4.6 Article

Oncoplastic Breast Surgery for Cancer: Analysis of 540 Consecutive Cases

Journal

PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY
Volume 125, Issue 2, Pages 454-462

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181c82d3e

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Synchronous plastic and oncological surgery is undertaken to improve the security of excision margins and yield high-quality aesthetic outcomes when conventional breast-conserving therapy either anticipates poor results or is not possible. Methods: A total of 540 consecutive patients underwent primary oncoplastic breast surgery for cancer with high tumor-to-breast volume ratios and locations precluding a good aesthetic result with simple tumor excision. A variety of techniques were employed at the Institut Curie between 1986 and 2007, and aesthetic outcomes were assessed on a five-point scale from 1 (excellent) to 5 (poor). Results: The median age was 52 years (range, 28 to 90 years), and median follow-up was 49 months (6 to 262 months). Median tumor size was 29.1 mm (range, 4 to 100 mm), with most patients (72.3 percent) having a brassiere cup size of B or C. Close or involved margins occurred in 18.9 percent, with mastectomy being necessary in 9.4 percent. A satisfactory aesthetic outcome (ratings of 1 to 3) at 5 years was obtained in 90.3 percent. Five-year overall and distant disease-free survival rates were 92.9 and 87.9 percent, respectively, with local recurrence in 6.8 percent. Conclusions: With local recurrence and survival rates similar to those for breast-conserving therapy, this series confirms the safety of oncoplastic breast surgery for tumors both high in volume and difficult in location. Highly satisfactory cosmetic outcomes extend the indications for conservative surgery, further reduce the mastectomy rate, and limit adverse aesthetic sequelae. (Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 125: 454, 2010.)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available