):544-549
pubmed: 28168857
Curr Oncol. 2017 Apr;24(2):124-128
pubmed: 28490927
Breast. 2017 Aug;34:96-102
pubmed: 28552797
Am J Surg. 2017 Nov;214(5):907-913
pubmed: 28736057
Breast. 2017 Dec;36:34-38
pubmed: 28942098
Ann Plast Surg. 2018 Oct;81(4):383-388
pubmed: 30067531