How do women perceive their breast image before and after bilateral therapeutic mammoplasty for early breast cancer?

INTRODUCTION: Bilateral therapeutic mammoplasty (BTM) is commonly performed in the UK during treatment for breast cancer, and the available data show oncological safety. This study aims to compare patient-recorded outcome measures before and after surgery, as well as associated patient factors. METHODS: Between March 2018 and December 2019, patients undergoing BTM for breast cancer completed validated BREAST-Q reduction modules before and 3 months after surgery and a radiotherapy domain at 3 months. Scores were correlated with clinical data. For BREAST-Q scales, a higher score (0-100) represents greater satisfaction or quality of life. RESULTS: 28 patients were included, median age 58 years (IQR 52-64), BMI 32.0 (IQR 27.8-34.0). Of these, 1 had bilateral disease, 2 had multifocal disease, and the remaining had unilateral disease. Most (55%) underwent Wise pattern incision. At 3 months post-operatively, the following outcome scores improved based on the Wilcoxon signed-rank test: satisfaction with breasts (median 44 to 84; p < 0.001), psychosocial wellbeing (57.5 to 83; p < 0.001) and sexual wellbeing (48 to 61; p = 0.029). The improvement in satisfaction with breasts score correlated with the preoperative score (p = 0.011), with a larger increase in patients with a lower baseline score. Physical wellbeing was unchanged overall (median 71 to 72). In all solely post-operative domains (satisfaction with information, outcome, nipples and following radiation), patients reported high levels of satisfaction with outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Patients reported improved levels of patient-related quality of life measures after therapeutic mammoplasty, including satisfaction with breasts and psychosocial and sexual wellbeing, with high post-operative outcomes in satisfaction with outcome, information and nipples, as well as radiation Q-score.

Therapeutic Reduction Mammoplasty: Experience of a Single Institute.

INTRODUCTION: Breast cancer is the most common malignancy in women worldwide as reported by the World Health Organization. The concept of oncoplastic breast surgery appeared as an extension of breast-conserving surgery, applying breast reduction techniques with more acceptable aesthetic and functional outcomes. The purpose of the present study was to describe the breast cancer population of a single institute submitted to lumpectomy and bilateral immediate breast reduction or mastopexy and its complications. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study including patients submitted to lumpectomy and immediate bilateral breast reduction or mastopexy. Patients and tumour characteristics, surgical technique, complications, follow-up period, and recurrence data were obtained and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 49 patients were submitted to lumpectomy and bilateral breast therapeutic reduction/mastopexy, with a mean age of 56.47 ±8.58 years and a mean body mass index of 28.68kg/m2 ±3.94 kg/m² between January 2019 and December 2021. Invasive tumours of no specific type, associated or not, with carcinoma intraductal in situ were the most common histological type corresponding to almost 80% of the cases with T1 stage corresponding to more than half of the cases. Sixteen percent of the patients had early minor complications with wound dehiscence associated with wound delayed healing, corresponding to 75% of the cases. Body mass index had a statistical difference between groups (p=0,006, t-test). CONCLUSIONS: The low rates of minor and major complications show that immediate therapeutic breast reduction can be a suitable approach in selected cases.

Plastic and reconstructive breast surgery techniques in the surgical treatment of idiopathic granulomatous mastitis: a single-center experience.

Purpose: Idiopathic granulomatous mastitis (IGM) is a chronic inflammatory breast disease with unknown cause and undefined treatment. Since it has a high recurrence rate, wide excisions are recommended for surgical treatment. This study aims to discuss the selection and outcomes of plastic and reconstructive breast surgery techniques following wide excision. Methods: This study examines the prospectively recorded surgical outcomes of 18 patients who were diagnosed with IGM between 2020 and 2022. Following histopathological confirmation of all patients' diagnoses, the most appropriate technique was used in conjunction with wide surgical excision. Preoperative standing drawings were made for all patients and operations were performed by the same surgical team under general anesthesia. All patients were monitored for 6 months for postoperative complications, recurrence, and aesthetic outcomes. Results: The patients underwent surgery for recurrence (n = 8), recurrent abscess (n = 4), and persistent disease (n = 6), in that order. Patients were treated with dermoglandular flap transposition (n = 6), Wise pattern reduction mammoplasty (n = 3), vertical reduction skin incision (n = 3), inferior pedicle with Wise pattern reduction mammoplasty (n = 4), and free nipple reduction mammoplasty (n = 2) techniques following partial mastectomy. No major complications developed postoperatively. Two patients with recurrence benefited from topical steroid injections. Conclusion: A wide excision is required to prevent IGM recurrence during surgery. After wide excision, the simplest and most easily applicable plastic and reconstructive breast surgery techniques can yield successful results with acceptable complication and recurrence rates. In technique selection, we recommend an individualized surgical approach for effective patient management.

Comparing oncoplastic breast reduction with immediate symmetry surgery to standard breast reduction surgery: Are postoperative complications worse?

INTRODUCTION: Oncoplastic breast reduction mammoplasty (ORM) is an excellent treatment option for women with breast cancer and macromastia undergoing breast conservation therapy. Here, we aim to better understand the risks associated with ORM compared to standard reduction mammoplasty (SRM). METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed of patients undergoing ORM or SRM from 2015 to 2021. Primary outcomes included the occurrence of major or minor postoperative complications in the two groups and delays to adjuvant therapy (>90 days) among the women undergoing ORM. RESULTS: Women in the ORM group (n = 198) were significantly older (p < 0.001) with a higher prevalence of smoking (p < 0.001), diabetes mellitus (p < 0.01), and a Charlson comorbidity index ≥ 3 (p < 0.001) compared to women undergoing SRM (n = 177). After controlling for potential confounders, there were no significant between-group differences in the odds of developing postoperative complications (odds ratio = 0.80, 95% confidence interval: 0.36-1.69). Only 3% (n = 4) of the 150 women undergoing adjuvant radiation or chemotherapy experienced delays related to postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: ORM has a similar safety profile as SRM, despite the older age and higher number of comorbidities often seen in patients undergoing ORM, and is a safe option for achieving contralateral symmetry at the time of partial mastectomy without delays to adjuvant therapy.

The challenge of equipoise: qualitative interviews exploring the views of health professionals and women with multiple ipsilateral breast cancer on recruitment to a surgical randomised controlled feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: A multicentre feasibility trial (MIAMI), comparing outcomes and quality of life of women with multiple ipsilateral breast cancer randomised to therapeutic mammoplasty or mastectomy, was conducted from September 2018 to March 2020. The MIAMI surgical trial aimed to investigate recruitment of sufficient numbers of women. Multidisciplinary teams at 10 breast care centres in the UK identified 190 with MIBC diagnosis; 20 were eligible for trial participation but after being approached only four patients were recruited. A nested qualitative study sought to understand the reasons for this lack of recruitment. METHODS: Interviews were conducted from November 2019 to September 2020 with 17 staff from eight hospital-based breast care centres that recruited and attempted to recruit to MIAMI; and seven patients from four centres, comprising all patients who were recruited to the trial and some who declined to take part. Interviews were audio-recorded, anonymised and analysed using thematic methods of building codes into themes and sub-themes using the process of constant comparison. RESULTS: Overarching themes of (1) influences on equipoise and recruitment and (2) effects of a lack of equipoise were generated. Within these themes, health professional themes described the barriers to recruitment as 'the treatment landscape has changed', 'staff preferences and beliefs' which influenced equipoise and patient advice; and how different the treatments were for patients. Patient themes of 'altruism and timing of trial approach', 'influences from consultants and others' and 'diagnostic journey doubts' all played a part in whether patients agreed to take part in the trial. CONCLUSIONS: Barriers to recruiting to breast cancer surgical trials can be significant, especially where there are substantial differences between the treatments being offered and a lack of equipoise communicated by healthcare professionals to patients. Patients can become overwhelmed by numerous requests for participation in research trials and inappropriate timing of trial discussions. Alternative study designs to the gold standard randomised control trial for surgical interventions may be required to provide the high-quality evidence on which to base practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ( ISRCTN17987569 ) registered on April 20, 2018, and ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03514654 ).

Factors influencing decisions on contralateral symmetrisation procedure among patients with breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OBCS) can cause breast asymmetry. Although contralateral breast surgery to achieve symmetry was offered to these patients, the uptake of symmetrisation was variable. We aimed to determine the factors that deter patients with breast cancer undergoing OBCS from opting for symmetrisation. METHODS: All patients with breast cancer who underwent OBCS of displacement type with no symmetrisation were prospectively surveyed to explore the social, economic, psychological and physical reasons against symmetrisation. RESULTS: A total of 28 patients participated in a survey administered at a mean 21.6 (range 2-47) months after OBCS. A combination of factors, such as worry and desire to treat breast cancer first (67.9%), not being overly concerned about breast cosmesis (57.1%) and fear of pain from additional operation (28.6%), deterred patients from immediate symmetrisation. Worry and desire to treat breast cancer first was the most important single factor for 50% of the patients. Reasons for no delayed symmetrisation included not being overly concerned about breast cosmesis (70.4%), fear of breast cancer recurrence (48.1%) and being happy with current breast cosmesis (33.3%), with the former two reasons equally cited as the single most important deterrent by 30% of patients each. CONCLUSION: A combination of factors may deter patients from symmetrisation. The most significant factors deterring OBCS among patients were worry and desire to treat breast cancer first for immediate symmetrisation, and not being overly concerned about breast cosmesis and fear of breast cancer recurrence for delayed symmetrisation. Reassuring these patients may increase their uptake of symmetrisation, thereby improving patient cosmesis and satisfaction.

Advanced breast conservation and partial breast reconstruction - a review of current available options for oncoplastic breast surgery.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer affecting one in three women with new cancer diagnosis in England. Breast-conserving surgery is the primary surgical option in a vast majority of these patients. Use of oncoplastic techniques in breast conservation surgery has significantly improved the aesthetic outcomes without compromising the oncological safety of cancer resections. Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OPBCS) has transformed the specialty with a paradigm shift in ideology and the recognition that aesthetic and oncological resections are synonymous when planning surgical intervention for patients with breast cancer. The two main options for OPBCS are therapeutic mammoplasty and partial beast reconstruction using pedicle-based flaps. This review aims to highlight key concepts in OPBCS demonstrating an overview of these surgical techniques, their safety, outcomes and the emergence of extreme oncoplastic breast surgery.

Extreme Oncoplasty: Breast Conservation in Patients with Large, Multifocal, and Multicentric Breast Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Extreme Oncoplastic Breast Conservation Surgery (EOBCS) is offered in selected patients with multifocal or multicentric breast cancer (MFMC). Recent evidence has suggested that EOBCS may be a valuable resource for patients with MFMC who may avoid the risk associated with mastectomy in favour of the benefits of breast conservation without risking their oncological outcomes. Our study examined the practice of EOBCS in two regional breast units in Glasgow, United Kingdom. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospectively collected database of 50 patients treated with EOBC in two breast units in Glasgow between 2007 and 2018 were evaluated, and clinical outcomes were observed. RESULTS: Fifty patients (median age 55) underwent EOBCS, of which 43 (86%) had invasive disease. Median tumour size was 55mm (50-90) and multifocal disease was identified in 22 (44%) patients. Nine patients (18%) were found to have positive margins and underwent a second procedure, with 6 (12%) proceeding to mastectomy. Five-year disease free survival rate was 91.5%, while cancer-specific survival was 95.7%. CONCLUSION: EOBCS is oncologically safe in short-term follow-up. Large scale studies are required to confirm these preliminary results, in order to offer EOBCS as a valid option to patients with advanced or multifocal breast cancer.

Age and cancer treatment factors influence patient-reported outcomes following therapeutic mammoplasty and contralateral symmetrisation for the treatment of breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Oncoplastic surgery for breast cancer has increased in popularity over the last few years, with oncological safety confirmed in several studies. There are, however, limited published data on patient-reported outcomes from this surgical approach. This study assessed patient-reported outcomes of satisfaction following therapeutic mammoplasty and contralateral symmetrisation (TMCS) as part of breast cancer treatment in relation to other patient and treatment factors. METHODS: The validated BREAST-Q™ breast reduction module was sent to all surviving patients who had no documented cancer recurrence and had undergone TMCS in NHS Tayside between August 2013 and August 2017. The Q-score was used to analyse data and correlate with patient clinical information, surgical, pathology and treatment factors. Ethical approval was granted by the University of Dundee ethics committee. RESULTS: The patient response rate to the study was 64.5% (60 of 93 patients), with a mean age of 59 years (range 41-75 years). In all domains, patients reported high levels of satisfaction with outcomes. There were strong correlations between domains with the exception of physical symptoms. Younger patients reported poorer outcomes in domains that related to satisfaction with outcomes of surgery, psychosocial aspects, sexual function and physical symptoms. Treatment with chemotherapy and/or trastuzumab and lymph node positivity were associated with poorer outcomes in a number of domains. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that patients report high levels of satisfaction after TMCS, but this is influenced by age. Patient-reported outcomes that include physical and psychosocial appear to be more strongly influenced by medical treatments than surgery.

Oncological Safety of Oncoplastic Level II Mammoplasties After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Large Breast Cancers: A Matched-Cohort Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Oncoplastic surgery (OPS) has extended the indications for breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Its role in patients with large breast cancers treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is unclear. This study evaluated the oncological safety of OPS for tumors with partial response after NAC. METHODS: A consecutive series of 65 patients who underwent OPS (study group) after NAC for large breast cancer from January 2004 to July 2018 was compared with 130 matched patients treated by NAC, followed by standard BCS in 65 cases and mastectomy in 65 cases (two case-controlled groups). RESULTS: The mean initial radiological tumor size was 46 mm. Residual pathological tumor size was 22 mm in the OPS cohort, 19 mm in the standard BCS cohort, and 31 mm in the mastectomy cohort (p > 0.05). The mean follow-up was 59 months in the study cohort. Five-year local recurrence rates were 0%, 0%, and 10.5% (0-22%) for the OPS, BCS, and mastectomy cohorts, respectively, while 5-year regional recurrence rates were 4.1% (0-11.1%), 0, and 19.4% (0-35.2%, p > 0.05), respectively. Five-year overall survival was 85.3% for the OPS cohort, 94.1% for the standard BCS cohort (p = 0.194), and 79.9% for the mastectomy cohort (p = 0.165). CONCLUSIONS: OPS is safe after NAC for large breast cancers, and provides excellent local control, identical to that of tumors with a better response, treated by standard BCS. After NAC, OPS can be a valuable treatment option for tumors that did not shrink optimally and would not be suitable for standard BCS.

Is oncoplastic breast conserving surgery oncologically safe? A meta-analysis of 18,103 patients.

BACKGROUND: Oncoplastic Breast Conserving Surgery (OBCS) allows adequate resection margins of tumours unsuitable for standard breast conserving surgery (SBCS) whilst allowing for better cosmesis and reduced morbidity when compared to mastectomy. However, there is limited evidence on its oncological safety. METHODS: This study aims to compare oncological safety of OBCS with SBCS and mastectomy by examining the relative risk of cancer recurrence and re-operation rates through meta-analysis. RESULTS: 18 studies met the search criteria including 18,103 patients. The primary outcome measure (recurrence) was not significantly different between OBCS and SBCS or mastectomy (RR 0.861; 95% CI 0.640-1.160; p = 0.296). The secondary outcome measure (re-operation) initially achieved significance in favour of OBCS (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.46-0.89; p = 0.01). However, after adjustment for publication bias this was attenuated to insignificance between the two study groups (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.56-1.31; p = 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: For both cancer recurrence and re-operation rate, there was no significant difference between OBCS and traditional techniques. OBCS is of comparable oncological safety to more established surgical procedures and a useful option in suitable patients.

Extreme oncoplastic conservation is a safe new alternative to mastectomy.

OBJECTIVES: Extreme oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (eOPBCS) allows breast conservation for tumours ≥ 50 mm, but long-term outcomes are unclear. We investigated early complications and the longer-term clinical and oncological outcomes following eOPBCS to assess the clinical utility and safety of this technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospectively collected database of all eOPBCS procedures (1993-2016) using LD miniflaps (LDm) and therapeutic mammoplasties (TM) was interrogated and cross-checked with hospital records to establish length of follow up (FU), clinical outcomes (complications, revisions), local recurrence (LR) and survival. RESULTS: Ninety eOPBCS procedures (62 LDm, 28 TM) performed for large tumours (mean 67 [50-177] mm) were identified, overall FU 80 (10-308) months (LDm 91 [13-308], TM 54 [10-120] months). Forty two per cent were node positive, and 2 were benign (benign cases excluded from LR and FU analysis). Eleven patients required surgery for involved excision margins (LDm 3 re-excisions and 2 mastectomies, TM 6 mastectomies). Surgery for complications and subsequent revision was required in 6% and 37% of LDm and 18% and 7% of TM patients, respectively. Seven patients developed LR (LDm 5 versus TM 2) giving a predicted 5 and 10 year LR rate of 1.1% and 16%. CONCLUSION: Long-term FU of this unique series has confirmed that eOPBCS is a safe procedure for patients with bulky tumours normally treated by mastectomy, without risking local control. TM patients experienced more early complications but LDm patients required more revisions over a more prolonged period of FU.

Evaluation of the central pedicled, modified Wise-pattern technique as a standard level II oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery: A retrospective clinicopathological study of 190 breast cancer patients.

Involving 207 breast cancer patients a retrospective study was performed to facilitate the acceptance of the central pedicled, modified Wise-pattern therapeutic mammoplasty technique as a standard volume-displacement level II oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OBCS). The overall local recurrence rate was 5.8% with an average follow-up of 43.9 months. The median time to the initiation of the adjuvant treatment was 4.9 weeks. Due to positive surgical margins, 13 (6.84%) completional surgeries were performed. In total, 45 complications (12.9%) were recorded. The median values of the esthetic outcomes represented improved cosmetic results. The modified Wise-pattern technique could be a standard, safe and repeatable level II volume-displacement OBCS.

Oncoplastic breast surgery versus conventional breast-conserving surgery: a comparative retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: In addition to conventional breast-conserving surgery (BCS), oncoplastic breast surgery (OBS) is an operation technique that strives simultaneously to increase oncological safety and patient's satisfaction. It is the combination of the best-proven techniques in plastic surgery with surgery for breast cancer. In a growing number of indications, OBS overcomes the limit of conventional BCS by allowing larger resection volumes while avoiding deformities. The aim of our retrospective study (2012-2014) was to compare oncological outcomes of OBS versus BCS. METHODS: We compared two groups of patients with primary non-metastatic breast tumours: group A (n = 291), where BCS was performed, versus group B (n = 52), where OBS was performed. Surgical interventions were performed in German and Swiss teaching hospital settings. The surgeon for group B had subspecialist training in OBS. We assessed outcome in term of re-excision rates, resection margin and complications. RESULTS: Groups were homogenous (no significant differences in terms of age, tumour size, tumour type or grade). The resection margin was larger in group B (7 mm) than in group A (3 mm). Re-excision rate of group B (8%) was significantly lower than in group A (31%). Complication rates were comparably low in groups A and B. CONCLUSION: Despite the limits of retrospective design, our study confirms that OBS is safe and reduces the re-excision rates and the need for further surgery. OBS has the potential to improve oncological care and should be more widely adopted.

Indications and Controversies in Partial Mastectomy Defect Reconstruction.

Breast cancer surgical treatment nowadays includes oncoplastic surgery. It is a reliable oncologic surgical treatment, which also prevents functional and aesthetic sequelae, thus improving the patient's quality of life and satisfaction. Numerous techniques have been described, with different levels of complexity and technicality. Their indications differ depending on the global breast volume and the degree of ptosis, on the tumor volume compared with the breast volume, and on the tumor location. This article describes the authors' many years of experience of breast cancer treatment using oncoplastic surgery. They also established a decision-making guide, whose implementation enables treatment of every patient.

Evaluating the current evidence to support therapeutic mammoplasty or breast-conserving surgery as an alternative to mastectomy in the treatment of multifocal and multicentric breast cancers.

The oncological safety of treating multiple ipsilateral breast cancers (MIBCs) with types of breast conserving surgery (BCS) compared to mastectomy remains uncertain. This is predicated on the absence of any randomised controlled trials or high-quality protocol defined prospective cohort studies. A single recently published systematic review by the first author, reports its summarised results in this review. Fundamentally the important question is the evaluation of clinical safety following BCS compared to mastectomy for treating MIBC, which is reported in only six studies. Consequently, current evidence doesn't support the latest St Gallen consensus suggesting the possibility of using BCS to treat all MIBC. There is minimal comparative outcomes data on multicentric (MC) cancers compared to multifocal (MF) cancers comparing BCS or mastectomy. There is also poor evidence of clinical outcomes following therapeutic mammoplasty (TM) for MIBC compared to mastectomy. The potential recommendation of two potential radiotherapy boosts to separate lumpectomy sites following BCS for MC cancers remains a novel treatment concept whose feasibility will be evaluated in the forthcoming NIHR funded randomised feasibility trial called MIAMI. This is a world first attempt to assess the feasibility of a randomised trial design alongside the on-going Alliance registry study (ACOSOG, American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z11102) in the USA, in which there is no comparative evaluation of mastectomy outcomes. The MIAMI trial aims to assess the clinical safety of multiple lumpectomies combined with TM compared to the standard of mastectomy in MIBC stratified by MF or MC cancers. There is limited evidence on the impacts of inter-tumoral heterogeneity relating to breast cancer subtypes in relation to individualised treatments and recommendations for types of breast surgery. Recent studies have highlighted the potential contributions of stromal epigenetic changes that are currently poorly understood regarding their contributions to either clinical unifocal or MF cancers.

Oncological safety and cosmetic outcomes in oncoplastic breast conservation surgery, a review of the best level of evidence literature.

Oncoplastic breast conservation surgery (OBCS) is increasingly becoming part of routine breast cancer surgical management. OBCS may be viewed as an extension of standard breast conservation surgery for resecting tumors of larger sizes without compromising on cosmetic outcome, or as an alternative to mastectomy. High quality evidence to support the oncological safety and benefits of OBCS is lacking. This review will focus on the best available level of evidence and address key issues regarding oncological safety in OBCS, such as tumor resection margins and re-excision rates, local recurrence and patient outcome, postoperative complications and adjuvant therapy delivery, and briefly discuss cosmetic outcome in OBCS. Comparative observational studies and systematic review report no poorer outcomes compared with standard breast conservation surgery. More evidence needs to be generated to support the oncological safety and improved aesthetic outcome. Prospective data collection will significantly contribute to the generation of stronger evidence.

Oncoplastic breast conservation surgery is oncologically safe when compared to wide local excision and mastectomy.

BACKGROUND: Support for the oncological safety of oncoplastic breast conservation surgery (OBCS) is mostly based on evidence comparing recurrence rates after OBCS to wide local excision (WLE). However, OBCS is often indicated for larger cancers and oncological results should also be compared to patients treated with mastectomy. In this study we compared recurrence and survival following OBCS, mastectomy and WLE. METHODS: Patients treated with OBCS between 2009 and 2012 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. For comparison, consecutive patients treated with WLE or mastectomy with or without immediate reconstruction (Ms ± IR) over the same time period were identified. Histological variables of patients were compared using Fisher Exact or Chi squared tests, and recurrence and survival were compared using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression survival analysis. RESULTS: 980 patients' data were analysed (OBCS: n = 104; WLE: n = 558; Ms ± IR: n = 318). Tumour size, grade, nodal status, ER, and PR expression of patients treated with OBCS were all significantly more adverse compared with patients treated with WLE (p < 0.001). These histological variables were similar in patients treated with Ms ± IR and OBCS. 5-year local recurrence rates were similar in all three groups (WLE: 3.4 per cent, OBCS: 2 per cent, Ms ± IR: 2.6 per cent; log rank = 0.973), while distant recurrence rates were higher after Ms ± IR and OBCS (Ms ± IR:13.1 per cent, OBCS:7.5 per cent, WLE:3.3 per cent; log rank: p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: OBCS is oncologically safe in patients even when histological results are similar to patients treated with Ms ± IR.