A Comparison of Quality of Life, Cosmesis and Cost-Utility of Open Surgery, Vacuum-Assisted Breast Biopsy and High Intensity Focused Ultrasound for Breast Fibroadenoma.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To compare the quality of life (QOL), cosmesis and cost-utility of open surgery (OS), vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (VABB) and high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) for fibroadenoma (FA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 162 patients with 267 FAs were enrolled. Baseline characteristics and treatment information were recorded. Patients were followed up at 3-, 6- and 12-month post-treatment. QOL was evaluated by health survey. Breast cosmesis was evaluated by self-rating survey and Harvard Scale. A decision-analytic model was established and incremental cost was calculated for cost-utility analysis. RESULTS: For QOL evaluation, there was no difference of physical component summary (PCS) score in three groups (P > 0.05), while the mental component summary (MCS) score was significantly higher in HIFU group than the other two groups at 3- and 6-month post-treatment (P < 0.05). The proportion of patients satisfied with breast cosmesis was significantly higher in HIFU group (96.49%) than in VABB group (54.90%) and OS group (49.99%) (P < 0.05). By Harvard Scale, 27.78%, 78.42% and 100.00% of patients were rated as excellent and good in OS group, VABB group and HIFU group, respectively (P < 0.05). To acquire a quality-adjusted life year (QALY), cost of OS, VABB and HIFU was 1034.31 USD, 1776.96 USD and 1277.67 USD, respectively. When compared to OS, incremental cost analysis showed HIFU was cost-effective, while VABB was not. CONCLUSION: OS, VABB and HIFU were all effective and safe for FA, but among these three treatments, HIFU had the best QOL improvement, breast cosmesis and cost-effectiveness.

Objective, Clinician- and Patient-Reported Evaluation of Late Toxicity Following Adjuvant Radiation for Early Breast Cancer: Long-Term Follow-Up Results of a Randomised Series.

Background and Purpose: This study aimed to differentially assess the frequency and severity of late radiation-induced toxicity following adjuvant whole-breast irradiation for early breast cancer with conventional fractionation (CF) and moderate hypofractionation (mHF). Materials and Methods: Patients recruited in a previous randomised controlled trial comparing acute toxicity between CF and mHF without disease recurrence were included in a post hoc analysis. Spectrophotometric and ultrasonographic examinations were performed for an objective evaluation and subsequent comparison of long-term skin toxicity. Furthermore, patient- and clinician-reported outcomes were recorded. Results: Sixty-four patients with a median age of 58 (37-81) years were included. The median follow-up was 57 (37-73) months. A total of 55% underwent CF and 45% mHF. A total of 52% received a sequential boost to the tumour bed. A significant decrease in mean L* (p = 0.011) and an increase in a* (p = 0.040) and b* values (p < 0.001) were observed, indicating hyperpigmentation. In comparison with the non-irradiated breast, there was a significant increase in both cutis (+14%; p < 0.001) and subcutis (+17%; p = 0.011) thickness, significantly more pronounced in CF patients (p = 0.049). In CF patients only, a sequential boost significantly increased the local cutis thickness and oedema compared to non-boost regions in the same breast (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). Conclusions: mHF objectively resulted in reduced long-term skin toxicity compared to CF. A sequential boost increased the local fibrosis rate in CF, but not in mHF. This might explain the subjectively reported better cosmetic outcomes in patients receiving mHF and reinforces the rationale for favouring mHF as the standard of care.

A fully automatic framework for evaluating cosmetic results of breast conserving therapy.

The breast cosmetic outcome after breast conserving therapy is essential for evaluating breast treatment and determining patient's remedy selection. This prompts the need of objective and efficient methods for breast cosmesis evaluations. However, current evaluation methods rely on ratings from a small group of physicians or semi-automated pipelines, making the processes time-consuming and their results inconsistent. To solve the problem, in this study, we proposed: 1. a fully-automatic Machine Learning Breast Cosmetic evaluation algorithm leveraging the state-of-the-art Deep Learning algorithms for breast detection and contour annotation, 2. a novel set of Breast Cosmesis features, 3. a new Breast Cosmetic dataset consisting 3k+ images from three clinical trials with human annotations on both breast components and their cosmesis scores. We show our fully-automatic framework can achieve comparable performance to state-of-the-art without the need of human inputs, leading to a more objective, low-cost and scalable solution for breast cosmetic evaluation in breast cancer treatment.

Stereotactic partial breast irradiation in primary breast cancer: A comprehensive review of the current status and future directions.

In selected low-risk breast cancer patients, accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) may represent an alternative option to the whole breast irradiation to reduce the volume of irradiated breast and total treatment duration. In the last few years, preliminary data from clinical trials showed that stereotactic partial breast radiotherapy may have the advantage to be less invasive compared to other APBI techniques, with preliminary good results in terms of local toxicity and cosmesis: the use of magnetic resonance, fiducial markers in the tumor bed, and new breast devices support both a precise definition of the target and radiation planning. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021257856, identifier CRD42021257856.

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.

A Prospective Study of Cosmetic Outcomes for Patients Treated with Breast Conservation and Radiation Therapy using Shorter Fractionation Schedules at Auckland Hospital, New Zealand.

AIMS: Breast cosmesis is an important outcome for women after breast conservation. It has been shown to be correlated with better patient satisfaction, sexuality and self-esteem. This study reports the subjective and objective breast cosmesis outcomes for women treated at Auckland Hospital Radiation Oncology Department using hypofractionated radiation therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Breast cosmesis was evaluated using a subjective questionnaire and standardised photographs before radiation, at 6 weeks, 1 year, 3 years and 5 years after radiation. Objective evaluation of the photographs and completion of questionnaires were undertaken by clinicians at the same time points. The questionnaire evaluated global cosmesis on a four-point scale - excellent (E), good (G), fair (F) and poor (P). Patient, tumour and treatment factors were evaluated to assess the impact on cosmesis. RESULTS: Three hundred and fifty-eight patients completed the baseline assessments and two hundred and two patients completed the 5-year assessments. Sixty-eight per cent of patients at baseline and 70% at 5 years scored their cosmesis as E/G compared with 52% and 51%, respectively, by clinician assessment. Age >50 years, separation ≤25 cm, non-diabetic, T1 tumours, node negative, quadrant of the scar, no boost and no adjuvant endocrine therapy were correlated with E/G cosmesis. On multivariate analysis at baseline, the individual breast factors that were significantly associated with a score of E/G cosmesis were breast shape (P = 0.028) and scar appearance (P = 0.001). At 5 years, breast shape (P = 0.003), nipple shape (P = 0.019) and scar appearance (P = 0.001) were found to be significant. CONCLUSION: This study shows that most women reported no significant change in their breast cosmesis after hypofractionated radiation treatment over 5 years and that a number of patient, tumour and treatment factors may impact on breast cosmesis.

Impact of Regional Nodal Irradiation and Hypofractionated Whole-Breast Radiation on Long-Term Breast Retraction and Poor Cosmetic Outcome in Breast Cancer Survivors.

PURPOSE: We performed a prospective longitudinal study to determine predictors of long-term breast asymmetry in breast cancer patients treated with breast-conserving surgery and whole-breast external-beam radiotherapy (XRT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 109 patients with stage 0 to III breast cancer treated with breast-conserving surgery followed by conventional (50 Gy plus boost) or hypofractionated (39.9 Gy with simultaneous integrated boost of 48 Gy) XRT were enrolled onto 2 studies of XRT-induced skin toxicity before (baseline), during, and 1 year after XRT. Using baseline and 1-year post-XRT photographs, breast asymmetry was objectively quantified by calculating the percentage breast retraction assessment (pBRA), with larger values indicating more asymmetry. Skin thickness ratio (STRA) values were calculated using ultrasound images. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to determine the relationship among STRA-, patient-, tumor-, and treatment-related factors, and pBRA. RESULTS: Seventy-one patients (65%) had more breast asymmetry (positive change in pBRA) 1 year after XRT relative to baseline. Only pre-XRT STRA was associated with a higher pre-XRT baseline pBRA in multivariate analysis (P = .02). Larger breast volume, baseline pBRA, conventionally fractionated (vs. hypofractionated) XRT, supraclavicular nodal irradiation, and higher STRA at 1 year predicted for higher long-term pBRA in the multivariate model (all P < .05). Breast volume and supraclavicular nodal irradiation were associated with the largest changes in breast asymmetry (all P < .05). CONCLUSION: This prospective longitudinal study confirmed the known impact of breast volume, surgery, and XRT on breast asymmetry. We also found that supraclavicular nodal irradiation and conventionally fractionated XRT are associated with worse cosmetic outcome 1 year after XRT.

Multi-institutional evaluation of the reproducibility and the accuracy of the objective breast cosmesis scale.

PURPOSE: The aim of the present work is to assess the Objective Breast Cosmesis Scale (OBCS) in a patient cohort that was treated in two hospitals. Their treatment-related cosmetic changes were recorded on nonstandardized photographs. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Nineteen female patients were enrolled in two radiation oncology centers (Nice, France, and Perugia, Italy). All patients had undergone breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and received adjuvant accelerated partial breast irradiation using interstitial fractionated multicatheter high-dose-rate brachytherapy. One photograph before and another after accelerated partial breast irradiation was taken for each patient to record changes in breast cosmesis. Using the OBCS, before and after photographs were analyzed by measuring distances between anatomic features. OBCS scores from four doctors (two males [one radiation oncologist and one post-grad trainee] and two females [one radiation oncologist and one post-grad trainee]) were compared. RESULTS: Agreement was high between trainees and specialist, and males and females before and after treatment. The intraclass correlation coefficient ranged from 0.867 to 0.950 before treatment and from 0.876 to 0.952 afterward. The coefficient of variation ranged from 12% to 26.5% before treatment, and from 13% to 21.4% afterward. CONCLUSIONS: The OBCS is easy, time-efficient, reproducible, cost-effective, and reliable. Its potential practical applications merit further investigation in future studies.

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.