Aesthetic result after breast-conserving therapy is associated with quality of life several years after treatment. Swedish women evaluated with BCCT.core and BREAST-Q™.

PURPOSE: A gold standard for evaluation of aesthetic outcome after breast-conserving therapy (BCT) is still lacking. The BCCT.core software has been developed to assess aesthetic result in a standardised way. We aimed to study how the result of BCCT.core after BCT is associated with quality of life, measured with the BREAST-Q™, a validated questionnaire. METHODS: Women eligible for BCT were consecutively recruited between February 1st 2008 and January 31st 2012 (n = 653). Photographs of 310 women, taken one year after BCT, were evaluated using the BCCT.core software. The postoperative BCT module of the BREAST-Q™ questionnaire was administered by mail and 348 questionnaires were returned (median 5.5 years after BCT). In all, 216 women had both BCCT.core results and completed BREAST-Q™ questionnaires available. RESULTS: The results from the BCCT.core evaluation were: excellent n = 49 (15.8%); good n = 178 (57.4%); fair n = 73 (23.5%); poor n = 10 (3.2%). The median BREAST-Q™ score for satisfaction with breasts was 66 [interquartile range (IQR) 57-80] and for psychosocial well-being 82 (IQR 61-100). Poor/fair results on BCCT.core were associated with Q-scores below median for both satisfaction with breasts [odds ratio (OR) 3.4 (confidence interval (CI) 1.7-6.8)] as well as for psychosocial well-being [OR 2.2 (CI 1.1-4.2)]. CONCLUSIONS: A statistically significant association between BCCT.core results one year after BCT and quality of life ratings using BREAST-Q™ several years later is shown in this study. This implies that the BCCT.core may be valuable in BCT follow-up and used as a standardised instrument in the evaluation of aesthetic results.

Methods of Esthetic Assessment after Adjuvant Whole-Breast Radiotherapy in Breast Cancer Patients: Evaluation of the BCCT.core Software and Patients' and Physicians' Assessment from the Randomized IMRT-MC2 Trial.

The present analysis compares the esthetics assessment by the BCCT.core software in relation to patients' and physicians' ratings, based on the IMRT-MC2 trial. Within this trial, breast cancer patients received breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and adjuvant radiotherapy. At the baseline, 6 weeks, and 2 years after radiotherapy, photos of the breasts were assessed by the software and patients' and physicians' assessments were performed. Agreement rates of the assessments and their correlation with breast asymmetry indices were evaluated. The assessments of the software and the physicians were significantly correlated with asymmetry indices. Before and 6 weeks after radiotherapy, the patients' self-assessment was only correlated with the lower breast contour (LBC) and upward nipple retraction (UNR), while after 2 years, there was also a correlation with other indices. Only a slight agreement between the BCCT.core software and the physicians' or patients' assessment was seen, while a moderate and substantial agreement was detected between the physicians' and the patients' assessment after 6 weeks and 2 years, respectively. The BCCT.core software is a reliable tool to measure asymmetries, but may not sufficiently evaluate the esthetic outcome as perceived by patients. It may be more appropriate for a long-term follow-up, when symmetry appears to increase in importance.

Evaluation of breast cosmetic changes with a computer-software; the breast cancer conservative treatment cosmetic results (BCCT. core) in hypofractionated whole breast irradiation after breast-conserving surgery-supplementary analysis of multicenter single-arm confirmatory trial: JCOG0906.

BACKGROUND: A good cosmetic outcome has been defined as an important endpoint in breast-conserving therapy (BCT). Various evaluation methods have been studied, but the optimal method has yet to be identified. The present supplementary analysis of JCOG0906 focused on comparing evaluation methods for breast cosmetic outcomes following hypofractionated whole breast irradiation (HFWBI) to examine whether a computer-software (the Breast Cancer Conservative Treatment cosmetic results [BCCT. core])-based program evaluation (CE) can be used for Asian women in clinical trials of BCT. METHODS: Of 306 women, 292 underwent institutional evaluation (IE) for breast cosmetic outcomes before (pre) and 3 years after (post) HFWBI using a 4-point scale (excellent/good/fair/poor), and they were evaluated by CE and a central panel evaluation (PE) on the same scale using 292 pairs of pre/post-HFWBI photographs. PE was performed twice by consensus of the same two experts with a 3-year interval. CE was assessed individually by two radiation oncologists, an expert and a non-expert. Intra-observer variability and inter-observer variability were calculated using the kappa (k) and weighted kappa (wk) statistics. RESULTS: The agreement between the first and second PE using pre/post-HFWBI photographs was moderate (k = 0.60, wk = 0.64. k = 0.53, wk = 0.60). The agreement between the expert and non-expert on CE was substantial (k = 0.72, wk = 0.76. k = 0.72, wk = 0.77). The inter-observer variability of CE was smaller than the intra-observer variability of PE. CONCLUSION: CE with BCCT. core was considered a reproducible and an appropriate evaluation method for Asian women in clinical trials of BCT, when breast cosmetic changes were compared between pre/post therapy.

Reliability of the BCCT.core software in evaluation of breast cosmesis - A systematic review.

Breast cancer conservative treatment software (BCCT.core) has the potential to provide objective results using digital photographs, thus increasing the reliability, limiting the subjective interpretation and standardising the evaluation of breast cosmesis in patients. The aim of this systematic review was to summarise the empirical evidence regarding the agreement between the BCCT.core and other methods used by health professionals and patients to assess breast cosmesis. The Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Scopus databases were systematically searched for studies comparing the agreement between BCCT.core and other methods used to assess breast cosmesis. A total of 14 studies involving 2703 patients were included in the review. In studies where patients undertook self-assessment, the percentage agreement ranged from 69.2% to 74.8% and the kappa values ranged from slight (k = 0.12) to fair agreement. There was a low correlation between the BCCT.core and the Harvard scale when patients assessed cosmetic outcomes using photographs of their breasts (r = 0.165). A 75% and 42.8% agreement was reported in studies where clinicians assessed breast cosmesis by directly visualising the patients' breasts and photographs, respectively. Assessment of breast cosmesis by the expert panel using patient photographs reported a percentage agreement ranging from 25% to 83%. The results of this systematic review demonstrated an overall agreement of fair to moderate between the BCCT.core and the subjective scales used to assess breast cosmesis. However, clinician experience and patient values should be considered in clinical decision-making.

Assessment of cosmesis and quality of life and their correlation using novel, validated methods in breast cancer patients who had undergone breast conservation therapy.

PURPOSE: To assess cosmesis [Breast Cancer Conservation Treatment. Cosmetic Results (BCCT.CORE) software] & QOL [EORTC QLQ (Quality of Life Questionnaire)-C30, BR23 questionnaires] using objective methods &to correlate effect of cosmesis on QOL (Quality of life) in breast cancer patients post BCT (Breast conservation therapy) using a cross-sectional observational study from a tertiary hospital. MATERIALS & METHODS: Cosmesis & QOL had been assessed in all biopsy-proven adult patients of unilateral breast cancer, who had undergone BCT with minimum three months post-BCT & three months post last adjuvant chemotherapy cycle, whichever is delivered last (with just hormonal therapy or followup remaining based on hormone receptor status). Pearson chi-square & Kendall correlation Tau-b tests had been used for testing association between Cosmesis & QOL. Variation of QOL scores between Cosmetic groups had been assessed using Mann-Whitney U-test. RESULTS: Cosmesis was Excellent/Good in 60.4 % of patients. 58.4 % of patients had Excellent/Good Quality of Life. Cosmesis & QOL had a positive correlation (intermediate strength) [Kendall correlation factor-0.484]. QOL-Global scale had better median scores in Excellent/ Good cosmetic group when compared to Fair/Poor group, while for functional & symptomatic scales, contrary had been true. Difference of median-scores between the two groups hadn't been statistically significant in five aspects - being upset over hair loss (p-0.09), sexual-enjoyment (p-0.33), nausea-vomiting (p-0.29), constipation (p0.32) & diarrhea (p-0.72). CONCLUSION: About 2/3rds of patients post-BCT had Excellent/Good Cosmesis & Excellent/Good QOL. Every measure taken before, during & post-BCT to improve Cosmesis might result in better QOL. Future studies must use more accurate three-dimensional methods to assess Cosmesis & its effect on QOL.

A prospective comparison of subjective and objective assessments of cosmetic outcomes following breast brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: We evaluated agreement between subjective and objective methods of cosmesis scoring in an accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) cohort. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Consecutive women treated with APBI using interstitial brachytherapy reported for clinical follow-up every 6 months. Single cross-sectional assessment of the breast cosmesis was done by a radiation oncologist (subjective method) using Harvard scale and by photographic assessment using BCCT.core (Breast Cancer Conservative Treatment. Cosmetic results, version 3.1) software (objective method) at 18-36 months post-APBI. The agreement between subjective and objective methods for the overall score as well as individual subjective/objective subdomains was computed using kappa statistics. ANOVA was used to test the correlation between objective indices and subjective subdomains. RESULTS: The agreement between the subjective (physician) and objective assessment was good with a kappa of 0.673. Overall, 77 (98.7%) patients were satisfied with the overall outcomes of breast conservation therapy. The kappa agreement between physician and patient scoring was 0.457 (95% CI: 0.240-0.674). Among the subjective subdomains, location of the nipple areola complex (NAC) had good agreement with both the overall subjective and objective score, with the kappa of 0.778 and 0.547, respectively. In the objective indices, BCE (breast compliance evaluation), LBC (lower breast contour), and UNR (unilateral nipple retraction) correlated significantly with the subjective subdomains: location of the NAC, breast size, and shape (p < 0.05 for all indices). CONCLUSIONS: Good agreement exists for overall cosmetic outcomes measured by subjective and objective methods. Location of the NAC, breast size and shape are the most important parameters determining cosmetic outcomes irrespective of the method of assessment.

Assessment of breast symmetry in breast cancer patients undergoing therapeutic mammaplasty using the Breast Cancer Conservation Therapy cosmetic results software (BCCT.core).

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic mammaplasty (TM) is a standard oncoplastic technique utilising aesthetic breast reduction principles to facilitate tumour resection and breast reshaping. Simultaneous contralateral mammaplasties are often performed to maintain symmetry. BCCT.core software, which principally assesses breast symmetry, has been previously employed for evaluating cosmetic results after standard breast conservation therapy and latterly TMs for upper pole tumours. The purpose of this study was to validate this novel tool for TMs in all breast zones. METHODS: Standardised photographs of 20 consecutive patients who underwent TM were evaluated for symmetry using BCCT.core versus a plastic surgical panel completing a visual analogue scale. Results were rated as (excellent/good/fair/poor). Outcomes between the two methods were compared. RESULTS: Twenty patients aged 37 to 63 years with a median 36G bra size had 22 TMs (18 unilateral, 2 bilateral). Indications were invasive breast cancer (87%) and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (13%). The median (range) tumour size was 22.5 mm (6-90 mm) with a resection weight of 245.8 g (16-1,079 g). Primary nipple pedicles were superomedial (63%), inferior (21%) and superolateral (16%). Five patients required a secondary glandular pedicle for volume redistribution to maintain breast shape. The BCCT.core software vs. panel symmetry assessments were 37% vs. 39% (excellent), 63% vs. 50% (good) and 0% vs. 11% (fair). Wilcoxon matched-pairs sign rank tests and Spearman rank correlations found the pairings to be statistically significant (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Despite small patient numbers, BCCT.core gave comparable findings with the panel and is thus useful for objectively assessing cosmesis of TMs in all breast zones.

Cosmetic outcome as rated by patients, doctors, nurses and BCCT.core software assessed over 5 years in a subset of patients in the TARGIT-A Trial.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this research was to assess agreement between four rating systems of cosmetic outcome measured in a subset of patients with early breast cancer participating in the randomised TARGIT-A trial. TARGIT-A compared risk-adapted single-dose intra-operative radiotherapy (TARGIT-IORT) to whole breast external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). METHODS: Patients, their Radiation Oncologist and Research Nurse completed a subjective cosmetic assessment questionnaire before radiotherapy and annually thereafter for five years. Objective data previously calculated by the validated BCCT.core software which utilizes digital photographs to score symmetry, colour and scar was also used. Agreement was assessed by the Kappa statistic and longitudinal changes were assessed by generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Overall, an Excellent-Good (EG) cosmetic result was scored more often than a Fair-Poor (FP) result for both treatment groups across all time points, with patients who received TARGIT-IORT scoring EG more often than those who received EBRT however this was statistically significant at Year 5 only. There was modest agreement between the four rating systems with the highest Kappa score being moderate agreement which was between nurse and doctor scores at Year 1 with Kappa = 0.46 (p < 0.001), 95% CI (0.24, 0.68). CONCLUSION: Despite similar overall findings between treatment groups and rating systems, the inter-rater agreement was only modest. This suggests that the four rating systems utilized may not necessarily be used interchangeably and it is arguable that for an outcome such as cosmetic appearance, the patient's point of view is the most important. TRIAL REGISTRATION: TARGIT-A ISRCTN34086741 , Registered 21 July 2004, retrospectively registered.

Proposal for a gold standard for cosmetic evaluation after breast conserving therapy: Results from the St George and Wollongong Breast Boost trial.

INTRODUCTION: Breast cosmesis is an important endpoint of breast conserving therapy (BCT), but a gold standard method of its evaluation is not yet established. The St. George and Wollongong Randomised Breast Boost trial used five different methods of cosmetic assessment, including both subjective and objective, to comprehensively evaluate the cosmetic outcome of the trial patients. This current study analyses the level of concordance between these methods in an attempt to determine a possible standard in the evaluation of breast cosmesis. METHODS: Patients attending follow-up clinic reviews at 5 years post breast radiotherapy were evaluated. Patients completed a cosmesis and functional assessment questionnaire, assessing clinicians completed an EORTC (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer) cosmetic rating questionnaire and photographs were obtained. The photographs were later assessed by a panel of five experts, as well as analysed using the objective pBRA (relative Breast Retraction Assessment) and the BCCT.core (Breast Cancer Conservative Treatment.cosmetic results) computer software. Scores were dichotomised to excellent/good and fair/poor. Pairwise comparisons between all methods, except pBRA, were carried out using overall agreement calculations and kappa scores. pBRA scores were compared on a continuous scale with each of the other dichotomised scores obtained by the other four methods. RESULTS: Of 513 St George patients alive at 5 years, 385 (75%) attended St George for follow-up and consented to photography. Results showed that assessment by physicians in clinic and patient self-assessment were more favourable regarding overall cosmetic outcome than evaluation of photographs by the panel or the BCCT.core software. Excellent/good scores by clinician-live and patient self-assessments were 93% and 94% respectively (agreement 89%), as compared to 75% and 74% only by BCCT.core and panel assessments respectively (agreement 83%, kappa 0.57). For the pBRA measurements, there was a statistically significant difference (P <0.001) between scores for excellent/good versus fair/poor cosmesis by all four methods. The range of median pBRA measurements for fair/poor scores was 13.4-14.8 and for excellent/good scores was 8.0-9.4. CONCLUSION: Incorporating both BCCT.core assessment and patient self-assessment could potentially provide the basis of a gold standard method of breast cosmetic evaluation. BCCT.core represents an easy, time efficient, reproducible, cost effective and reliable method, however, it lacks the functional and psychosocial elements of cosmesis that only patient self-reported outcomes can provide.

The breast cancer conservative treatment. Cosmetic results - BCCT.core - Software for objective assessment of esthetic outcome in breast cancer conservative treatment: A narrative review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Cosmetic outcome of breast cancer conservative treatment (BCCT) remains without a standard evaluation method. Subjective methods, in spite of their low reproducibility, continue to be the most frequently used. Objective methods, although more reproducible, seem unable to translate all the subtleties involved in cosmetic outcome. The breast cancer conservative treatment cosmetic results (BCCT.core) software was developed in 2007 to try to overcome these pitfalls. The software is a semi-automatic objective tool that evaluates asymmetry, color differences and scar visibility using patient's digital pictures. The purpose of this work is to review the use of the BCCT.core software since its availability in 2007 and to put forward future developments. METHODS: All the online requests for BCCT.core use were registered from June 2007 to December 2014. For each request the department, city and country as well as user intention (clinical use/research or both) were questioned. A literature search was performed in Medline, Google Scholar and ISI Web of Knowledge for all publications using and citing "BCCT.core". RESULTS: During this period 102 centers have requested the software essentially for clinical use. The BCCT.core software was used in 19 full published papers and in 29 conference abstracts. CONCLUSIONS: The BCCT.core is a user friendly semi-automatic method for the objective evaluation of BCCT. The number of online requests and publications have been steadily increasing turning this computer program into the most frequently used tool for the objective cosmetic evaluation of BCCT.

Objective Measurement of Cosmetic Outcomes of Breast Conserving Therapy Using BCCT.core.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate objective cosmetic outcomes and factors related to breast-conserving therapy (BCT) using the BCCT.core software. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-one patients who received BCT with informed consent were evaluated using the BCCT.core software. Patients were divided into two groups based on the BCCT score: excellent or good (n=42) vs. fair or poor (n=9). Analysis of clinical factors was performed to determine factors affecting cosmetic outcomes. RESULTS: The objective cosmetic outcome of BCT measured using the BCCT.core software was excellent in 10% of patients, good in 72%, and fair in 18%. None of the patients were classified as poor outcome. Tumor characteristics, systemic adjuvant therapy (chemotherapy and hormonal therapy), and radiation dose or energy of electron boost did not show correlation with the score measured by the BCCT.core program (p > 0.05). In univariate analysis, maximum dose within the breast (Dmax), width of tangential field, and excised tumor volume were smaller in patients with excellent or good by the BCCT.core compared to those with fair or poor (Dmax, 110.2 ± 1.5% vs. 111.6 ± 1.7%, p=0.019; width of tangential field, 8.0 ± 1.1 cm vs. 8.6 ± 0.7 cm, p=0.034; excised tumor volume, 64.0 ± 35.8 cm(3) vs. 95.3 ± 54.4 cm(3), p=0.067). In multivariate analysis, only Dmax was a significant factor for breast cosmetic outcome with a risk ratio of 1.697 (95% confidence interval, 1.006 to 2.863; p=0.047). CONCLUSION: Objective measurement of cosmetic outcome of BCT using the BCCT.core software was feasible. The cosmetic outcome of BCT may be affected by the maximum dose within the breast.

Effect of cosmetic outcome on quality of life after breast cancer surgery.

PURPOSE: Studies regarding the effects of aesthetic outcomes after breast cancer surgery on quality of life (QoL) have yielded inconsistent results. This study analyzed the aesthetic outcomes and QoL of women who underwent breast conserving surgery (BCS) or total mastectomy with immediate reconstruction (TMIR) using objective and validated methods. PATIENTS AND METHODS: QoL questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30, BR23, and HADs) were administered at least 1 year after surgery and adjuvant therapy to 485 patients who underwent BCS, 46 who underwent TMIR, and 87 who underwent total mastectomy (TM) without reconstruction. Aesthetic results were evaluated using BCCT.core software and by a panel of physicians. Patients' body image perception was assessed using the body image scale (BIS). RESULTS: QoL outcomes, including for social and role functioning, fatigue, pain, body image, and arm symptoms, were significantly better in the BCS and TMIR groups than in the TM group (p<0.05 each). BIS was significantly better in the BCS than in the TM or TMIR group (p<0.001 each). In the BCS and TMIR groups, general QoL factors were not significantly associated with objective cosmetic outcomes, except for body image in the QLQ-BR23. In contrast, patients with poorer BIS score reported lower QoL in almost all items of the QLQ-C30, BR23, and HADS (p<0.05 each). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, BCS and TMIR enhanced QoL compared with TM. Among BCS and TMIR patients, objectively measured cosmetic results did not affect general QoL. Self-perception of body image seems to be more important for QoL after breast cancer surgery.