Evaluation of a Retroglandular Oncoplastic Technique as a Standard Level I Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery: A Retrospective Clinicopathologic Study of 102 Patients With Breast Cancer

Mátrai, Zoltán; Újhelyi, Mihály; Kovács, Tibor; Kelemen, P. B.; Sávolt, Ákos; Kovács, Eszter; Éles, Klára; Mészáros, Norbert; Kenessey, István; Stamatiou, Alexia; Pukancsik, Dávid

doi:10.1016/j.clbc.2019.02.005

Cited by 11 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…All 75 studies used subjective aesthetic assessments; six studies also used objective methods (Breast Cancer Conservative Treatment. Cosmetic results (BCCT.core) software 40 , 45 , 78 , 90 , 91 or breast symmetry index 92 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Numeric or qualitative scoring systems were most commonly used for subjective assessment ( n = 72, 96.0 per cent), based on patient self-assessment or clinical assessment ( Table 4 ). In 27 studies (36.0 per cent) 31 , 40 , 42 , 65 , 66 , 68 , 73 , 85 , 86 , 88 , 90 , 93–108 , subjective aesthetic outcome assessment utilized two-dimensional digital patient photographs, where specified. In four studies 74 , 95 , 109 , 110 , patients were questioned ‘informally’, or the methodology was unclear.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Aesthetic outcome was assessed by the patient and clinician ( n = 25, 33.3 per cent) 31 , 36 , 38 , 40 , 42 , 45 , 58 , 65 , 66 , 70 , 76 , 88 , 91–93 , 102 , 103 , 108 , 111 , 112 , 116 , 118–121 , clinician only ( n = 25, 33.3 per cent) 39 , 63 , 68 , 73 , 78 , 79 , 81 , 85 , 96 , 97 , 99–101 , 107 , 113 , 122–126 , patient only ( n = 22, 29.3 per cent) 2 , 47 , 49 , 54 , 64 , 67 , 72 , 74 , 89 , 94 , 109 , 110 , 114 , 117 , 127–135 or was unclear ( n = 2, 2.7 per cent) 95 , 136 . Very few studies ( n = 4) included non-medical staff in aesthetic rating panels …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Where clinicians assessed aesthetic outcome, they were stated explicitly to be independent of care provision in 14 of 50 studies 31 , 42 , 45 , 76 , 97 , 99 , 100 , 106 , 112 , 113 , 115 , 116 , 122 , 123 . Similarly, few studies assessed correlation between aesthetic evaluation by clinicians and/or patient satisfaction and/or BCCT.core software 40 , 45 , 85 . Santos and colleagues reported poor concordance in aesthetic result evaluated by a patient questionnaire, specialists (Garbay criteria) and BCCT.core software 45 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Outcome reporting in therapeutic mammaplasty: a systematic review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Therapeutic mammaplasty (TM) is an oncological procedure which combines tumour resection with breast reduction and mastopexy techniques. Previous systematic reviews have demonstrated the oncological safety of TM but reporting of critically important outcomes, such as quality of life, aesthetic and functional outcomes, are limited, piecemeal or inconsistent. This systematic review aimed to identify all outcomes reported in clinical studies of TM to facilitate development of a core outcome set. Methods Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science were searched from inception to 5 August 2020. Included studies reported clinical outcomes following TM for adult women. Two authors screened articles independently for eligibility. Data were extracted regarding the outcome definition and classification type (for example, oncological, quality of life, etc.), time of outcome reporting and measurement tools. Results Of 5709 de-duplicated records, 148 were included in the narrative synthesis. The majority of studies (n = 102, 68.9 per cent) reported measures of survival and/or recurrence; approximately three-quarters (n = 75, 73.5 per cent) had less than 5 years follow-up. Aesthetic outcome was reported in half of studies (n = 75, 50.7 per cent) using mainly subjective, non-validated measurement tools. The time point at which aesthetic assessment was conducted was highly variable, and only defined in 48 (64.0 per cent) studies and none included a preoperative baseline for comparison. Few studies reported quality of life (n = 30, 20.3 per cent), functional outcomes (n = 5, 3.4 per cent) or resource use (n = 28, 18.9 per cent). Conclusion Given the oncological equivalence of TM and mastectomy, treatment decisions are often driven by aesthetic and functional outcomes, which are infrequently and inconsistently reported with non-validated measurement tools.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Outcome reporting in therapeutic mammaplasty: a systematic review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, standardization of OBCS is necessary for structured education and training, and to plan welldesigned, prospective multicenter studies. [26,27] According to the first international consensus conference on standardization of OBCS held in Basel 2017, the Clough bi-level classification was recommended for standard use in clinical practice for indicating, planning and performing OBCS, and the Hoffmann classification for surgical reports and billing purposes. [26] Mastopexy and reduction mammoplasty were the only two recognized OBCS procedure categories supported by a majority of the panel.…”

Section: Techniques and Standardization Of Obcsmentioning

confidence: 99%