Conventional Breast-conserving Surgery Research Articles

An initial experience of robot-assisted breast conserving surgery: A multicenter study of the Korea Robot-Endoscopy Minimal Access Breast Surgery Study Group (KoREa-BSG).

543 Background: Robot-assisted breast conserving surgery (RABCS) have cosmetic benefit without any scar on the breast over conventional breast conserving surgery (CBCS). However, data on the feasibility and safety of the RABCS are limited. The aim of this study was to present the results of early experience of RABCS. Methods: A multi-center retrospective review was conducted to identify women who underwent RABCS as part of the Korea Robot-Endoscopy & Minimal Access Breast Surgery Study Group (KoREa-BSG) between August 2019 and October 2023. Information of the clinicopathologic characteristics, perioperative complications, operation time, recurrence, and re-operation were collected. Results: A total of150 patients underwent the RABCS procedure conducted by 10 breast surgeons at seven institutions. Invasive breast cancer was noted in 121 cases and ductal carcinoma in-situ was detected in 29 cases. Further, 75.3% and 65.3% of the patients had an estrogen and progesterone receptor positive status, respectively. A total of 35.3% of the patients had a HER2-positive status. In terms of the surgical technique, the Da Vinci SP system was more frequently used (60%). Gas insufflation was applied in 97.33% of the cases, and s entinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) only was the most common axillary surgery (89.3%). The median duration of postoperative days was 5.4 days (range, 1.0-15.0 days). The incision location was the mid-axillary line and the median incision length was 37.1 mm (range, 27.0-60.0 mm). The median total operation time was 133.8 minutes (range, 62.0-295.0 minutes). 11 cases (7.3%) showed frozen margin positive, however only one case (0.7%) required re-operation because of permanent margin positive. Six patients (4%) developed surgical complications. Postoperative bleeding was found in one case and skin burn was found in five cases (3.3%); two cases (1.3%) required skin excision and three cases (2.0%) showed spontaneous resolution. There were no cases of conversion to open surgery or mortality. Only one case (0.7%) had recurrence. Conclusions: This was the first multicenter report of RABCS in the world. RABCS could be a technically feasible and safe. Further subsequent comparative study with CBCS and prospective research are needed to evaluate the surgical and oncologic outcomes.

A novel 3D-printed scaffold for patient-specific partial breast reconstruction: A prospective, single-arm clinical trial.

e23227 Background: The current scarcity of appropriate breast fillers restricts the availability of breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer patients. The advent of 3D printing technology has introduced novel possibilities for breast reconstruction by fabricating the patient-specific and custom-designed medical products in three dimensions. Methods: We performed a prospective, single-arm clinical trial. The trial population included woman aged between 18 and 60 years with histologically confirmed breast cancer. (Primary) tumors with a size greater than 1.0 cm and less than 8.0 cm, or those presenting as multiple diffuse lesions limited to a single quadrant, preclude the feasibility of traditional breast-conserving surgery. Patients were assigned to receive the patient-specific 3D-printed scaffolds transplantation surgery. Degradation of 3D-printed scaffold, cosmetic outcomes, complications, satisfaction of patients was assessed. Results: Between August of 2016 and August of 2023, 26 patients received partial breast reconstruction using 3D-printed patient-specific scaffolds. The median follow-up was 58.9 months (range, 29 to 88 months). Patients who received partial breast reconstruction with 3D-printed scaffolds have natural-looking and symmetrical breasts after surgery. One year after operation, mild depression at the implantation site was observed in four patients (15.4%). This number increased to seven (26.9%) after two years of surgery. No flap necrosis or ischemia was observed in the nipple and areola area in all patients. Hematoxylin & Eosin showed that fibrous connective tissue, fibroblast cells and blood vessels were observed inside/around the scaffold after one year of surgery. The average degradation rate of 3D-printed scaffolds is 54.07% at 12 months, 74.48% at 24 months, 86.94% at 36 months,87.36% at 48 months, and 92.76% at 60 months. The breast satisfaction score rating by Breast-q scale is 68.5±15.7 at 6 months, 65.4±14.2 at 12 months, and 62.8±15.9 at 24 months. Conclusions: This is the first report of 3D-printed biodegradable scaffolds for breast reconstruction. Partial breast reconstruction using a 3D-printed scaffold presents a viable alternative for breast cancer patients who are not suitable candidates for conventional breast-conserving surgery, yielding promising outcomes. Clinical trial information: NCT03348293 .

Disparities in quality of life among patients with breast cancer based on surgical methods: a cross-sectional prospective study

To determine the impact of breast conservation on quality of life and identify treatment-related and other demographic factors associated with post-breast cancer treatment quality of life. A prospective study was conducted on 392 women who underwent breast cancer surgery at Hangzhou Cancer Hospital from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2022. Operable breast cancer patients who had completed all treatments except endocrine therapy were included. Patients with tumor recurrence/metastasis, bilateral or male breast cancer, and other primary malignancies were excluded. After enrollment, patients were asked to complete the BREAST-Q scale, and their pathological and medical records were reviewed. Analysis of variance was used to compare the quality of life scores among the groups. Univariate and multivariate linear regression analyses were performed to identify independent factors associated with quality of life scores in different domains. Participants completed the BREAST-Q scale at a median of 4.6 years after surgery. Quality of life scores varied based on the therapeutic strategy. Breast conservation has significant advantages over mastectomy in terms of breast satisfaction, psychosocial, and sexual well-being. Compared to oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery, mastectomy was independently associated with decreased breast satisfaction, psychosocial, and sexual well-being, while conventional breast-conserving surgery showed comparable outcomes to oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery in terms of these factors. Breast conservation leads to an improvement in quality of life compared to mastectomy. Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery does not lead to a decrease in quality of life compared to conventional breast-conserving surgery and offers better outcomes compared to mastectomy.

Comparison of long-term oncologic outcomes of central lumpectomy and conventional breast-conserving surgery for invasive breast cancer: propensity score matching analysis.

Central lumpectomy (CL) is a breast-conserving surgical (BCS) technique that involves excision of the nipple-areolar complex with breast tumor in centrally located breast cancers. We aimed to investigate the long-term clinical outcomes of CL in comparison with conventional BCS (cBCS). Patient records who underwent BCS with clear resection margins for invasive breast cancer between 2004 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Of the total 6,533 patients, 106 (1.6%) underwent CL. Median follow-up duration was 73.4months. 1:3 propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) were used to minimize selection bias. The CL group showed a significantly higher ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) rate than the cBCS group (10-year IBTR rate: 5.8% vs. 3.1%, p = 0.004), even after adjusting for other variables (hazard ratio (HR), 2.65; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.07-6.60, p = 0.048). However, there were no significant differences observed inregional recurrence, distant metastasis, oroverall survival rates between the two groups. Both PSM and IPTW analyses showed significantly higher IBTR in the CL group (PSM HR, 3.27; 95% CI, 0.94-11.36; p = 0.048 and IPTW HR, 4.66; 95%CI, 1.85-11.77; p < 0.001). Lastly, when analyzing 2,213 patients whose tumors were located within 3cm of the nipple, the CL group showed a significantly higher IBTR than the cBCS group before and after PSM. CL was associated with a higher rate ofIBTR compared to cBCS, while other survival outcomes were comparable. For centrally located tumors, CL may be considered for patients preferring breast preservation. However, higher risk for IBTR should be informed and careful surveillance may be necessary during the early post-operative follow-up periods.

190 (PB-097) Poster - A comparative study of surgical, oncological and aesthetic outcomes in conventional breast-conserving versus oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery for excision of breast tumour

190 (PB-097) Poster - A comparative study of surgical, oncological and aesthetic outcomes in conventional breast-conserving versus oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery for excision of breast tumour

The Postoperative Breast: Imaging Findings and Diagnostic Pitfalls After Breast-Conserving Surgery and Oncoplastic Breast Surgery.

Breast surgery is the cornerstone of treatment for early breast cancer. Historically, mastectomy and conventional breast-conserving surgery (BCS) were the main surgical techniques for treatment. Now, oncoplastic breast surgery (OBS), introduced in the 1990s, allows for a combination of BCS and reconstructive surgery to excise the cancer while preserving or enhancing the contour of the breast, leading to improved aesthetic results. Although imaging after conventional lumpectomy demonstrates typical postsurgical changes with known evolution patterns over time, OBS procedures show postsurgical changes/fat necrosis in locations other than the lumpectomy site. The purpose of this article is to familiarize radiologists with various types of surgical techniques for removal of breast cancer and to distinguish benign postoperative imaging findings from suspicious findings that warrant further work-up.

Endoscopy-assisted breast conservation surgery (E-BCS) vs conventional breast conservation surgery (C-BCS) technique for the management of early breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Endoscopy-assisted breast conservation surgery (E-BCS) vs conventional breast conservation surgery (C-BCS) technique for the management of early breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Expanded indications for breast-conserving surgery with oncoplastic approaches compared to conventional approaches: a single-center retrospective comparative cohort study.

Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OPBS) is the evolution of conventional breast-conserving surgery (CBCS); however, data from studies comparing patients who received two surgical procedures are limited. A comparison of differences in terms of the patient characteristics, tumor-nipple distance, volume of resected breast tissue, tumor volume and postoperative breast appearance between patients undergoing OPBS and CBCS was carried out in this study, enhancing the evidence base for OPBS by widening indications and improving patient satisfaction. From January 2020 to April 2022, the Breast Center of West China Hospital conducted a retrospective comparative study involving 106 patients. Preoperative characteristics of patients were recorded, and the tumor-nipple distance, the volume of resected breast tissue, tumor volume and patient-reported esthetic outcomes measured by the Harris cosmetic scale were compared between patients who underwent OPBS and CBCS. Each group had a median follow-up time of 2 months, ranging from 1 week to 6 months. The tumor-nipple distance was significantly shorter in patients receiving OPBS than in those receiving CBCS (2.98±1.42 vs. 3.85±1.78 cm, P=0.006). The rate of positive margin evaluated by intraoperative frozen section biopsy was significantly lower in OPBS group than in CBCS group (2/43, 4.65% vs. 11/63, 17.46%; P=0.048). The maximum diameter of resected tissue (7.80±2.29 vs. 6.75±1.87 cm, P=0.011) and volume of resected tissue (74.20±42.77 vs. 45.52±30.99 cm3, P<0.001) were significantly larger with OPBS. The tumor size, tumor volume (either clinically measured by ultrasound or pathologically measured), tumor location, and reoperation rate due to positive margins did not differ significantly between groups. Moreover, insignificant differences existed regarding patient satisfaction between two groups (87.30% vs. 81.40%). The OPBS strategy allowed extensive resections and expanded indications with equivalent cosmetic satisfaction and favorable oncological safety.

A Clinical Analysis of Prognosis and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery for Early Breast Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Approximately 25-30% of patients suffer from breast deformity and/or asymmetry after conventional breast-conserving surgery (CBCS). Generally, it is thought that oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OBCS) results in an improved cosmetic result; however, studies comparing the prognosis and aesthetic outcomes of CBCS and OBCS in early breast cancer (EBC) are inadequate. A total of 143 patients were included in this retrospective cohort study; 53 underwent OBCS and 90 underwent CBCS. The resected weight, complications, esthetic results, patient satisfaction, and recurrence rate were compared between the groups. Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) were assessed by the BREAST-Q questionnaire. The mean age of the patients in OBCS group was 43.8 years. This was younger than that in CBCS group (49.1 years, p < 0.001). Postoperative complications (11.3% vs. 8.9%, p = 0.64) and re-excision (5.7% vs. 6.7%, p > 0.99) rates were similar. The OBCS group had higher breast satisfaction and psychosocial well-being than the CBCS group (75 vs. 63, p < 0.001 and 84 vs. 77, p = 0.05); however, sexual well-being (56 vs. 66, p = 0.05) and physical well-being (65 vs. 76, p < 0.001) were worse in OBCS. After 42.3 (range: 12.6-69.2)-month median follow-up, no difference in event-free survival (EFS) was demonstrated between the groups (p = 0.13). Although OBCS has the better aesthetic outcomes and identical oncological safety in comparison with CBCS, the sexual and physical well-being in OBCS are not improved for Asian patients. Hence, choosing an appropriate procedure may be more important for the typically small to moderate-sized breasts characteristic of Asian females unlike Westerners. This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Long-Term Patient-Reported Outcomes Comparing Oncoplastic Breast Surgery and Conventional Breast-Conserving Surgery: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

Oncoplastic breast surgery (OBS) combines plastic surgery techniques with conventional breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and expands BCS eligibility. Limited data are available on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after OBS. Here we compare long-term PROs after OBS and BCS utilizing the BREAST-Q. Women undergoing OBS or BCS between 2006 and 2019 who completed ≥ 1 long-term BREAST-Q survey 3-5 years postoperatively were identified. Baseline characteristics were compared between women who underwent OBS/BCS. Women who underwent OBS were paired with those who underwent BCS using 1:2 propensity matching [by age, body mass index (BMI), race, T stage, and multifocality]. BREAST-Q scores were compared preoperatively and 3-5 years postoperatively. A total of 297 patients were included for analysis (99 OBS/198 BCS). Women who underwent OBS were younger (p < 0.001) and had higher BMI (p = 0.005) and multifocal disease incidence (p = 0.004). There was no difference between groups in nodal stage, re-excision rates, axillary surgery, chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, or radiotherapy. After propensity matching preoperatively, women who underwent OBS reported lower psychosocial well-being (63 versus 100, p = 0.039) but similar breast satisfaction and sexual well-being compared with women who underwent BCS; however, only three patients who underwent BCS had preoperative BREAST-Q scores available for review. In long-term follow-up, women who underwent OBS reported lower psychosocial scores (74 versus 93, p = 0.011) 4 years postoperatively, but not at 5 years (76 versus 77, p = 0.83). There was no difference in long-term breast satisfaction or sexual well-being. Women who undergo OBS present with a larger disease burden and may represent a group of non-traditional BCS candidates; they reported similar long-term breast satisfaction and sexual well-being compared with women who undergo BCS. While women who underwent OBS reported lower psychosocial well-being scores preoperatively and during a portion of the follow-up period, this difference was no longer seen at 5 years postoperatively.

A Comparative Study of Plastic and Conserving Surgery in Surgical Treatment for Breast Cancer

Objective: Tumor surgeons now pay special attention to the alteration in breast form following breast-conserving surgery. Safety of breast-conserving margins and postoperative breast appearance are typically challenging in conventional breast-conserving surgery due to the effect of variables such as big breast tumors or unusual placements. It's important to remember that postoperative breast deformity is a real possibility. Breast-conserving tumor plastic surgery combines tumor excision with plastic surgery, allowing for a more thorough removal of the tumor. It provides a more humane treatment option for the majority of patients by ensuring the safety of surgical margins, considering the aesthetic effects, increasing the breast-conserving opportunities for patients with tumors in special parts, and expanding the indications for breast-conserving surgery. It also greatly improves the postoperative quality of life and mental state. In this article, we deeply examine the current state of knowledge concerning the effectiveness, safety, and appropriate patient population for breast-conserving surgery in the context of tumor plastic surgery.

Single-incision endoscope-assisted breast-conserving surgery and sentinel lymph node biopsy: prospective SINA-BCS cohort study.

The current consensus on surgical treatment for early breast cancer is to ensure oncological safety during surgery while preserving functions and aesthetics1–3. Minimally invasive endoscopic surgery has become widely used in modern surgery4–6. Endoscope-assisted surgery allows incision concealment and scar minimization, thereby optimizing aesthetic outcomes and patient satisfaction7–10. The shortcomings of endoscope-assisted surgery are, however, also prominent, including limited working space, increased surgical difficulty11, prolonged operating time, need for additional laparoscopic instruments, and increased costs9,10,12. This study describes single-incision, non-lipolytic, endoscope-assisted breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), the SINA-BCS technique, and compares its perioperative outcomes and cosmetic properties with those of conventional BCS and SLNB (C-BCS). This single-centre prospective cohort study evaluated the efficacy and benefits of SINA-BCS in patients with breast cancer. The study was approved by ChiECRCT (ChiECRCT20200410) and registered at Chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2100043403). Written informed consent was obtained from all patients. Women aged 20–80 years with pathologically diagnosed cTis–2 N0 breast cancer, who were treated at the West China Hospital of Sichuan University from July 2020 to September 2022, were included. The decision to perform either SINA-BCS or C-BCS was made jointly by the patients and surgeons. Lumpectomy procedures were the same for SINA-BCS and C-BCS. Dual tracers with radioisotope and blue dye were used for SNLB. The operating space of the axilla was established using a non-liposuction method. A subcutaneous tunnel was gradually created through the lumpectomy incision, and expanded by subcutaneous dissociation of the breast tissue toward the axilla. SLNB of SINA-BCS was performed by means of polar diathermy scissors and ultrasonic scalpels, using the working space established through the subcutaneous tunnel and a specifically designed retractor system (Fig. 1). The radionucleotide probe was also inserted through the same incision to detect hot nodes. For C-BCS, an additional 3–4cm axillary incision was made for SLNB (Fig. S1).

Abstract P1-09-08: Comparisons of aesthetic outcomes and prognosis of conventional breast conserving surgery, oncoplastic breast conserving surgery and breast conserving surgery plus immediate lipofilling in early breast cancer

Abstract Background: Conventional breast conserving surgery (CBCS) considered as a confined alternative to mastectomy could lead to potentially breast deformities. Oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (OBCS) as well as breast conserving surgery (BCS) plus immediate lipofilling have been shown to be reliable techniques for maintaining the natural breast contours, however, few studies compared those three surgical options for oncological safety, complications and aesthetic outcomes in early breast cancer (EBC). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the data of BC patients who underwent BCS between January 2017 and December 2021 from The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University. We included female patients who received BCS for unilateral stage 0-III BC. Those who had bilateral BC, incomplete surgical records, unfinished adjuvant therapy, multiple primary malignant tumors and lost to follow-up and were excluded. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were assessed using the BREAST-Q Version 2.0. We utilized a multivariable linear regression model to identify clinical factors correlated with the BREAST-Q score, and the log-rank test and Cox regression models were used to compare the survival difference between groups. Results: Of 268 patients, 90 (33.6%) underwent CBCS, 53 (19.8%) underwent OBCS and 125 (46.6%) underwent BCS plus immediate lipofilling. Patients in OBCS and BCS plus immediate lipofilling groups were younger than those in CBCS group (mean age: 43.9yrs vs 49.1yrs, P=0.001 and 45.7yrs vs 49.1yrs, P=0.008). The largest tumor size and heaviest BCS specimen were observed in the OBCS group compared with CBCS (mean tumor size: 23.4mm vs 17.3mm, P&amp;lt; 0.001 and median excised weight: 122.0g vs 36.5g, P&amp;lt; 0.001) and BCS plus immediate lipofilling group (mean tumor size: 23.4mm vs 17.4mm, P&amp;lt; 0.001 and median excised weight: 122.0g vs 37.0g, P&amp;lt; 0.001). It was balanced for pathological type, Ki-67, ER and PR expression between three groups. In the multivariable linear regression models, with the CBCS group as referent, either OBCS or BCS plus immediate lipofilling groups had a significantly higher score in satisfaction with breast (Estimate: 9.27, P=0.001 and Estimate: 13.08, P&amp;lt; 0.001) and psychosocial well-being (Estimate: 6.06, P=0.021 and Estimate: 9.34, P&amp;lt; 0.001). Additionally, sexual well-being was improved among patients receiving BCS plus immediate lipofilling (Estimate: 6.19, P=0.029). Nevertheless, patients in OBCS group harbored worse physical well-being compared with CBCS (Estimate: -15.89, P&amp;lt; 0.001). There was no significantly statistical difference among three groups on re-excision rate (P=0.721) and postoperative complications (P=0.663). After 37-month median follow-up, identical event-free survival (EFS) was revealed among three groups (HROBCS vs CBCS: 3.93; 95%CI, 0.78-19.81, P=0.098; HRBCS plus Lipofilling vs CBCS: 1.15, 95%CI, 0.28-4.67, P=0.847). Conclusion: This study demonstrated that OBCS as well as BCS plus immediate lipofilling shared equivalent oncological safety but better cosmetic outcomes and patient satisfaction when compared with CBCS for EBC patients, suggesting that further prospective randomized clinical trials are warranted to confirm our findings. Citation Format: JH Ren, Yuanyuan Wang, Xiang Zhang, Kang Wang, Renxi Tang, Ling Yang, Junge Gong, Jiawei Xu, Qing Li, WM Zhu, Qiao Cheng, Guosheng Ren, Hongyuan Li. Comparisons of aesthetic outcomes and prognosis of conventional breast conserving surgery, oncoplastic breast conserving surgery and breast conserving surgery plus immediate lipofilling in early breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-09-08.

Abstract P2-14-02: Surgical options of the breast and clinical outcomes in breast cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a single-center retrospective study

Abstract Background: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) has evolved significantly and has been widely accepted for downstaging disease in early-stage and locally advanced breast cancer patients. Since the optimal surgical intervention of the breast for patients receiving NAC remains controversial, we aim to investigate the survival outcome of patients treated with different surgical management. Methods: Patients with invasive breast cancer that underwent NAC in Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center from January 2010 to June 2019 were involved in this study. Based on surgical intervention of the breast following NAC, patients were divided into mastectomy and breast conservation groups. To be specific, the mastectomy group involved patients who received mastectomy alone or mastectomy plus immediate breast reconstruction (M+IBR), while the breast conservation group evolved patients who underwent conventional breast-conserving surgery (CBCS) and oncoplastic surgery (OPS). Surgical interventions were performed by breast surgeons. Propensity scores matching was utilized for group matching. Results: A total of 2080 patients were enrolled in this study. Among them, 1819 (87.5%) patients were categorized as mastectomy group, and 261 (12.5%) patients were classed as breast conservation group. In the mastectomy group, mastectomy alone and M+IBR accounted for 82.5% (1715/2080) and 5% (104/2080) patients respectively. As for breast conservation, 170 (8.2%) and 91 (4.4%) patients were treated with CBCS and OPS after NAC. Over 9-years of research, the proportion of breast conservation steadily increased in patients after NAC. Notably, the percentage of patients undergoing OPS increased from 0.43 % to 7.60 % throughout the 9 years. Moreover, increasing rate of M+IBR was also observed in the study cohort, whereas fewer patients opted for mastectomy alone as surgical intervention after NAC. Compared with mastectomy group, patients underwent BCS showed younger age (P &amp;lt; 0.001), as well as higher proportion of normal BMI (P = 0.022), pre-menopausal status (P &amp;lt; 0.001), and triple-negative breast cancer (P &amp;lt; 0.008). Additionally, patients with tumors of advanced clinical T stage (P &amp;lt; 0.001) and TNM stage (P = 0.002) were more often to be treated with mastectomy (Table 1). After propensity score matching, 460 patients were matched successfully (Table 2). Compared with the mastectomy group, significant benefits in overall survival (Hazard ratio 0.51, [95% confidence interval: 0.27-0.96]; p=0.044) and disease-free survival (Hazard ratio 0.62, [95% confidence interval: 0.39-0.99]; p&amp;lt;0.05) were observed in the breast conservation group (Table 3A and 3B). Moreover, there was no statistical difference in locoregional recurrence among the surgical groups (Table 3C). Conclusions: Tumor biology can significantly impact the surgical decision in patients administrated with NAC. Breast conservation was a safe alternative for mastectomy in the NAC setting without compromising survival outcomes. Table 1. Clinicopathologic characteristics of patients in mastectomy and breast conservation groups. Table 2. Balanced statistics of patients receiving mastectomy and breast conservation after propensity score matching. Table 3. Survival analysis between matched cohort of patients receiving mastectomy (n=230), breast-conserving therapy (n=230). Citation Format: Yuting Sang, Jiajian Chen, Benlong Yang, Shuang Hao, Xiaoyan Huang, Guangyu Liu, Zhimin Shao, Jiong Wu. Surgical options of the breast and clinical outcomes in breast cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a single-center retrospective study. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-14-02.

Comparison of Quality of Life and Cosmetic Outcome of Latissimus Dorsi Mini-Flap With Breast Conservation Surgery Without Reconstruction.

Latissimus dorsi mini-flap (LDMF) reconstruction after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is a useful volume replacement technique when a large tumor is located in the upper or outer portion of the breast. However, few studies have reported the impact of LDMF on patients' quality of life (QoL) and cosmesis compared with conventional BCS. We identified patients who underwent BCS with or without LDMF between 2010 and 2020 at a single center. At least 1 year after surgery, we prospectively administered the BREAST-Q to assess QoL and obtained the patients' breast photographs. The cosmetic outcome was assessed using four panels composed of physicians and the BCCT.core software. A total of 120 patients were enrolled, of whom 62 and 58 underwent LDMF or BCS only, respectively. The LDMF group had significantly larger tumors, shorter nipple-to-tumor distances in preoperative examinations, and larger resected breast volumes than did the BCS-only group (p < 0.001). The questionnaires revealed that QoL was poorer in the LDMF group, particularly in terms of the physical well-being score (40.9 vs. 20.1, p < 0.001). Notably, the level of patients' cosmetic satisfaction with their breasts was comparable, and the cosmetic evaluation was assessed by panels and the BCCT.core software showed no differences between the groups. Our results showed that cosmetic outcomes of performing LDMF are comparable to those of BCS alone while having the advantage of resecting larger volumes of breast tissue. Therefore, for those who strongly wish to preserve the cosmesis of their breasts, LDMF can be considered a favorable surgical option after the patient is oriented toward the potential for physical dysfunction after surgery.

Comparing outcomes of single-port insufflation endoscopic breast-conserving surgery and conventional open approach for breast cancer

BackgroundIn the surgical treatment of breast cancer, the goal of surgeons is to continually create and improve minimally invasive surgical techniques to increase patients’ quality of life. Currently, routine breast-conserving surgery is often performed using two obvious incisions. Here, we compare the clinical efficacy and aesthetic outcomes of a novel technique using one incision, called ‘single-port insufflation endoscopic breast-conserving surgery’ (SIE-BCS), vs. conventional breast-conserving surgery (C-BCS) in patients with early-stage breast cancer.MethodsA total of 180 patients with stage I or stage II breast cancer participated in this study, of whom 63 underwent SIE-BCS and 117 underwent C-BCS. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to assess the risk of local recurrence and metastasis. Aesthetic outcomes were evaluated using the BREAST-Q scale.ResultsThe mean operation time was significantly longer for SIE-BCS (194.9 ± 71.5 min) than for C-BCS (140.3 ± 56.9 min), but the mean incision length was significantly shorter for SIE-BCS than for C-BCS (3.4 ± 1.2 cm vs. 8.6 ± 2.3 cm). While both surgeries yielded similar BREAST-Q ratings for satisfaction with breasts and sexual well-being, SIE-BCS was associated with significantly better ratings for physical well-being (chest area) and psychological well-being. Additionally, SIE-BCS was associated with decreased rates of adverse effects of radiation. The preliminary analysis showed that SIE-BCS did not increase the risk of local recurrence or metastasis.ConclusionThe novel single-port insufflation endoscopic assisted BCS technique is feasible, safe, and improves patients’ postoperative comfort and psychological well-being, as compared to the conventional technique.

Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery versus conventional breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 31 studies

Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery versus conventional breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 31 studies

Evaluation of Round Block Oncoplastic breast surgery in early Juxta-areolar breast cancer in comparison to conventional breast conservation surgery

Abstract Background Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women all over the world representing 18% of all women reported cases of cancer. It represents the leading cause of women mortality as representing 23% of all women cancer deaths. The decision in any breast cancer patient is taken by MDT that includes breast surgery consultant, pathology consultant, plastic surgery consultant, radiology consultant and medical oncology consultant. Breast conserving surgeries are now the standard technique for management of breast cancer patient. Oncoplastic techniques are replacing SWLE for their better cosmetic outcomes and better exposure of the tumor. Objective The aim of this work was to assess the round block technique as regard oncological safety, surgical outcomes and patients' satisfaction comparing results with standard wide local excision. Methods This is a retrospective study to assess the round block technique as an oncological procedure for management of early breast cancer near to nipple-areola complex as regard oncological safety, surgical outcomes and patients' satisfaction comparing results with standard wide local excision. It was conducted at general surgery department, Ain Shams university hospitals. Approval of the Ethical Committee and written informed consent from all participants were obtained. In our study 40 breast cancer patients are subdivided into group (A) 20 females which underwent round block technique and group (B) 20 femaleswhich underwent standard wide local excision. Patient and tumor criteria including age, co morbidities, tumor size and distance between tumor and nipple-areola complex were considered to be nonsignificant between 2 groups so the only difference is the surgical technique. Results The study shows that the round block technique and SWLE have the same results regarding hospital stay, post operative complications and oncological recurrence with the advantage to RBT because of its better cosmetic outcomes. So, the round block technique is superior to SWLE in selected cases. Conclusion The round block technique has comparable post operative parameters with better cosmoses as it is scarless operation without nipple and areola shift suggesting that the round block technique is superior to SWLE in selected cases.

The Comparison of Breast Reconstruction Using Two Types of Acellular Dermal Matrix after Breast-Conserving Surgery.

Breast reconstruction during breast-conserving surgery (BCS) can improve the breast shape. This study introduces breast reconstruction in BCS with two types of acellular dermal matrix (ADM). The study included 134 patients who underwent BCS due to breast cancer from February 2018 to May 2021. This study was conducted by one surgeon, and is the result of a three-year study. The patient group who underwent BCS using ADM was mainly targeted at patients with minor to severe defects after the operation. The average age of the patients was 51.8 years, and the body mass index (BMI) was 23.8 kg/m. The specimen weight was 30–120 g. The average surgical time, including reconstruction, was 100.4 min, combined with reconstruction. There were minor complications in six patients. The advantage of using ADM is that it can quickly correct the shape of the breast after conventional BCS surgery. Pellet-type ADM, rather than sheet-type, can create a breast shape similar to that before surgery. Breast reconstruction using ADM can be an easy and convenient method for making a better shape from BCS.

Oncoplastic breast-conservative surgery for breast cancers: a uni-institutional case-control study.

The current study was designed to compare oncological outcomes between oncoplastic (OBCS) and conventional breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Data collected retrospectively from two groups of patients diagnosed with breast cancer, cases group (OBCS) and control group (BCS), were analyzed. A total of 277 women were included in the analysis: 193 (69.7%) in the cases groupand 84 (30.3%) in the control group. Resected volume was largerin the OBCS group (438.05±302.26cm3 vs 223.34±161.75cm3;p<0.001). Re-excision was required for7.1% of patients receiving BCSversus 4.7% in the OBCS group (p=0.402). After long-term follow up, no local recurrences occurred in the OBCS group, while 2.4% of patients receiving BCShad local relapse (p=0.045). Compared with BCS, OBCS increases oncological safety in terms of re-excision rate and local recurrence.