Volume 11, Issue 3 (2022)
WJPS 2022, 11(3): 72-77 |
Back to browse issues page
Sedighe Tahmasebi 
1, Mastoureh Mohammadipour1 , Masoumeh Ghoddusi Johari1 , Mehdi Shariat1 , Majid Akrami1 , Vahid Zangouri1 , Mohammadyasin Karami1 , Abdolrasoul Talei1
1, Mastoureh Mohammadipour1 , Masoumeh Ghoddusi Johari1 , Mehdi Shariat1 , Majid Akrami1 , Vahid Zangouri1 , Mohammadyasin Karami1 , Abdolrasoul Talei1
1- 1. Breast diseases research center, Shiraz University of Medical sciences - Shiraz, Iran.
Abstract: (937 Views)
Background: Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women and surgery is necessary for its treatment. We aimed to determine the oncologic outcomes, satisfaction with breasts, and psychosocial well-being in the patients with breast cancer, after oncoplastic and conventional breast conserving surgery (BCS).
Method: The patients with breast cancer from Shahid Motahari Clinic affiliated to Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran from December 2020 to December 2021 were allocated to two groups, one who had undergone BCS alone and the patients who had undergone oncoplastic BCS. For all the patients, demographic data, data about surgery, oncologic outcomes, wound complications, and BREAST-Q© questionnaire score were collected and compared between two groups.
Result: The mean age of the patients in the oncoplastic BCS and BCS group was 48.13±9.73 (median=48), and 50.01±8.47 (median=50) years, respectively. The mean score of psychosocial well-being was higher in the oncoplastic BCS group in comparison with BCS alone. (P-value< 0.0001). Also, the mean score of satisfaction with breast was higher among the oncoplastic BCS group in comparison with the BCS group (P-value< 0.0001).
Conclusion: Replacing traditional BCS with oncoplastic BCS does not adversely affect the oncologic results of surgery but improves the consequent psychosocial well-being and satisfaction in the patients.
Method: The patients with breast cancer from Shahid Motahari Clinic affiliated to Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran from December 2020 to December 2021 were allocated to two groups, one who had undergone BCS alone and the patients who had undergone oncoplastic BCS. For all the patients, demographic data, data about surgery, oncologic outcomes, wound complications, and BREAST-Q© questionnaire score were collected and compared between two groups.
Result: The mean age of the patients in the oncoplastic BCS and BCS group was 48.13±9.73 (median=48), and 50.01±8.47 (median=50) years, respectively. The mean score of psychosocial well-being was higher in the oncoplastic BCS group in comparison with BCS alone. (P-value< 0.0001). Also, the mean score of satisfaction with breast was higher among the oncoplastic BCS group in comparison with the BCS group (P-value< 0.0001).
Conclusion: Replacing traditional BCS with oncoplastic BCS does not adversely affect the oncologic results of surgery but improves the consequent psychosocial well-being and satisfaction in the patients.
References
1. Bertozzi N, Pesce M, Santi PL, Raposio E. Oncoplastic breast surgery: comprehensive review. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2017 Jun;21(11):2572-85. [DOI:10.1016/j.amsu.2017.07.048]
2. Kaufman CS. Increasing Role of Oncoplastic Surgery for Breast Cancer. Curr Oncol Rep 2019 Dec 14;21(12):111. [DOI:10.1007/s11912-019-0860-9]
3. Laurentine S.E. van Egdom Ao, Lisanne M.Verweij, et al. Implementing Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Clinical Breast Cancer Care: A Systematic Review. Value in Health 2019;22(1197):1197-226. [DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2019.04.1927]
4. Roberto A. Leon-Ferre TJH, Judy C. Boughey. The Landmark Series: Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Triple-Negative and HER2-Positive Breast Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2021;28:2111-9. [DOI:10.1245/s10434-020-09480-9]
5. M. Miaja AP, B. A. Martinez-Cannon. Psychological Impact of Alterations in Sexuality, Fertility, and Body Image in Young Breast Cancer Patients and Their Partners. Rev Inves Clin 2017;69:204-9. [DOI:10.24875/RIC.17002279]
6. Silvania de Cassia Vieira Archangelo MS, Neto, et al. Sexuality, depression and body image after breast reconstruction. clinics (sao paulo) 2019;74 (e883). [DOI:10.6061/clinics/2019/e883]
7. Michael Rose HS, Jürgen Handler, et al. Patient-reported outcome after oncoplastic breast surgery compared with conventional breast-conserving surgery in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 2020;180:247-56. [DOI:10.1007/s10549-020-05544-2]
8. Romuald Derbis AM-C. Adaptation of the Body Image after Breast Cancer Questionnaire in the Polish context: factorial structure and validity of the scale. Health Psychology Report 2016;4(2):170-87. [DOI:10.5114/hpr.2016.56837]
9. H. D. How do "body perfect" ideals in the media have a negative impact on body image and behaviors? Factors and processes related to self and identity. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 2009;28(1):1-8. [DOI:10.1521/jscp.2009.28.1.1]
10. Han J GD, Neises M, Hille U, Hillemanns P. Quality of life and satisfaction after breast cancer operation. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2010;282(1):75-82. [DOI:10.1007/s00404-009-1302-y]
11. Subhash K Ramani AR, Abhishek Mahajan, Nita Nair, Tanuja Shet, Meenakshi H Thakur. Imaging of the treated breast post breast conservation surgery/oncoplasty: Pictorial review. World J Radiol 2017;9(8):321-9. [DOI:10.4329/wjr.v9.i8.321]
12. Chirappapha P, Kongdan Y, Vassanasiri W, et al. Oncoplastic technique in breast conservative surgery for locally advanced breast cancer. Gland Surg 2014 Feb;3(1):22-7.
13. Paterson CL, Cecile A.L., Kristine A.D., Kevin E.K., Cindy S.T. Body Image in Younger Breast Cancer Survivors: A Systematic Review. Cancer Nurs 2016;39:39-58. [DOI:10.1097/NCC.0000000000000251]
14. Avis NE cS, Manuel J. Quality of Life Among Younger Women With Breast Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2005;23(15):3322-30. [DOI:10.1200/JCO.2005.05.130]
15. Amy Bazzarelli LB, William Petrcich, Jing Zhang, Angel Arnaout. Patient Satisfaction Following Level II Oncoplastic Breast Surgery: A Comparison with Mastectomy Utililizing the Breast-Q Questionnaire will be published in Surgical Oncology. Surgical Oncology 2020;35:556-9. [DOI:10.1016/j.suronc.2020.11.001]
16. Veiga DF SNM, Ferreira LM, Garcia EB, Veiga Filho J, Novo NF, et al. Quality of life outcomes after pedicled TRAM flap delayed breast reconstruction. Br J Plast Surg 2004;57(3):252-7. [DOI:10.1016/j.bjps.2003.12.029]
17. Gianluca Franceschini RM. Oncoplastic Breast Reconstruction in Breast Conservation Surgery: Improving the Oncological and Aesthetic Outcomes. Indian J Surg Oncol 2019;10(2):303-8. [DOI:10.1007/s13193-019-00900-1]
18. DR C. An optimized technique for all quadrant oncoplasty in women with small- to medium-sized breasts. European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences 2014;18(12):1748-54.
19. Bagheri M. MM. Body Image and Quality of Life in Female Patients with Breast Cancer and Healthy Women. Journal of Midwifery & Reproductive Health 2015;3(1):285-92.
20. Wess A. Cohen LRM, Tiffany N.S. Ballard, et al. The BREAST-Q In Surgical Research: A Review Of The Literature 2009-2015. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2016;69(2):149-62. [DOI:10.1016/j.bjps.2015.11.013]
21. Bita Eslami RO, Bahare Hesamifar,et al. development of a persian version of the breast-Q and validity and reliability of the reconstruction module for the assessment of the quality of life and patient satisfaction following breast surgery. Tehran University Medical Journal 2021;78:755-62.
22. Kaufman CS. Increasing Role of Oncoplastic Surgery for Breast Cancer. Current Oncology Reports 2019;21:111. [DOI:10.1007/s11912-019-0860-9]
23. Mohammad Athamnah NAR, Zakaria W. Shkoukani , Hussein S. Al Azzam , Amer Abu-Shanab. Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: Initial Experience Evaluating Patients Satisfaction and Oncological Safety in a Tertiary Care Centre in Jordan. Cureus 2021;13:e19238. [DOI:10.7759/cureus.19238]
24. Freeman BS. Subcutaneous mastectomy for benign breast lesions with immediate or delayed prosthetic replacement. Plastic Reconstruct Surg 1962;30. [DOI:10.1097/00006534-196212000-00008]
25. Pennisi VR CA. Subcutaneous mastectomy data: a final statistical analysis of 1500 patients. Aesthetic Plast Surg 1989;13:15-21. [DOI:10.1007/BF01570320]
26. Hartmann LC SD, Woods JE, et al. Efficacy of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in women with a family history of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1999;340:77-84. [DOI:10.1056/NEJM199901143400201]
27. Newman LA KH, Hunt KK, et al. Presentation, treatment, and outcome of local recurrence afterskin-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction. . Ann Surg Oncol 1998;5:620-6. [DOI:10.1007/BF02303832]
28. Agarwal S AS, Neumayer L, Agarwal JP. Therapeutic nipple-sparing mastectomy: trends based on a national cancer database. Am J Surg 2014;208:93-8. [DOI:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2013.09.030]
29. Julie A. Margenthaler JRD, Abhishek Chatterjee. The Landmark Series:Breast Conservation Trials (including oncoplastic breast surgery). Ann Surg Oncol 2021;28:2120-7. [DOI:10.1245/s10434-020-09534-y]
30. Nuh Zafer Cantürk TŞ, Sibel Özkan Gürdal. Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery According to Tumor Location. Eur J Breast Health 2021;17:220-33. [DOI:10.4274/ejbh.galenos.2021.2021-1-2]
31. Yuan Zhou YL, Yu Wang, Yanfei Wu. Comparison of Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Therapy and Standard Breast-Conserving Therapy in Early-Stage Breast Cancer Patients. Med Sci Monit 2021;27. [DOI:10.12659/MSM.927015]
32. Akriti Nanda JH, Sarah Hodgkinson, Sanah Ali, Richard Rainsbury, Pankaj G Roy. Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery for women with primary breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021;10(CD013658). [DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD013658.pub2]
33. Leisha C. Elmore JRD, Terence M. Myckatyn, Julie A. Margenthaler. The Landmark Series: Mastectomy Trials (Skin-Sparing and Nipple-Sparing and Reconstruction Landmark Trials). Ann Surg Oncol 2021;28:273-80. [DOI:10.1245/s10434-020-09052-x]
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |