A comparison of methods of cosmetic assessment in breast conservation treatment

Abstract The aim of this study was to compare live and photographic methods of assessing variables which can influence cosmetic outcome following breast conserving treatment. This study was undertaken in 47 patients who had previously received breast conserving surgery, radiotherapy and simultaneous chemotherapy for stage I and II breast cancer and a matched group of patients who had received surgery and radiotherapy alone. The assessment consisted of patient and spouse self-assessment, a live assessment by two trained observers and a photographic assessment by five observers, two trained and three untrained. Patients rated their outcome more favourably than their spouses, and both rated the outcomes above those of the other observers. Quantitative variables such as measurement of nipple retraction were assessed by different observers more consistently than qualitative variables such as overall perception of assessed cosmetic outcome. Upward retraction of the nipple emerged as the most powerful determinant of cosmetic outcome in the eyes of both the patient and the trained observers and was reproducibly measured by both live and photographic techniques. The distinction between post-surgical effects and post-radiation effects was more readily made by live assessment. Photographic assessment is as effective as live assessment in post-surgical cosmetic assessment. It provides reliable information about all of the factors which were important to both the patient and observers in formulating an overall cosmetic outcome score. The effects of surgery, which include nipple retraction, need to be taken into account in future trials of adjuvant therapy in which cosmesis is an important outcome measure. Stratification using upward retraction of the nipple is a possibility.

[1]  E. van der Schueren,et al.  Cosmetic evaluation of breast conserving treatment for mammary cancer. 1. Proposal of a quantitative scoring system. , 1989 .

[2]  A. Luini,et al.  Quadrantectomy versus lumpectomy for small size breast cancer. , 1990, European journal of cancer.

[3]  P. Clingan,et al.  Breast appearance and function after breast conserving surgery and radiotherapy. , 1990, Acta oncologica.

[4]  J. Borger,et al.  Conservative breast cancer treatment: analysis of cosmetic results and the role of concomitant adjuvant chemotherapy. , 1987, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[5]  H D Thames,et al.  Repair capacity and kinetics of human skin during fractionated radiotherapy: erythema, desquamation, and telangiectasia after 3 and 5 year's follow-up. , 1989, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[6]  H. Thames,et al.  Early and late normal-tissue injury after postmastectomy radiotherapy alone or combined with chemotherapy. , 1989, International journal of radiation biology.

[7]  L. R. Hill,et al.  Breast retraction assessment. Multiple variable analysis of factors responsible for cosmetic retraction in patients treated conservatively for stage I or II breast carcinoma. , 1985, Acta radiologica. Oncology.

[8]  J R Yarnold,et al.  Cosmetic and functional outcomes of breast conserving treatment for early stage breast cancer. 1. Comparison of patients' ratings, observers' ratings, and objective assessments. , 1992, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[9]  R. Pezner,et al.  Limited usefulness of observer-based cosmesis scales employed to evaluate patients treated conservatively for breast cancer. , 1985, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[10]  S Hellman,et al.  Analysis of cosmetic results following primary radiation therapy for stages I and II carcinoma of the breast. , 1979, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[11]  N. Aaronson,et al.  Cosmetic and functional outcomes of breast conserving treatment for early stage breast cancer. 2. Relationship with psychosocial functioning. , 1992, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[12]  B. Barraclough,et al.  Early breast cancer: cosmetic and functional results after treatment by conservative techniques. , 1988, The Australian and New Zealand journal of surgery.

[13]  R. Margolese Surgical considerations in selecting local therapy. , 1992, Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.

[14]  E van der Schueren,et al.  Cosmetic evaluation of breast conserving treatment for mammary cancer. 2. A quantitative analysis of the influence of radiation dose, fractionation schedules and surgical treatment techniques on cosmetic results. , 1989, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[15]  J. Denham,et al.  Boost dosage to the excision site following conservative surgery for breast cancer: it's easy to miss! , 1991, Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)).

[16]  L. R. Hill,et al.  Patient self-evaluation of cosmetic outcome of breast-preserving cancer treatment. , 1984, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.