THE COSMETIC OUTCOME OF BREAST RECONSTRUCTION
REPRODUCIBILITY OF DIFFERENT METHODS ASSESSED BY DIFFERENT PROFESSIONALS
Keywords:
breast neoplasms, reconstructive surgical procedures, surgery, plasticAbstract
Objective: To compare the reproducibility of different methods for assessing the cosmetic outcome of breast reconstruction, which was assessed by different health professionals. Methods: Photographs of 270 breast cancer patients who had been submitted to breast reconstruction of some type were included. A plastic surgeon, a resident in plastic surgery, two mastologists, two residents in mastology, and two psychologists performed the evaluation. The modified Garbay and Harvard scales and the objective BCCT. core software program were used. Cohen’s Kappa and Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated. Results: The mean age of the patients was 55.7 (±11.1) years. Overall, 145 women (53.7%) underwent partial breast reconstruction and 125 (46.3%), total breast reconstruction. The mean follow-up time was 63.7±45.6 months. By applying the Harvard scale, the interobserver reproducibility among the different professionals was minimal; whereas the Garbay scale had no agreement. The correlations between the BCCT.core software program and the Harvard and modified Garbay scales were moderate. Conclusion: Correlations between both the modified Garbay scale and the Harvard scale and the objective (BCCT.core) test were moderate. There was less interobserver variability with the Harvard scale compared to the modified Garbay scale.
Downloads
References
Freitas-Junior R, Gagliato DM, Moura Filho JW, Gouveia PA, Rahal RMS, Paulinelli RR, et al. Trends in breast cancer surgery at Brazil’s public health system. J Surg Oncol. 2017;115(5):544- 9. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.24572
Weber WP, Soysal SD, El-Tamer M, Sacchini V, Knauer M, Tausch C, et al. First international consensus conference on standardization of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;165(1):139-49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4314-5
Cardoso JS, Cardoso MJ. Towards an intelligent medical system for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment. Artif Intell Med. 2007;40(2):115-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artmed.2007.02.007
Garbay JR, Rietjens M, Petit JY. Esthetic results of breast reconstruction after amputation for cancer. 323 cases. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 1992;21(4):405-12.
Harris JR, Levene MB, Svensson G, Hellman S. Analysis of cosmetic results following primary radiation therapy for stages I and II carcinoma of the breast. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1979;5(2):257-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(79)90729-6
Leonardi MC, Garusi C, Santoro L, Dell’Acqua V, Rossetto F, Didier F, et al. Impact of medical discipline and observer gender on cosmetic outcome evaluation in breast reconstruction using transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flap and radiotherapy. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2010;63(12):2091-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2010.02.013
Cardoso MJ, Cardoso J, Santos AC, Barros H, Cardoso de Oliveira M. Interobserver agreement and consensus over the esthetic evaluation of conservative treatment for breast cancer. Breast. 2006;15(1):52-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2005.04.013
Preuss J, Lester L, Saunders C. BCCT.core - can a computer program be used for the assessment of aesthetic outcome after breast reconstructive surgery? Breast. 2012;21(4):597- 600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2012.05.012
Cardoso MJ, Cardoso JS, Oliveira HP, Gouveia P. The breast cancer conservative treatment. Cosmetic results - BCCT. core - Software for objective assessment of esthetic outcome in breast cancer conservative treatment: A narrative review. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2016;126:154-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2015.11.010
Urban C. Rietjens M (eds.). Oncoplastic and reconstructive breast surgery. Milan: Springer, 2013.
Rose MA, Olivotto I, Cady B, Koufman C, Osteen R, Silver B, et al. Conservative surgery and radiation therapy for early breast cancer. Long-term cosmetic results. Arch Surg. 1989;124(2):153- 7. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.1989.01410020023002
Wachter T, Edlinger M, Foerg C, Djedovic G, Mayerl C, Kinzl J, et al. Differences between patients and medical professionals in the evaluation of aesthetic outcome following breast reconstruction with implants. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2014;67(8):1111-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2014.04.004
Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159-74.
Evans JD. Straightforward Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing; 1996.
Cardoso MJ, Cardoso J, Amaral N, Azevedo I, Barreau L, Bernardo M, et al. Turning subjective into objective: the BCCT. core software for evaluation of cosmetic results in breast cancer conservative treatment. Breast. 2007;16(5):456-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2007.05.002
Casella D, Di Taranto G, Marcasciano M, Sordi S, Kothari A, Kovacs T, et al. Nipple-sparing bilateral prophylactic mastectomy and immediate reconstruction with TiLoop® Bra mesh in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers: A prospective study of long-term and patient reported outcomes using the BREAST-Q. Breast. 2018;39:8-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2018.02.001
Santos G, Urban C, Edelweiss MI, Zucca-Matthes G, de Oliveira VM, Arana GH, et al. Long-Term Comparison of Aesthetical Outcomes After Oncoplastic Surgery and Lumpectomy in Breast Cancer Patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(8):2500-8. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014- 4301-6
Ho PJ, Hartman M, Young-Afat DA, Gernaat SAM, Lee SC, Verkooijen HM. Determinants of satisfaction with cosmetic outcome in breast cancer survivors: A cross-sectional study. PLoS One. 2018;13(2):e0193099. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193099
Wijgman DJ, Ten Wolde B, van Groesen NR, Keemers-Gels ME, van den Wildenberg FJ, Strobbe LJ, et al. Short term safety of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery for larger tumors. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43(4):665-71. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ejso.2016.11.021
Ojala K, Meretoja TJ, Leidenius MH. Aesthetic and functional outcome after breast conserving surgery - Comparison between conventional and oncoplastic resection. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43(4):658-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2016.11.019
Olsen MA, Nickel KB, Fox IK, Margenthaler JA, Wallace AE, Fraser VJ. Comparison of Wound Complications After Immediate, Delayed, and Secondary Breast Reconstruction Procedures. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(9):e172338. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2017.2338
Andrades P, Fix RJ, Danilla S, Howell RE 3rd, Campbell WJ, De la Torre J, et al. Ischemic complications in pedicle, free, and muscle sparing transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flaps for breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2008;60(5):562- 7. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0b013e31816fc372
Chirappapha P, Somintara O, Lertsithichai P, Kongdan Y, Supsamutchai C, Sukpanich R, et al. Complications and oncologic outcomes of pedicled transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap in breast cancer patients. Gland Surg. 2016;5(4):405-15. https://dx.doi.org/10.21037%2Fgs.2016.07.01
Soares PCM, Pires DM, Medeiros CM. The standardization of photographic records for oncoplastic and breast reconstructive surgery. Mastology. 2017;27(4):352-8. https://dx.doi.org/10.29289/2594539420170000248
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2019 Ruffo Freitas-Junior, Hugo Andrade Bayeh, Regis Resende Paulinelli, Leonardo Ribeiro Soares, Ana-Carolina Lagos Prates, Pauline Camargo Morais, Izabela Cristina Souza de Albuquerque, Aloisio Garcia Souza, Tuanny Roberta Beloti
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
