Oncoplastic Breast-conserving Surgery Research Articles

ASO Visual Abstract: Simultaneous Symmetry Procedure in Patients Undergoing Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery: An Evaluation of Patient Desire and Revision Rates.

ASO Visual Abstract: Simultaneous Symmetry Procedure in Patients Undergoing Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery: An Evaluation of Patient Desire and Revision Rates.

ASO Visual Abstract: A Look at the Other Side-High-Risk Lesions and Occult Contralateral Malignancy in Symmetry Procedures of Patients Undergoing Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery.

ASO Visual Abstract: A Look at the Other Side-High-Risk Lesions and Occult Contralateral Malignancy in Symmetry Procedures of Patients Undergoing Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery.

Simultaneous Symmetry Procedure in Patients Undergoing Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery: An Evaluation of Patient Desire and Revision Rates.

In the era of oncoplastic breast conserving-surgery (OBCS), cosmetic outcomes and the desire for symmetry have become essential elements of the surgical management of breast cancer (BC). The timing of contralateral symmetry procedures remains a controversial topic. Simultaneous symmetry procedures (SSP) in OBCS have not been routinely offered due to the perceived risk of delayed asymmetry, potentially increasing the need for delayed cosmetic revision. This study evaluates the rate of revision after SSP in patients undergoing OBCS. We reviewed our institutional prospectively maintained database identifying all BC patients treated surgically since our introduction of oncoplastic surgery in 2018. We routinely offer SSP when appropriate. Descriptive statistics evaluated oncoplastic surgical techniques, SSP offerings and procedures, perioperative complications, and revision rates after treatment completion. Between 2018 and 2022, 485 breast cancer patients underwent partial mastectomy, and 396 (82%) underwent OBCS. Of the 313 patients offered SSP, 272 (87%) accepted. The margin reexcision rate of this cohort was 20%. Of the 272 patients with SSP, 152 (56%) underwent intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT), and 105 (39%) had adjuvant external beam radiation therapy. Three patients (1%) experienced complications involving the symmetry side. No patients with complications experienced a delay in adjuvant therapies or requested cosmetic revisions. Three patients (1%) desired surgical revisions due to asymmetry. Symmetry procedures at the time of OBCS are widely accepted by patients and rarely require delayed cosmetic revision. Simultaneous symmetry procedures should be routinely discussed with patients during the surgical planning of OBCS.

A Look at the Other Side: High-Risk Lesions and Occult Contralateral Malignancy in Symmetry Procedures for Patients Undergoing Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery.

The incidence of occult breast cancer among patients undergoing reduction mammoplasty or risk-reducing mastectomies ranges from 1% to approximately 10%, respectively. Identification of incidental cancer often mandates subsequent mastectomy due to ambiguous margins. This study aimed to determine the incidence of contralateral malignancy among patients undergoing oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OBCS) with concurrent symmetry procedures. The authors reviewed their prospectively maintained institutional database of patients with unilateral breast cancer who underwent OBCS. Patients who underwent excisional biopsy on the contralateral breast were analyzed separately. Patient demographics, pathologic features, and subsequent disease management were evaluated. Between March 2018 and July 2022, 289 patients underwent OBCS with a symmetry procedure, and 100 patients yielded contralateral breast tissue specimens. For 14 patients, a planned excisional biopsy was performed with their symmetry procedure, and five lesions (36%) were found to be malignant. Of the remaining 86 patients, 92% underwent preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Four patients (4.7%) had occult malignancies identified on the contralateral breast pathology; three patients with ductal carcinoma in situ and one patient with invasive lobular carcinoma. Three patients had undergone preoperative MRI without suspicious findings. No patients required mastectomy for treatment of the contralateral breast cancer. The incidence of occult malignancy among OBCS symmetry procedures approaches 5%. The final pathology of excisional biopsies had a higher upgrade rate than previously reported. All identified malignancies were early-stage disease. The higher incidence of occult breast cancer in this population warrants the routine orientation of all specimens, which allows patients with incidental early-stage cancer the option of breast preservation.

ASO Author Reflections: Patient Interest and Outcomes with Simultaneous Symmetry Procedures in Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery.

ASO Author Reflections: Patient Interest and Outcomes with Simultaneous Symmetry Procedures in Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery.

ASO Author Reflections: Considerations for the Contralateral Breast in Patients Undergoing Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery.

ASO Author Reflections: Considerations for the Contralateral Breast in Patients Undergoing Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery.

Indocyanine green angiography in oncoplastic breast surgery, a prospective study

The use of Indocyanine green angiography (ICG-A) in oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OBCS) has not yet been investigated. This prospective trial applied ICG-A in volume displacement and replacement OBCS to localize perforators and determine tissue supplied by the perforator. Furthermore, to investigate and correlate the intraoperative ICG-A to postoperative surgical site infection, skin necrosis, epidermolysis, and timely onset of adjuvant therapy. ICG-A was performed at three pre-set timepoints during surgery; after lumpectomy, upon dissection of possible perforators, and after wound closure. All patients were followed with clinical evaluations before surgery, 4 weeks, 4-6 months, and 12 months postoperatively. Eleven patients were included: seven volume displacement and four volume replacement OBCS. ICG-A located the tissue supplied by the perforator and demonstrated sufficient perfusion in all cases. The ICG-A corresponded to the surgeons' clinical assessment. One patient developed a postoperative infection and seroma and was treated conservatively. No patients had postoperative necrosis, loss of reconstruction, or lymphedema of the arm. Edema of the breast occurred in four patients (36.4%). Scar assessments were significantly worse at 4-weeks and 4-6 months. The quality of life improved significantly during follow-up. Adjuvant treatment was administered timely in all cases. ICG-A was feasible for OBCS in assessing intraoperative perfusion. Perfusion was sufficient in all patients and corresponded to the surgeon's clinical evaluation. No patients developed postoperative necrosis. Though edema of the breast occurred in 36.4%, a larger sample size is needed to investigate a possible correlation with ICG-A. Further studies, which includes patients requiring extensive tissue replacement challenging the borders of perfusion, are needed.

Pushing the Limits of Breast-Conserving Surgery with Extreme Oncoplasty

Introduction: We aimed to report the long-term surgical outcomes of extreme oncoplasty techniques in selected patients with unifocal (UF)/cT3 or multifocal-multicentric tumors (MFMC). Material and Methods: Patients who were initially recommended to have mastectomy underwent extreme oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (eOBCS) including therapeutic reduction mammoplasty, racquet, and round-block mammoplasty, Grisotti flap, or combined technique were included. Preoperative tumor parameters, clinical outcomes, rate of local recurrence, survival, and patients’ satisfaction were assessed. Results: Eighty-six patients with a median age of 51 years were followed for a median follow-up of 75 (8–154) months; 31 (36%) had cT3 and 55 (64%) had MFMC tumors. The majority of patients (83.6%) had invasive cancer. The median UF tumor size was 58 mm (range 51–100) on imaging and 51 mm (range 50–60) on final pathology. The median tumor span for MFMC was 65 mm (range 53–95) on imaging, whereas the median of the largest tumor size was 30 mm (range 22–60) on final pathology. Seventy-one patients (82.5%) were ER-positive, 17 (19.7%) were HER2 positive, and 8 (9.3%) were triple-negative breast cancer. Four patients (4.7%) required further intervention for having positive margins (3 re-excisions, 1 completion mastectomy). Three local recurrences (3.4%) and 10 (11.6%) distant metastasis occurred. The cosmetic outcome was excellent in 37 (43%) patients. No major complications were observed. Conclusions: eOBCS can be a good option for patients who initially require mastectomy. Appropriate patient selection, a multidisciplinary approach, and patient consent are essential steps of the procedure.

What Should We Know in Postoperative Surveillance Imaging After Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery with Pellet-Type Acellular Dermal Matrix?

The aim of this study was to evaluate the usual postoperative imaging findings among patients who underwent oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (BCS) with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and to assess the clinical utility of mammography (MG) and ultrasonography (US) in follow-ups. This retrospective review of our prospectively collected database of patients who underwent oncoplastic BCS with ADM was conducted with IRB approval and in HIPPA compliance. A total of 105 patients whose follow-up MG and US studies over 2years after surgery were available were included in this study. Postoperative imaging findings were analyzed based on sequential MG and US follow-ups. The clinical outcomes and pathological data were also reviewed. The diagnostic performance of MG and US for postoperative surveillance was assessed. On MG, ADM presented as an oval (99/105, 94.3%), circumscribed/obscured (65/105, 61.9%), and high-density (56/105, 53.3%) mass with calcifications (54/105, 51.4%). On US, the ADM-filled cavity presented as an oval (93/105, 88.6%), circumscribed (70/105, 66.7%), heterogenous echoic (65/105, 61.9%) mass with marginal/posterior acoustic shadowing (95/105, 90.5%) on US. During the follow-up period (mean, 46.1months; range, 26-58months), four tumor recurrences were diagnosed (4/105, 3.8%). One tumor recurrence detected on MG presented as microcalcifications (1/4, 25%), which were differentiated from benign postoperative calcifications due to their suspicious morphology and location. Two additional recurrences (2/4, 50%), which were MG-negative small masses or intraductal lesions, were detected on US. One tumor recurrence was missed on both MG+US and was detected by magnetic resonance imaging performed at clinician's request. The sensitivity and specificity of MG, US, and MG+US for postoperative surveillance were 25%, 50% and 75% and 100%, 98% and 98%, respectively. Recognition and adequate interpretation of the usual findings after oncoplastic BCS with ADM insertion are important in postoperative imaging surveillance. The sole use of MG is not sufficient for the detection of mass-type tumor recurrence due to the density of inserted ADM fillers. Therefore, the combined use of MG+US could serve as a useful postoperative surveillance tool with increased sensitivity in this population.

Current practice and provision of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery in the UK: results of the ANTHEM national practice questionnaire.

Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OPBCS) may be a better option than mastectomy ± immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) for women with breast cancer but studies directly comparing the techniques are lacking. We surveyed UK breast units to determine the current practice of OPBCS to inform the design of a future comparative study. An electronic survey was developed to explore the current practice of OPBCS. This included the local availability of volume displacement and/or replacement techniques; number of cases performed; contraindications and approach to contralateral symmetrisation. Summary data for each survey item were calculated and overall provision of care examined. 58 UK centres completed the survey, including 43 (74%) stand-alone breast and 15 (26%) combined breast/plastics units. Over 40% of units (n = 24) treated more than 500 cancers/year. Most units offered volume displacement techniques (TMs) (97%). Over two-thirds (n = 39. 67%) of units offered local perforator flaps (LPF). Approximately a half of units (10/19) not performing LPF were planning to introduce them in the next 12-24months. A third (n = 19, 33%) of units routinely performed simultaneous contralateral symmetrisation mostly with two-surgeon operating. There were limited oncological restrictions to OPBCS with no contraindications for multifocal cancers in most centres; 65% of units (36/55) offered OPBCS for multicentric disease. Extensive DCIS was a contraindication in a minority of units. OPBCS is widely available in the UK but contraindications and approaches to contralateral symmetrisation were variable. Work is now needed to prospectively evaluate the outcomes of OPBCS vs mastectomy ± IBR to support informed decision-making.

Implementation of a Breast Intraoperative Oncoplastic Form to Aid Management of Oncoplastic Surgery

IntroductionOncoplastic breast conservation surgery (BCS) uses concurrent reduction and/or mastopexy with lumpectomy to improve aesthetic outcomes. However, tissue rearrangement can shift the original tumor location site in relation to external breast landmarks, resulting in difficulties during re-excision for a positive margin and accurate radiation targeting. We developed the Breast Intraoperative Oncoplastic (BIO) form to help depict the location of the tumor and breast reduction specimen. This study seeks to assess physician perspectives of the implementation outcomes. MethodsFrom February 2021 to April 2021, the BIO form was used in 11 oncoplastic BCS cases at a single institution. With institutional review board approval, surgical oncologists (SOs), plastic surgeons (PSs), and radiation oncologists (ROs) were administered a 12-question validated survey on Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM), Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM), and Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM), using a 5-point Likert scale during initial implementation and at 6-month reassessment. ResultsTwelve physicians completed the survey initially (4 SOs, 4 PSs, and 4 ROs). The mean scores for Acceptability of Intervention Measure, Intervention Appropriateness Measure, and Feasibility of Intervention Measure were high (4.44, 4.56, and 4.56, respectively). Twelve completed the second survey (5 SOs, 3 PSs, and 4 ROs). The mean scores were marginally lower (4.06, 4.21, and 4.25). There were no significant differences when stratified by number of years in practice or specialty. Free text comments showed that 75% of physicians found the form helpful in oncoplastic BCS. ConclusionsThe data indicate high feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of the BIO form. Results of this study suggest multidisciplinary benefits of implementing the BIO form in oncoplastic BCS.

P184 Unsatisfactory cosmetic results after oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery

P184 Unsatisfactory cosmetic results after oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery

Combining a Chest Wall Perforator Flap and Bioabsorbable Implant to Facilitate Oncoplastic Breast-conserving Surgery

Oncoplastic breast conservation is classically divided into two approaches: volume displacement and volume replacement (VR). These approaches are important to use when more than 20% of the breast is removed to avoid deformity. Smaller, nonptotic breasts require VR strategies from flaps based off of local chest wall perforators. When larger volumes are required, a flap based off the thoracodorsal artery can be used. Although this flap can replace larger volumes, it usually requires a position change with increased operative time, patient morbidity, and longer recovery while also exhausting a major reconstructive modality. In an effort to avoid this increased operative complexity, we have found that combining a local chest wall perforator flap and bioabsorbable implant, which has been previously shown to be safe and effective in reconstructing partial mastectomy defects, allows for a simpler VR strategy in patients who might otherwise require a more extensive thoracodorsal artery-based flap surgery or a mastectomy. Here, we present 10 cases where we combined flaps based off the lateral, anterior or medial intercostal artery perforators or lateral thoracic artery perforator with a bioabsorbable implant to successfully perform oncoplastic breast conservation in patients who might otherwise be marginal candidates for VR using a local chest wall perforator flap.

SA 6.2 Benefits and risks of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery

SA 6.2 Benefits and risks of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery

Upgrade Rate of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ to Invasive Carcinoma and the Clinicopathological Factors Predicting the Upgrade Following a Mastectomy: A Retrospective Study.

Background The rate of upgrading ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) to invasive cancer varies widely in the literature with no consensus regarding sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) for DCIS; however, some guidelines do recommend it in the event of a mastectomy. The primary aim of this study was to determine the upgrade rate of DCIS to invasive carcinoma (IC) in patients undergoing mastectomy for DCIS and identify the clinicopathological predicting factors for the upgrade. The secondary aim was to determine the SLNB positivity rate. Methodology We retrospectively analysed consecutive patients with DCIS diagnosed through a biopsy who then underwent mastectomy over a 10-year period (2010 to 2020). Clinical, radiological, and histological variables were collected from medical records. Results We studied 143 women (mean age = 57.4 years, range = 26-85 years) who underwent mastectomy for DCIS identified on biopsy.Almost two-thirds (62.9%, 90/143) of the patients were detected on screening mammography, while 35.6% (51/143) were diagnosed following presentation with either an area of palpable concern or nipple discharge.The most common mammographic presentation of DCIS was calcification (83.9%, 120/143), and, in 85.9% of the patients, the mammographic lesion was more than 20 mm. High-grade DCIS was noted in 76.9% of preoperative biopsy results, while the rest was either low or intermediate-grade DCIS. Overall, 24.5% (35/143) were upgraded to IC (upgraded group) on postoperative histology, whereas 108/143 remained DCIS postoperatively (pure DCIS group).The positivity rate of SLNB was 4.8%. Multifocality was the only significant predictor of IC on multivariate analyses of clinicopathological predictors (odds ratio = 3.0, 95% confidence interval = 1.0-8.7). The presence of comedonecrosis was higher in the upgraded group compared to the pure DCIS group (42.9% vs. 27.8%), but this was not statistically significant. Conclusions In our study cohort, nearly one in four (24.5%) patients were upgraded from DCIS to IC on postoperative histology, with an SLNB positivity rate of 4.8%. This is important when counselling patients regarding the risk of coincident occult IC and the importance of SLNB at the time of mastectomy. Multifocality on preoperative imaging was the only significant predictive factor. Based on this result, we recommend that SLNB should also be considered if patients have multifocal DCIS and planned for oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery. However, further studies are required to investigate the association between multifocal DCIS and the risk of upgrading to IC.

Oncoplastic level II volume displacement surgery for breast cancer: oncological and aesthetic outcomes

Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OBCS) is increasingly used to treat breast cancer with the dual purpose of performing a radical oncological resection while minimizing the risk of post-operative deformities. The aim of the study was to evaluate the patient outcomes after Level II OBCS as regards oncological safety and patient satisfaction. Between 2015 and 2020, a cohort of 109 women consecutively underwent treatment for breast cancer with bilateral oncoplastic breast-conserving volume displacement surgery; patient satisfaction was measured with BREAST-Q questionnaire. The 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival were 97% (95%CI 92, 100) and 94% (95%CI 90, 99), respectively. In two patients (1.8%), mastectomy was finally performed due to margin involvement. The median patient-reported score for “satisfaction with breast” (BREAST-Q) was 74/100. Factors associated with a lower aesthetic satisfaction index included: location of tumour in central quadrant (p = 0.007); triple negative breast cancer (p = 0.045), and re-intervention (p = 0.044). OBCS represents a valid option in terms of oncological outcomes for patients otherwise candidate to more extensive breast conserving surgery; the high satisfaction index also suggests a superiority in terms of aesthetic outcomes.

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< 0.001 and median excised weight: 122.0g vs 36.5g, P< 0.001) and BCS plus immediate lipofilling group (mean tumor size: 23.4mm vs 17.4mm, P< 0.001 and median excised weight: 122.0g vs 37.0g, P< 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< 0.001) and psychosocial well-being (Estimate: 6.06, P=0.021 and Estimate: 9.34, P< 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< 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.

Patient-reported and clinical outcomes of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery compared with standard breast conserving surgery - results of the multicenter UMBRELLA breast cancer cohort

Background: Immediate oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (OP-BCS) is becoming increasingly popular to optimize cosmetic outcomes after BCS. Observational studies suggest promising oncological and aesthetic outcomes after OP-BCS. However, only few prospective studies evaluated patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after OP-BCS versus standard BCS (S-BSC) longitudinally. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare short- and long-term quality of life (QoL), physical and psychosocial well-being, cosmetic and clinical outcomes in breast cancer survivors treated with OP-BCS versus S-BCS.

How Can Oncoplastic Breast Surgery Contribute to the Management of Locally Advanced Breast Cancer in Sub-Saharan Africa?

Because of resource constrains in sub-Saharan African countries, breast-conserving surgery (BCS) has no role in patients with locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT), and mastectomy remains the standard surgical treatment for these patients. The first objective of the study was to assess the safety of oncoplastic BCS in patients with LABC who showed good clinical response to NACT in a breast center with enhanced level of resources in Sudan. The second objective was to assess the cosmetic outcome. Two hundred and fifty patients with LABC were treated with NACT at Khartoum Breast Care Center during the period 2013-2019. Out of this, 52 patients were surgically treated with oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery. Kaplan-Meier curve was used to calculate the survival rates. The cosmetic outcome was subjectively assessed by the Harris scale. The median follow-up period was 53 months. The 3- and 5-years distant metastasis-free survival rates were 92.9% and 82.2%, respectively. One patient developed regional recurrence, and 6 patients developed distant metastasis. Eighty percentage of patients were admitted to have good to excellent cosmetic outcome. This Sudanese experience showed that oncoplastic BCS is oncologically safe and aesthetically satisfactory in patients with LABC who demonstrated good clinical response to NACT in a setting with enhanced levels of resources for breast cancer care.

Oncoplastic Breast Conserving Surgery: Is There a Need for Standardization? Results of a Nationwide Survey

Introduction: The NABON Breast Cancer Audit showed that more than 70% of the Dutch women undergoing surgery for breast cancer maintained their breast contour by breast-conserving surgery (BCS) or by immediate reconstruction after ablative surgery. The proportion of oncoplastic surgery applied in patients undergoing breast-conserving treatment remains unknown. The aim of our study was to assess the need for standardization of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OPBCS) in an attempt to enable measurement of the quality of OPBCS. Methods: To gain a better understanding of current practice in OPBCS, we sent a questionnaire to all breast surgeons in The Netherlands who are members of the breast surgery working group (n = 134). Results: A total of 60 breast surgeons, representing different hospitals in The Netherlands, responded. 61.7% of the breast surgeons performed BCS on 60–100% of their patients. 68.3% responded that BCS was performed using OPS techniques in up to 40% of their patients. OPBCS was defined as level I volume displacement by 45.2% of the breast surgeons and as BCS performed by a breast surgeon and plastic surgeon together by 32.3% of the breast surgeons. 94.5% indicated that there is a need for standardization of the definition of OPBCS in The Netherlands. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that OPBCS is a major part of daily clinical practice of Dutch breast surgeons treating BC patients. Despite this, there is no clear definition of OPS in breast-conserving treatment in The Netherlands. Only after standardization can a classification code and quality indicator be initiated for OPBCS. Ultimately, this will facilitate improvement in quality of BC care.