Objective assessment of aesthetic outcome after breast conserving therapy: subjective third party panel rating and objective BCCT.core software evaluation.

We analysed intra- and inter-rater agreement of subjective third party assessment and agreement with a semi-automated objective software evaluation tool (BCCT.core). We presented standardized photographs of 50 patients, taken shortly and one year after surgery to a panel of five breast surgeons, six breast nurses, seven members of a breast cancer support group, five medical and seven non-medical students. In two turns they rated aesthetic outcome on a four point scale. Moreover the same photographs were evaluated by the BCCT.core software. Intra-rater agreement in the panel members was moderate to substantial (k = 0.4-0.5; wk = 0.6-0.7; according to different subgroups and times of assessment). In contrast inter-rater agreement was only slight to fair (mk = 0.1-0.3). Agreement between the panel participants and the software was fair (wk = 0.24-0.45). Subjective third party assessment only fairly agree with objective BCCT.core evaluation just as third party participants do not agree well among each other.

Do reexcisions impair aesthetic outcome in breast conservation surgery? Exploratory analysis of a prospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: Reexcision is a clinically relevant aspect of oncological breast conservation surgery. The influence of reexcision on aesthetic outcome is described differently in the literature. Our aim was to analyze this question in a well-defined cohort with standardized study instruments. METHODS: A total of 439 patients from a prospectively followed cohort were included in this analysis. Aesthetic results were assessed by the Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale (BCTOS) aesthetic status. Dates of assessments were shortly after surgical interventions and before surgery. Group comparison was performed between patients with reexcisions (80 cases; 18%) and patients without reexcision (359 cases; 82%). We considered variables of differing distribution between the two groups that could hypothetically influence BCTOS aesthetic status in a nonparametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). RESULTS: The aesthetic status of patients with reexcisions was found to be significantly worse than for patients with a single breast conservation surgery (P < 0.0001) when tested by a nonparametric ANCOVA model. Because patients with reexcisions had more noninvasive tumors (25% vs. 8%, P = 0.0001) and tumors were larger in patients with reexcision (P = 0.01), we included these variables as possible covariates in the multivariate model. The model was adjusted for the BCTOS aesthetic status before and shortly after the first surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that reexcision in breast conservation surgery impairs aesthetic outcome, at least when assessed shortly after surgery.

Aesthetics in breast conserving therapy: do objectively measured results match patients' evaluations?

BACKGROUND: To analyze the relationship of objective and subjective evaluation tools of breast aesthetics, we compare the results of the BCCT.core (breast cancer conservative treatment.cosmetic results) software, a semiautomated objective symmetry evaluation tool, with those of the Aesthetic Status of the BCTOS (Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale) patient questionnaire. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included 128 patients with one-sided, primary breast cancer, treated conservatively in a prospective, exploratory study in order to assess the inter-rater reliability of the BCCT.core and the agreement between the BCCT.core and the BCTOS preoperatively, shortly and 1 year after surgery. Therefore, we use agreement rates, multiple (mk), and weighted (wk) kappa coefficients as statistical methods. Furthermore, we analyzed patient-, tumor-, and therapy-related variables as possible covariates to explain agreement. RESULTS: The inter-rater reliability for the semiautomated BCCT.core is very good with agreement rates up to 84% (mk = 0.80). The agreement rates of the BCCT.core and the BCTOS Aesthetic Status range between 35 and 44% subject to the different times of assessment (wk = 0.34 at best). Moreover, the patients judge their aesthetic outcome more positively than the software. None of the considered patient-, tumor-, and therapy-related covariates turned out to explain agreement. CONCLUSION: The BCCT.core is a reliable instrument that shows fair agreement with patient's perspective.